Venezuela is NOT a rogue state! why ever would Obama say that!

[ensho]

when Chavez won the election and told the US oil Barons in Venezuela that they had to give more percent of profits to Venezuela for their own oil, the neo con black ops tried to murder him and thankfully failed.

Then when Chavez started selling their oil to other countries, plus, giving heating oil to our N.E. states, the neo cons turned purple with rage and resurrected our Fourth Fleet and sent it down to Venezuela to harass, etc. them.

neo con hater Putin has agreed to help Venezuela keep the neo con Fourth Fleet from doing anything tragic by sending in some of their Navy. once again blocking neo con agenda.

and last night Obama called Venezuela a rogue state. that's bizarre someone should set Obama straight.

I'm disappointed and dismayed.

[ecstatic]

1. I figured someone would bring that up here... but I really don't mind

Venezuela being described that way. I do think Chavez is too heavy handed although I don't think Venezuela would be a concern of an Obama administration. I think relations would improve.

[LittleBlue]

29. He's saying what he needs to say

I've accepted that, since I know he doesn't believe it.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. There is a lot of stuff I disagree with Obama on.

He is a centrist and I am a leftist. On the other hand, Gramps is a rightwing lunatic.

[ecstatic]

8. Exactly! Save concerns for the lunatic McCain!

Some of McCain's comments should scare the OP shitless!

[Cha]

41. Yeah, I don't agree with this, either, nor the

whole fisa thing but I'm looking at the Big Pic and that's a hellava lot more than the bushite/mcpalin agenda does.

[suston96]

3. Rogue state? Maybe because Chavez is landing Russian bombers and buying Russion arms? nt

[DevonRex]

5. That could be it. :) nt

[ensho]

10. what's rogue about that. the US sells more arms then any country

and look who we sell it to.

[suston96]

26. Yabbut.....we don't sell arms to rogue states.......LOL! nt

[ensho]

27. is your tongue in your cheek?

nt

[jrockford]

39. take Israel for instance...sometimes we don't even sell, we give. nt

[WinkyDink]

44. Don't overlook EGYPT:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/egyp-m22.shtml

[WinkyDink]

43. Are WE the only nation "allowed" to have military around the globe??

[lostnotforgotten]

61. Bingo - Best Evidence Yet Of American Imperialism!

eom

[1corona4u]

4. I think you might do well to go back and read up

on Venezuela. Start about 10 years ago, and read forward.

[ensho]

12. you assume I haven't?

nt

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[ensho]

18. what a nasty mouth you have

nt

[Kaylee]

20. I agree....

totally uncalled for. I've alerted the mods.

[Billy Burnett]

34. Then pay attention to the rules yourself.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

[Kaylee]

51. Touche'

:hi:

[LiberadorHugo]

21. I feel incredible anger and indignation for what these people have suffered because of neo-libs,...

The fact that you don't indicates to me that you, as opposed to me, are the one with the problem. Obama, I can be more sympathetic with, because as the guy running for President, he does have to talk down to the overwhelmingly majority of the people who are clueless about the situation in Latin America over the past few DECADES.

[lostnotforgotten]

63. Yes - Milton Friedman And The Chicago Boys Used Latin America

As a petri dish to perfect what is now being inflicted upon us with the bailout.

Who studied under Friedman - well non other than Alan Greenspan.

Wake Up America!

[featherman]

6. Conventional and widespread opinion... no particular gain to engage in a media battle of this now

From Obama's point of view. The reality being that it will make sense for a President Obama will engage productively with Venezuela down the road a bit.

[democracy1st]

7. talking fast slip of the tongue

[DevonRex]

9. See reply #3. And didn't you hear about Russian fleet going to

Venezuela this week? Not commercial vessels but military ones.

[ensho]

14. read my post again - I said Putin sent navel ships

nt

[DevonRex]

25. Need more coffee. :) Or is it that I need more sleep? In any

case, my apologies.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. what choice does he have? do you want the media spin artists calling him a commie lover?

[BumRushDaShow]

13. If he came out and supported folks like Chavez and Raul Castro, etc.

then McLame would win by a landslide. Unfortunately this country is brainwashed by the lunatic fringe and once the U.S. gets back on the road to regaining its standing in the world, there will hopefully be more openness in why another country evolved to be the way they are. If anything, what happens here tends to shift the stances of the rest of the world and the positive potential for stabilization around the world starts here at home. We are all interconnected.

[ensho]

17. I hope you are right - Obama needs to talk to both of them

calling them rogue is not change or progress.

Chavez has liberated the native people from the clutches of the white US barons.

[qazplm]

22. he's also set himself up as a dictator

and that ain't cool.

[Billy Burnett]

52. An elected one at that.

Can't be friendly (or even negotiate with) with elected leaders. :dunce:

[clixtox]

67. Ignorant, but provocative post!

Hugo Chavez has to be the most maladroit "dictator" of all time.

He can not even "fix" the elections in his own country.

Our Amerikkkan dictators, meanwhile, can control elections in numerous countries.

Historically, even in Venezuela!!!

[frickaline]

16. And Pakistan the "failed state" from McCain

Maybe Joe Liarman will let him know about the whole military coup.

[ensho]

yes, the neo con black ops have spread their poison all over

Pakistan and the citizens have had enough of it.

[rucky]

19. That's a battle worth fighting after November.

It would take way too much explaining to clear up the Venezuela perception.

[kwenu]

23. Maybe not but but Chavez is a rogue president who clamps down on the basic freedoms we respect.

Chavez's love affair with power will not end well but Venezuelans are good people. Venezuelans made the mistake of voting for a guy who became a huge asshole. We did the same thing by the way...well not WE per se but you know what I mean.

[1corona4u]

30. Not only that, but people don't know what Venezuela was like some

20-30 years ago. I was there, in Caracas back then, and it is much different now. And not in a good way.

[jrockford]

40. That's your opinion, and I would disagree - but then many who are concerned with Venezuela now

also preferred Chile under Pinochet...which is rather telling of what they consider is "good".

[tannybogus]

24. We're in Russia's backyard in Georgia.

They are in our backyard in Venezuela. Tit for tat. I would say that Bush would invoke the Monroe Doctrine,

but he probably thinks it means Marilyn's.

[fadedrose]

28. Peter Werbe

Sometimes Peter is on Air America, but he's a liberal host on a Detroit station (Sunday nights, ll pm, online).

He's been to Venezuela many times and seems to admire Chavez for what he is doing for the poor in his country. But Chavez doesn't let us or our oil companies set his policies.

[ensho]

31. kicking back to pg. 1

nt

[Barack_America]

32. Because, like Putin, Chavez "rears his head".

Gotta protect the airspace.

Or, as it were, the waterways.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2008/09/russia-and-vene.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6026198.html

[amborin]

33. don't think it has to do with

russia so much

though i do think he said it to beat the rethugs to the punch, as others have said

also----


because, truth aside, many us voters have been lead to think that of venezuela

they've been lead to regard chavez as a socialist dictator type who is trying to create an anti-us south american bloc

[Overseas]

35. Standard Neo-liberal dictum. Can't rock the boat. /n

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. That had me reeling, too. Venezuela is a rouge state??

[WinkyDink]

48. Not to mention its mascara! ;)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. I missed that

He also mistakenly referred to Iran's army as the Republican Guard instead of the Revolutionary Guard. I think that the Venezuela thing was probably a gaffe but I don't remember any other comments he might've made about Venezuela so I'm not sure. The Republican Guard thing puzzled me for a few moments while I tried to figure out why that sounded wrong and then I remembered the name by which Iran's military goes by and recognized the mistake. Oh well, it happens to everybody. I don't think that Obama made any statements as McSame's spactacularly nutty "K.G.B." comment!!!

[Hope08]

38. I agree with Obama

Chavez doesn't do his country any favors by setting up the United States as the excuse for all of Venezuela's problems, the vast majority of which were caused by a dysfunctional political system created by Venezuelans themselves since independence, rather than by the United States. I don't know whether you have an opportunity to hear Chavez's declarations in their original Spanish -- not the funny stuff you hear in the MSM, mind you ("Bush is a donkey," "Mr. Danger," etc.), but what you can read daily in Venezuelan newspapers, or listen to on the "Alo Presidente" show, and which is reported in what is referred to as the "ethnic press" in South Florida and New York. Chavez divides the world into those who are with him and those who are not. Like George Bush and John McCain, only worse: people that support Chavez are patriots who want the best for their country, and those who don't are "Yankee bootlickers," "idiots," "fools," "wannabe Yankees," "apatridas" (i.e., people without a country), and so on. Like the famous declaration by Fidel Castro at the conclusion of l'affaire Heberto Padilla, "Dentro de la revolucion, todo, fuera de la revolucion, nada" ("Within the revolution, everything, outside the revolution, nothing"), people who disagree with Chavez cannot be "true" Venezuelans. This formulation falsely equates Chavez with the State itself. Taken to its extreme, as it was in the last century in different parts of the world, this is the ideology that conduces folks to conclude that those in disagreement with the State are sub-humans.

Turning to this country, the apologies for guys like Chavez made by folks in the Democratic Party costs our Party hundreds of thousands of votes -- literally -- every year, including in the close state of Florida, and gains us approximately none. The majority of these votes belong to working class, first-generation immigrants with modest incomes, who otherwise agree with the Democratic Party on virtually every substantive issue, including bettering education and making it cheaper, and granting universal access to health care. This is a terrible shame for us and a boon to Republicans. Ironically, many of these apologists -- whose sentiments seem part of a well-intentioned effort to recognize the history of disastrous U.S. policy in the region -- (1) don't speak Spanish, (2) don't understand Latin American culture (even those who have made a real effort, sadly), and (3) are not even appreciated by the objects of their praise, since they are the wearers of the imaginary boots that the State's enemies are metaphorically licking. (Trust me on the last point, having grown up in a house full of Latin American Marxists. They talk about you, not nicely, when you are not around.) I am intentionally excepting the original poster, because I don't know anything about him or her.

Anyway, long message which doesn't even, probably, respond to the original post. Just got myself going, I guess.

[amborin]

45. ummmm

the US has a long history of extracting V's oil, while refusing to give V refining capacity

so V will always be effectively a raw materials exporter, and not move higher on the international competitive export economy food chain

true, V's internal politics are horrible and partly to blame, but so is foreign plundering

[Hope08]

54. Nonsense

PDVSA was established in the late 1970s, steadily increased refining capacity through the '80s, and has long been able to refine virtually all (if not all) of the country's crude. PDVSA owns Citgo, for crying out loud. These are not the 1960s -- Venezuela is an autonomous actor, and it is responsible for its own successes and failures.

The story that U.S. imperialism continues to be the root cause of Latin America's economic and social problems is (1) anachronistic, and (2) feeds a colonialist mentality by looking to the U.S. to correct problems that require Latin American solutions.

[amborin]

56. not nonsense at all, except from a very right wing perspective:

"The first commercial drilling of petroleum in Venezuela took place in 1917. After World War I, British and American multinational oil companies rushed to Lago de Maracaibo to tap the country's huge petroleum reserves. Oil jumped from 31 percent of exports to 91 percent from 1924 to 1934. The industry proved extremely lucrative to the scores of foreign companies that drilled Venezuelan crude because of the country's low wages and nominal taxes, policies supported by corrupt relations between foreign oil companies and various military dictatorships.

In the forty-year period after the death of Juan Vicente Gómez in 1935, the government and foreign oil companies engaged in a tug-of-war over taxation, regulation, and, ultimately, ownership. Although Venezuela reaped substantially greater benefits from its generous oil endowment after 1943, corruption and deceit on the part of the foreign companies and avaricious caudillos such as Pérez Jiménez still limited the national benefits of the industry. By the early 1970s, the possible nationalization of the oil industry became the focus of debate among labor, businesses, professionals, government, and the public at large. Aware of the conflicts and subsequent difficulties of Mexico's sudden, dramatic nationalization of the entire oil industry in the 1930s, Venezuela pursued its acquisition of the petroleum sector cautiously and deliberately. In December 1974, a national commission created by President Pérez delivered a proposal for nationalization. This proposal formed the core of the 1975 law that nationalized the oil industry. The most controversial element of the new law was Article 5, which gave the government the authority to contract out to multinational firms for various technical services and marketing. Despite the controversy, Article 5 provided technical expertise that proved crucial to the industry's smooth transition to state control beginning on January 1, 1976.

In 1977 the government created a holding company, PDVSA, to serve as the umbrella organization for four major petroleum- producing affiliates. This process consolidated the holdings of fourteen foreign companies and one national company, the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (Corporación Venezolana de Petróleos--CVP), into four competing and largely autonomous subsidiaries. Industry analysts have credited the competitive structure of the subsidiaries with increasing overall efficiency to levels well above those of most nationalized companies. The largest subsidiary of PDVSA was Lagoven, which was composed mainly of the facilities previously operated by the United States oil company Exxon. "

[lostnotforgotten]

65. Well You Are Entitled To Your OPINION!

eom

[tritsofme]

42. I'm glad Obama has the cajones to stand up to the cult of Uncle Hugo

Which has emerged in some corners of the American Left, and tell it like it is.

[WinkyDink]

46. I think he could do with more statements re: U.S. intervention in Latin America.

[democracy1st]

47. yes Chavez acting like a ass doesn't help anyone

[galaxy21]

49. Chavez is funny when he calls out Bush

[HughMoran]

50. lol

That's all I got from the debate too. :rofl:

[Cleita]

53. You only need to live in South America at some time in your life,

like I have, to know what a rogue state really is and Venezuela under Chavez isn't that at all. I hope Obama and Biden use their foreign relations experience to come up with a new foreign policy towards South America for the twenty first century that will work for us and South America as equal partners. They need to ditch that old Monroe Doctrine meme once and for all.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Hell, in my opinion for the long term

we need Canada, Mexico, and probably South America under our flag to compete with China, India, and the EU. We need more people and resources. We can't hold up against economies with middle classes larger than our population.

[blue-kite]

57. Its not Venezuela that is the problem... it is the whole US worldview.

If Barrack is to really deliver what he preaches, and we all hope he does, he has to reverse a them and us black/white view of the world. Its complex and messy, they're politics internal and external, so many factors that determine what countries do and don't do...
This should be a starting point but at the core of his policy should be a promise to have an ethical foreign policy where human rights is more important than political influence and corporate penetration of markets.
Its naive stuff I know but for me this is the core of the Obama message, not just within the US but beyond.

[nsd]

58. I care about electing Obama. Period. Chavez can go fuck himself.

The cult of Chavez on DU is mystifying.

[jefferson_dem]

66. No shit.

A tyrant is a tyrant.

[and-justice-for-all]

59. "Rogue State"

As in, a country that does not bend at the knee to the US. I do not think of Venezuela as a rogue state or even Cuba for that matter...They need to put that Cuba shit to rest.

[lostnotforgotten]

64. That's Right They Don't Bend Over For Dubya's Love

eom

[WeDidIt]

60. The fact that Venezuela is a rogue state might have something to do with it

:shrug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

62. Because there's no downside.

By and large, the American public doesn't know or care who Chavez is. Those who *do* know tend to be against him (Miami Cuban exile community, etc.)

[nolabels]

68. Obama may or may not have a good grasp on the situation but i wouldn't worry about it

There is no way in hell the U.S. could ever do anything to change it. The U.S. forces are stretched out so thin and economically the U.S. has even less say so. It doesn't matter what the propaganda craplords spew out because they are in a no win situation no matter what is put out. It's all just a bunch of hot air and posturing.

[ShortnFiery]

69. Because Obama is still Corporate. He can learn and change though. He's not rigid. eom