Hugo Chavez Receives Iran's Highest Honor

Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported.

The leftist Venezuelan leader also condemned Israel for what he called the "terrorism" and "madness" of its attacks in Lebanon, Venezuelan state television reported.

"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire," Chavez said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chavez with the Islamic Republic Medal in a ceremony at Tehran University. The award was to show Iran's gratitude for his "support for Iran's stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency," Iranian state-run television said.

http://times-news.com/feeds/apcontent/apstories/apstorysection/D8J6NURG0.xml.txt/resources_apstoryview

,...Islamic beliefs.

You know, Jesus Christ advocated social justice, too. However, "Christianity" took a turn towards imposing will over others a very long time ago,...with some breaks,...but, now, there are those who oppose the vision of JC (are they anti-christ or what) back in the seat of power.

A social democracy was precisely what was envisioned by the founding Fathers of the U.S.A. That's been abused by those who oppose that vision (shall we call them ANTI-DEMOCRACY,...oh, yeah, I think that is exact and appropriate).

Just thoughts posted on a page on a board.

he can go fuck himself.

not the same thing as the U.S.

of nuance Down!

he said let's finish off the "U.S. empire"

I agree with him 100% on that

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have been willing to listen to him, but I won't stand for some petty socialist dictator claiming that he wants to finish off the US (Empire TM).

It's easy to fling terms around. Back it up with evidence.

Since he was elected. Autocrat is more concise.

And here's one more thing to chew on. An american who thinks that the US should be "finished off" is a traitor.

Now back to my original point. What's the difference between the US and the US Empire?

are you saying you support Bush, because he represent the empire, and the country and the empire are the same thing?

By opposing Bush, you oppose America, according to your "logic"

:eyes"

The people and the policy/government. But there is no difference between the US and the US empire, especially when you are talking about Iran.

What does finishing off the US Empire really mean? Flowers and chocolate? I don't think so.

you are either too blind to see it, or you are deliberately playing a game here

that you are too blind to see it or you are deliberately playing a game here? Why question my motives when we are discussing pretty simple?

simple

I question your motives because I cannot comprehend that a grown adult is incapable of making that distinction... but perhaps it really is over your head

What does "finishing off" the US empire mean? So far you are getting crushed in this argument. That's why you repeatedly hurl insults.

"finish off" the US empire means defeating the fascists who currently control US policy. There is your answer

are you with us, or against us? Want to end those policies, or support them?

answer those basic questions, since you have avoided all of my others

They are a foreign power. So how do they accomplish that?

this whole thing started because you could not distinguish between the country and the empire... now you're asking me to come up with a plan for Chavez? WTF are you talking about now?

how about step one- refusing to play ball with the neocons?

without hurting it's people. There is nothing positive that can come out of it if it happens from the outside, especially from an avowed enemy like Iran. I agree that it should happen from the inside, but that's a different story (and a very long philosophical discussion).

you can vote Democratic in November

those outside countries can do what Chavez is doing: refuse to play ball with the neocons

it will hurt us, no doubt about it, since we rely on other countries for many things (including oil), but that is the price we will have to pay to become a member of the global society, instead of a menace and a bully to it

sad but true

I know you want me, or someone, to suggest that these countries go to war against us, kill us, etc, but I'm too smart to step into that phony trap.

Because now we agree that it will hurt the US and US citizens. The trap was never that Venezuala will do something militarily. That's not really possible. The point was and is that anything Venezuala and/or Iran can do to "finish off" the US empire will hurt the people.

just like curbing global warming will hurt the people, too

it sucks, but we are so deep into it that there is no painless way out

I can understand why you think that when the Empire cannot anymore rob and hurt people, not only outside US borders but also inside, you would feel "hurt". Consumerist materialism (owned by ones possessions and infinite greed for more) of the haves creates irrational fears against the have nots that seek freedom from slavery.

faction running a country until it has been utterly sated by quenching every possible urge for more and more power?

Once a country starts amassing power in the world it is NEVER to be turned back?

I wouldn't EVER want to know a person who thinks like that. He's not healthy.

On edit: If our right-wing murderous plans will NOT observe the rights of other peoples, they need to be reminded. Presenting a barrier to them is NOT the same as KILLING them, for christ's sake. Sick, sick, sick.

They are talking about the us "empire" in terms of it's heavy handed meddling in the affairs of other nations. It has to happen from outside as well as inside, as outside is where we are meddling.

empire before January 2000?

Really?

and I would have agreed with the term then as well

indeed, I was calling the U.S. an empire LONG before 2000!

""finish off" the US empire means defeating the fascists who currently control US policy."

I assume you mean defeating the Bush administration. Presumably replacing it with a Democratic administration.

How does that "finish off" the empire, if there was an empire long before the Bush administration?

Once an empire, always an empire...until the collapse.

A mere "changing of the guard" from one party to the next does not end the imperialism. Granted, the next Democratic administration will not be nearly as aggressive or feckless (we hope) in their style of imperialism, but it will still be an empire.

and are just as solidly behind maintainting an American (not really American but corporate) empire as anyone else.

That term appears in an article, written by Greg Palast, provided by DU'er RustyCharly, in another thread:

~snip~
"TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VENEZUELANS OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ..."

The caption let us know this South American potentate was a killer, an autocrat, and the people of his nation wanted him out. The caption continued: "{Venezuelans} marched Saturday to demand his resignation and punishment for those responsible for 17 deaths during a coup in April. 'Chavez leave now!' read a huge banner."

There was no actual story in the Chronicle -- South America simply isn't worth wasting words on -- just the photo and caption. But the Chronicle knew no story was needed. Venezuelans hated their terrible president, and all you needed was this photo to prove it.

And I could confirm the large protests. I'd recently returned from Caracas and watched 100,000 march against President Chavez. I'd filmed them for BBC Television London.

But I also filmed this: a larger march, easily over 200,000 Venezuelans marching in support of their president, Chavez.

That picture, of the larger pro-Chavez march, did not appear in a single U.S. newspaper. The pro-Chavez marchers weren't worth a mention.
(snip/...)

http://www.alternet.org/story/16255

Empire:
- Half a trillion military budget, paleocolonialistic occupation of foreign lands
- unilateral and undemocratic control of IMF and World Bank, and to lesser extent control of WTO and UN (neocolonialistic occupation of foreign lands).
- "Manifest destiny"
- Fucking up the Earth's enviroment with mindless consumerism

US:
- Culturally rich and varied pluralistic society with revolutionary values

Repeat, they are agreeing that the US "empire" should be finished off, there is a big difference. It is high time we stopped bossing everyone else around.

I am not sure I like this though, this is setting Chavez up for a fall.

Sounds like you've been watching too much 700 Club :eyes:

I am 100% AGAINST empire. Are you saying you are FOR it? Do you support the idea of the U.S. ruling the world from the barrel of a gun?

or do you support freedom and democracy for ALL?

....

The U.S. empire is currently expanding its territory by bombing the shit out of Iraq

the U.S. empire had plotted coups and overthrown governments all over Central and South America

the policies of the government are the empire, not the dirt under my feet

you have an astonishing number of post counts for someone who needs to ask that question. Surely you know the difference between the actions of leaders, and the lives of citizens, don't you?

hell, the U.S. empire tried to overthrow Chavez!!!! I, a citizen of that empire, was against that plan.

I can't believe I actually have to spell this out, you are obviously trying to play semantics, but you cannot fool anyone but fools

that made the overthrow possible. Unless you are posting from prison, you have been pretty supportive of the American empire. I understand the hate the gov't, love the people idea. I don't see the difference between the US and the "US Empire"

yes or no

if you oppose them, you oppose empire

I guess that would mean you hate America, because you don't want it to become what they are trying to make it

I can't believe I'm still having this conversation.. a frikkin three-year-old has a better grasp of basic logic

It's a basic argument, but go ahead and pile on. Supporting the neo-cons or whoever is not the point. The point is that the US is the US Empire. In you're case you say it isn't. So the question is what does "finishing off" the US empire mean?

and since you support the US Empire, you support the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow attempt on Chavez, and the neocon agenda

I'm going to go talk to some kids now, they know what 2+2 is :eyes:

What does "finishing off" the US Empire mean?

and military imposition. Something that many of the US citizens themselves are trying to challenge and change.

We would have a Defense Department for DEFENDING our country, not conquering others. Fare fewer Americans would be dying overseas. And far fewer Americans would be KILLING overseas.

We would have more money to spend on our own country. Healthcare, education, the environment, the infrastructure. And there would be enough left over to win friends in other countries with humanitarian aid.

is that many people feel that America is an empire, even w/o the wars in Iraq & Afganistan, simply due to the huge amount of power & influence that we have. I interpreted that remark to mean that Chavez wants nations to come together & oppose American hegemony in general.

WE've got forces in an enormous number of other countries now. It shocked me when I heard the number, which I NEVER would have guessed. It's like 150 or more, I believe.

That's just goddawful.

Something SHOULD urge the right-wing idiots we've had as pResidents to pull back their claws.

We could be like Sweden, concentrate on social services & leave the wars to someone else. But who would that someone else be? It seems like Chavez would like to stop American hegemony in the world & is creating his own little rag-tag group of oil outcasts to do it. Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran - maybe Russia & China as well. Would you really like this crew ruling the world? They would. A lot of this is the US's fault - by ostracizing & demonizing Chavez so much, they've practically pushed him into these odd alliances.

That's something that no Democrat in this country can say lately.

Who do you stand with, the Washington Empire or we the people?

According to your warped worldview, there was no such thing as the United States of America until the early 20th century.

Wow. Just wow.

Words have meaning and while Chavez comes across quite hot headed (he seems to have no hadlers unlike some presidents)... from what I have seen he is fairly intelegent and quite familiar with the diffrence between a country and its emperialistic worldwide tampering.

Remember Chavez does buissness with the US. Its not like their aren't other markets for oil. And you will recall that he tried to help out after a rather large huricane by sending direct help in the form of fuel to the affected area in the US.

I see no signs that Chavez has any truck with the american people. But there is some evidence that our govenrment was heavily involved in the coup atempt against his democraticaly elected government. Even if you don't beleive that our government reacted at light speed to try to legitimize the replacement government dispite wholesale suspention of Venesualas constitution after a military power grab. He has every reason to resent our empire.

--

As for your specific question about the diffrence between the US and the US Empire... I would propose this question. Do you think a person like say Chomsky is anti-US? I would be willing to bet he would self discribe himself as Anti-US-Empire if asked.
Many people here are the same. We describe ourselves as loyal patriotic americans... who are against US emperialism.

Trying to make US = US Empire without evidence that in the full context they were intended to mean the same thing is exactly like saying anti-war = anti-troops.

---

Also for the record HRW an Amnisty International as well as other international organisations typicaly have critisms of every country, including the US. You need to carefuly analize the specific charges. Some people here have asked you to try reading some other sorces and deciding what you think for yourself. Your refusal to doso reeks of an intractable position that will never change despite any amount of evidence. Certainly I would agree it would be wrong to dismiss such reports out of hand. But refusing to even read another opinion is not exactly high intelectual behavior. Thats the same type of reasoning that lead so many people to beleive that Iraq had WMD. They read one thing... trusted the sorce... and never bothered to analize the counter argument at all.

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

please explain this post... what is the "USSR old style communist front" and how, exactly, is Chavez a 'relic' of this?

I'll wait until you find a source on the net to copy/paste and pretend it's your reply

There likely is a very big difference. We retore a White House where restraint is practiced, such rhetoric on both ends will likely diminish.
There are lots of support to show how Bush helped assisted anti Chavez forces to overthrow his presidency. What kind of rhetoric do you expect.
I hope Chavez has nothing against the American people. Get a diplomat in the White House and see how it effects relations both ways.

against us.

working with many Democratic Congressmen in the last couple of years, after they went to American oil companies to beg for discounts for their poorests constituents and were blown off. Only THEN did they turn to Venezuela and were given the 40% discount for which their constituents thanked them over and over and the government of Venezuela, as well.

Venezuela's relationship with Iran (and the rest of the Middle Eastern nations) is defined by their membership in OPEC, as contrasted with our own relationship to the Middle East, which tends to be defined by our support of Israel, the 1980 Hostage Crisis, and so on.

Just wanted to put some perspective on this story, before people start lumping Chavez in with Hezbollah, and such...

but I'm with you. I tend not to look at the world in the black and white us against them way that the Neocons and the corporate overlords would like us to. Divide and conquer tactics.

Cause Venezuela & Iran together provide so much oil. If they cut off the US, we'd be in some trouble. It looks like Chavez is trying to create his own oil block - he recently signed an oil deal w/Vietnam as well. It seems like he thinks the US is trying to take him out & he might be right about that.

He won't cut off oil sales to the US. He's a big talker but he wants USA money.
I don't know what the attraction to Chavez is other than he hates Bush.

Healthcare, literacy, food clothes and shelter for all the people; one of the most democratic constitutions on Earth, empowering the people; Liberation of South from the US control, exemplary project of building socialism of 21st century. Intelligent, articulate and funny guy, with whom I would not mind sharing a bottle of rum.

I'm not stinking capitalist "liberal", I'm communist libertarian.

HRW lies, distortions and spin about Chavez Venezuela have been verifiably debunked on DU and elsewhere countless times. Do a search.

has no agenda. Their only agenda is to investigate & prevent human rights abuses around the world. The US has a very long file as well now w/HRW - that doesn't change Chavez's.

"HRW lies, distortions and spin about Chavez Venezuela have been verifiably debunked on DU and elsewhere countless times. Do a search."

if you say it, it must be true! :sarcasm: I'll go with Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch, thanks. Chavez is probably not the worst leader in South America, but he's no saint either.

Amnesty Int. Report on Venezuela - http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng
Amnesty Int. Human Rights Concerns - http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/venezuela/index.do
UN High Commissioner, Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 - Venezuela - http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=43cfae994

As long as you refuse to do a search, or even read your own links, you'll stay ignorant.

Amnesty complaints refers to violence by police forces controlled by the opposition and misjustice by the old guard judiciary left from the previous utterly corrupt regime (e.g. supreme court that refused to condemn the coupsters). I see no mention of the numerous murders by land-owner paramilitaries against the landless. Venezuela has responded to HRW by calling out their bias and lies and distortions, it seems this what naive Amnesty refers to in their last complaint of your first link.

And then the ignorant jingoists try to blame it all on Chavez administration. Pitifull.

I'm just curious, what is a "libertarian communist"? Isn't that a little like a Republican Democrat? You can call HRW & Amnesty Int. & the UN naive for criticizing Venezuela. I think it's a little naive to dismiss any and all complaints against Chavez w/vague conspiracy charges. For a true Chavez apologist, no proof will do. In some ways, I like Chavez. He's a charismatic figure - but that doesn't mean I'll pretend that he's completely innocent & persecuted here.

Here's a nice propaganda piece from Venezuelanalysis that directly addresses the court-packing charges in your second HRW citation. Nothing is black and white, and it should be noted that HRW has backed off attacking Chavez after the International Criminal Court (ICC) tossed the Venezuelan Opposition Case in Feb 2006.

Has Human Rights Watch Joined Venezuela’s Opposition?

Friday, Jun 18, 2004

 

By: Gregory Wilpert – Venezuelanalysis.com

It looks like the cat is out of the bag: Human Rights Watch has formally joined Venezuela’s opposition. Well, not quite; it is not a formally consummated deal yet, since their latest report does appeal to President Chavez by saying, “the criticisms offered (in the report) (should) not be mischaracterized as a partisan attack.”

Then why has just about everyone who supports the Chavez government taken the latest Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on Venezuela, about the country’s “Judicial Independence under Siege,” as precisely the opposite of what HRW says it is, as a “partisan attack”? Is it because they do not want to deal with the real issues, as HRW’s America’s Director José Miguel Vivanco suggests, or is it because the report actually is a partisan attack – one that is being launched just in time to turn national and international public opinion against the Chavez government as it faces an unprecedented recall referendum a mere two months from now?

This report is just the most recent and most revealing partisan attack against the Chavez government. It begins by basically equating the April 2002 coup attempt with the new Supreme Court law when it says, “When Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez Frías faced a coup d’état in April 2002, advocates of democracy in Venezuela and abroad roundly condemned the assault on the country’s constitutional order.  Today Venezuela faces another constitutional crisis that could severely impair its already fragile democracy.  This time, though, the threat comes from the government itself.” It ends by making demands that are typical of Venezuela’s opposition—demands that the government cannot possibly fulfill, such as suspending the new law, which has already taken effect. Then, since such a demand will not be fulfilled, the report, just as is typical of Venezuela’s opposition, takes the issue to international bodies, such as the World Bank and the OAS.


<snip>

A history of bias

It would be nice to think that the HRW report was a slip-up in what is otherwise a virtuous record in HRW’s defense of human rights in Venezuela. However, HRW has shown itself to be biased to an amazing extent with regard to Venezuela under the Chavez government. For example, during the 2002 coup attempt HRW issued a statement on April 12, the day that “transition president” Pedro Carmona issued his decree in which he dissolved the constitution, the legislature, the courts, and just about all other state entities and named himself president. That day HRW merely appealed to the “transition authorities” to behave themselves, but did nothing to condemn the wholesale dissolution of all constitutional guarantees; nor did they demand from the international community to apply the OAS Democratic Charter to isolate Venezuela diplomatically. The current report, however, while not going so far as to call for sanctions, does recommend that certain provisions of the Democratic Charter be applied to Venezuela now. This pattern, of disproportionately strong criticism of the Chavez government compared to both the opposition and to other governments in Latin America, is a pattern that HRW has pursued for quite some time now.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1200#_ftnref2

and the opposition's case was dispatched quickly.

Jose Vivanco, HRW head, has supported U.S. meddling in Venezuelan affairs, while the same meddling is strictly prohibited by other countries in U.S. affairs under penalty of fine and/or prison.

He's a dirty thing, and everyone knows it.

"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire," Chavez said. "This (task) must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world."

I have a hunch it has been "sexed up" in the translation.

Bicycle and oil deals cement Chavez's ties to Iran
Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:06pm ET

By Alireza Ronaghi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez enveloped his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a bear hug on Sunday and the two men backed their anti-U.S. rhetoric with deals on everything from bicycles to oil.

In a typically verbose speech, robust ex-paratrooper Chavez lambasted their common enemy, Washington.

"If the U.S. empire succeeds in establishing its dominance, there will be no future for humanity. Therefore we should save humanity and end the American empire," Chavez told a crowd at the University of Tehran.
(snip)

A beaming Ahmadinejad presented Chavez with the golden "High Medallion of the Islamic Republic of Iran" and slipped a blue sash around his chest.
(snip/...)

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-30T180540Z_01_OLI062252_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-VENEZUELA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-worldNews-9

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doesn't sound like a threat to right-wing posters at D.U. to me! An empire is far different from the country itself, OBVIOUSLY.

should be "finished off" "right wing." And those that do not believe that the US should be finished off can call the others traitors. That's fair right?

get that through your head and stop playing this childish word-game, you cannot possibly be that clueless...

do you support the neocon agenda? They support the idea os the US as an empire

I do not

which side are YOU on?

Which prison are you sitting in? You've been participating in their view of the US Empire.

you pay the taxes, that must mean you approve 100% of all his actions?

get real

It goes to a deeper level. I have posted the question above. What does "finishing off" the US Empire mean. That's where we can distinguish the difference.

there is your answer

Spanish quote - "Si el imperio estadounidense tiene éxito en consolidar su dominio, entonces no habrá futuro para la Humanidad. Por lo tanto, debemos salvar a la Humanidad y poner fin al Imperio Americano", dijo Chávez a una multitud concentrada en la Universidad de Teherán."

That would be - "If the American empire succeeds in consolidating its power, then there is no future for humanity. Therefore, we must save humanity and put a stop to the American Empire." said Chavez to a crowd at the Univ. of Tehran."

http://es.news.yahoo.com/30072006/44-89/iran-consolida-relacion-venezuela-acuerdos-petroleros.html

I say 'no' to empire

We can't have that!

Those two should get along well.

:shrug:

Never, ever criticize the twin patron saints of DU - Saint Cindy Sheehan, and Saint Hugo Chavez here on DU - neither can EVER, Ever do anything wrong, and anyone who disagrees with anything they say MUST be a DINO, a Rush Limbaugh listener, or a troll. And remember, DU must be kept ideologically pure.

:)

Cynthia McKinney

Iran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilising role, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Monday.

"It was clear that we could never accept a destabilisation of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilisation of the region," Douste-Blazy said in Beirut.

"In the region there is of course a country such as Iran -- a great country, a great people and a great civilisation which is respected and which plays a stabilising role in the region," he told a news conference.

The United States blames Iran and Syria for destabilising the region by backing Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon who have been battling Israeli forces for nearly three weeks.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28816454.htm

What's next? Tap-dancing with Kim Jung Il?

Better than grabbing people's domes!



Some one send _Bush to his room.

Probably need a shower afterward. :puke:

not because he'd like to hang out with him. They actually have business to transact.

Some heads of state don't have as much idle time on their hands as _{George W. Bush.}

If you want someone to pound for the holocaust, there's no time like the present for looking up the background on _{George W. Bush's} grandfather Prescott's relationship to the Third Reich.

But Chavez is cozying up to a psychopath megalomaniacal anti-semite.


What buisness does have to conduct in Iran besides trying to fuck the world in the ass by raising the price of oil?

done for the American public? Take your time. No rush.

He must keep you busy! "But..but...Bush sucks too!"


I know that, that's why I voted against him.

He's helped the people of Venezuela.

If only we were so lucky. In fact, Chavez has done more to help Americans than Bush has.

Hmm.

You flatter yourself.

You need to land a significant point first to engender a defense.

He didn't say the Russian people were evil. Similarly, the Munroe doctrine was directed against European empires in the new world, not European countries. One could take this in the same spirit.

Or one could rev up the American Empire and wipe these countries out, proving that they had a point.

Was directed against the people of Latin America, slaved under US evil empire.

For itself, I think that is a valid observation. I don't know if that was the intention from the start, but it certainly had that effect after a while.

Oh wait...

Any time there is an article or post that could be construed as remotely critical of Chavez the person or poster in question will immediately be branded a rightwinger and attacked ad hominem style.

It's pretty amusing at this point.

is so objective and needs no unpacking at all!

lol

No one said he is an angel. It is just many know recent history and realize the trend in Latin America, not just Chavez; has many origins of our making. This just did not happen.
Bush's trade policies and US corporate practices in Latin America has totally pizzed them off towards us. Like Bechtel in Bolivia. Maybe you need pay attention to past posted details of US actions in South America and not present US media hype.

I don't think he's advancing the socialist revolution fast enough, he should be even more radical in his policies. Venezuelan governement should invest more in renewables and mass transit rather than talk about nuclear power, and gas prices should increase gradually to favour the transition.


There is a difference in constructive criticism given in solidarity, and ignorant and fearmongering bourgeois hate mail.

:yoiks:

carries on.

?????????????

he wouldn't make friends with religous whackjobs. If Iran were as powerful as the U.S., it would need to be "destroyed to save the human race." Its government certainly isn't any better than ours.

And today I marched together with "religious whackjobs" (is there a whiff of Islamophobia?), demonstrating at the Israel Embassy.

There are those who try to whip up the "clash of civilizations" in need of a usefull enemy, as excuse for Patriot acts etc. neofascism, but I'm with those who try to build up bridges of solidarity, mutual respect for our differences and dialogue.

And the division is not about socialism, there are conservatives that speak for respect and dialogue with Iran, like the French FM today. Where the real division lies, I'll leave that for you to think about...

I don't have to choose between those two wackjobs. There are many more sensible political options in between those two extremes.

Those who disagree must buy into Bush's "you're either with us or against us" line of thinking. Fuck that!

"moderate" wackjobs! ;)

can sound so personally tied up in knots over American right-wing politics to the point they sound almost indistinguishable from American right-wingdings! It's sorta like "if it thinks like a wingnut, and posts like a wingnut, it doesn't follow that it's a casual onlooker from another country."

A revolutionary leader, moderate social democrat, nationalistic real politik player. What is important to understand and escapes the narrow minded "moderates" is that those roles are not inherent to Chavez, but imposed on his leadership by domestic socioeconomic forces and international situation.

Wingnut "moderates" who cannot break from the CCM brainwashing seem unable to think in terms of societies, and stick with the mindset of leadership cults. Leadership cult is a huge problem in all societies, not least in Venezuela, and it should not be blamed on Chavez (or even real assholes like Bush and Hitler and Stalin), but on the patriarchal tribalist mindset that many or most of us are still possessed by.

The problem has deep psychological and philosophical roots, are we just a pack of chimps rooting for this or that alfa male, what does it mean to be human?

would not be hanging out making best buddies with Ahmadinejad. A moderate social democrat would not be nationalizing businesses at the rate that Chavez is and would certainly not imprison political opponents and surpress free speech.

Bringing about change in the USA will not happen if the Democrats embrace foreign leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. The Democrats need to appeal to the average American who wants peace, freedom, essential (but not too much) government interference in their lives. Extremism will only push Americans away from the Democrats.

>>>A moderate social democrat would not be hanging out making best buddies with Ahmadinejad.<<<

No, that is what a skillfull realpolitik player would do (enemy of my enemy is my friend).


>>>A moderate social democrat would not be nationalizing businesses at the rate that Chavez is<<<

No, that is what a revolutionary leader would do.


>>>and would certainly not imprison political opponents and surpress free speech.<<<

That is just a blatant lie.


Bringing about change will not happen if people embrace extremist rightwing "moderates" like Blair and Clinton and Schroeder. That will bring just more of the same'o same'o neoliberal extremism. Bringing about change means socialism, socialism of 21st century, real democracy.

The government of Iran is a terrible one that garners a large part of its popular support through religous rhetoric. Sound familiar? How can you bash GWB all day for something but forgive another chief executive of the same crime so quickly?

Iran's president frequently calls for the destruction of Israel. Again, a majority of its residence heartily agree with that sentiment, and President Ahmadinejad uses that to rally their support while governing poorly.

Iran and Syria armed Hezbollah secretly with a great many weapons. The only people Hezbollah was going to attack with those rockets was Israel, or maybe the Lebanese army if they'd tried to stop Hezbollah. That is clearly a region-destablizing move that is, again, on the order of GWB. Hypocrisy.

I could write an equally damning post about Israel, I would never debate that. As I said Iran and Israel can basically be seen as equally guilty in this long, long conflict. But anyone that could see Iran as remotely innocent or friendly needs a reality check.

Oh, and I never brought up anything about the "clash of the civilizations," and your ridiculous assumption that I would ever try to excuse the Patriot Act or neofascism is, quite frankly, insulting.

WTF is Chavez thinking?

Maybe Chavez can start hanging out with Mel Gibson.



Following talks, Chavez pledged that his country would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition," state television reported.

Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit.

"I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chavez," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state-run television. "We think Iran and Venezuela should share all experiences of each other, stay by each other and they have to be supporters of each other."

Seems their actions are sociopathic too. Not to mention who our own "Sociopathathic Bush" makes deals with.

We should have not tried to otherthrow Chavez, but NO...not fucking Bush/Cheney/Rove. Now he has sided with Iran...good job Rummy! Fucking motards.

I honestly dont think they would be so foolish as to have a failed coup. If they wanted him out of power, hed be dead.

put him back. Chavez was held by his military for a while. I didn't think he would live very long after that. Shows what I know.

some of the generals sided with Chavez's political opponents.

This is par for the course for the CIA in Latin America. How Chavez survived is a mystery to me. I thought he would end up deader than a doornail the next day or so.

Apparently they are god-like! It would seem Robert Burns wrote "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry" in a world which had never seen the wonders of the American C.I.A. yet, or he wouldn't have had the audacity to write that heresy.

The reason I'm writing this post to you is because they want me to do it!

But when someone is wanted dead, a bullet almost always does the trick.

(see Bay of Pigs fiasco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion)

US financial and ideological support for Chavez's opponents is hardly a secret (see School Of The Americas and National Endowment for Democracy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

with friends like these....


BTW, where is the 'empire'?

Loving America and disliking the current administration aren't mutually exclusive. I also doubt American policy vis a vis Ahmadinejad and Chavez would change all that much under a Democratic administration.

it has nothing to do with who is in power in america.

Chavez should choose wiser friends in future.

Bush* didn't make that logically challenged statement, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" foreign policy, no? :shrug:

I'm parsing words and qualifying it, but I think the proper statement might be, "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend".

Although some of the more extreme RW mouthbreathers think even those two are the same.

yeah he's someone the left should admire.

the man is an outright hypocrite.