Chavez rattling his sabre, re: Falklands.

Great Debates
41

You don’t actually know much about George Washington, do you? Well, being from Scotland I suppose thats no mystery.
Anyway, to the OP…its a lot of hot air. Chavez is scum (yeah, I know that some of you in this thread wriggle with pleasure at the mere thought of the man…just my opinion on the ‘scum’ part)…but he’s not entirely stupid. Anything beyond spouting a long of hot air would probably see him eventually deposed. Attack the British? Not a chance. The Brits would hand him his head…and America (under Bush or not…but ESPECIALLY under Bush) would be happy to join the fun.

-XT

42

So you ARE claiming the linked article was made up out of whole cloth? Or what?

You don’t think that Chavez’s bluster about the Falklands actually happened? Or just that newspapers in the US and UK shouldn’t have reported his statements?

43

The problem for some is Chavez looking very much like the loose cannon and aggressive twit as he is portrayed by U.S. officials.

Never mind that Chavez is attracting unwelcome attention in Britain due to his own dumb mouth. Since he has previously been criticized by the evil Bush Administration, he must by definition be good, or at least harmless compared to the Bushites. Hence the desperate attempts to portray news coverage of the latest Chavez brain fart over the Falklands as a plot to benefit the imperialist Yanquis.

Hell, Americans elected Bush twice to office (or once, if you can’t let 2000 and the Electoral College Follies go) - that doesn’t justify the crap his administration has pulled any more than home support for Chavez justifies his administration’s screwups and sleaziness. And last time I checked, Bush wasn’t trying to pull strings to be elected Presidente for Life.

Hint to the knee-jerkers: it is possible and even desirable to criticize tinhorn despots, whether they are supported or opposed by Die Amerikans.

44

Lemur

The story was given far more importance than it merited, so you have to wonder why.

Here is some nonentity in world terms making empty threat, in response to a forgettable comment by a retired prime minister.

Its not that the story was made up, his bluster was taken out of context and made to look important.

It was hardly a story, plenty of premiers make stupid statements, or meaningless ones, and some even involve threats, of sanctions or war, but not real threats they are mainly along the lines of ‘Someone outta do something about <insert issue here>’

Then there is a little bit of flutter kicked about the media, and the subject og the attack just says something that shows complete disdain, and disregard.

Chavez isn’t on UK radar, Argentina is probably less than grateful for having its name dragged into such a miniscule argument, if it could even be described as such.

Chavez is less a loose cannon, than a leaky water pistol.

So given that he is so unimportant, the only thing that actually makes him noteworthy in any way is the fact that the worlds most powerful nation routinely condemns him, that and the fact that you just know that the US is probably making some moves to have him ousted.

This latter alone proves just how dangerous the US is to the rest of the world since it is prepared to topple elected leaders at its own pleasure.
Meanwhile, Chavez poses absolutely no realistic threat to the US, or the UK or to teir interests, so this is in effect a non-story, except you wonder why such a non-story would be reported - unless its to smear Chavez.

45

It’s repeated because it involves a British newspaper. The Guardian had sent Chavez a letter regarding a provision in Venezuela’s draft constitution that would get rid of the term limit for the President. Chavez had come out against removing term limits for mayors and governors, saying that without term limits, they would become corrupt. So, the Guardian, because it’s the Guardian, and likes to be obnoxious, sent him a letter, saying, “But, Mr. President, the proposed constitution will lift your term limits. Isn’t there a danger that you’ll become corrupt, as you’ve said mayors and governors without term limits would be?”

And it was in response to this letter that Chavez gave the answer he gave.

46

Tunnel vision.

Gotta love it. :smiley:

47

Tinpot dictators should be squashed before they become major threats.

48

What plausible sequence of events can you imagine by which Chavez might become a “major threat”? (Castro never was; neither was Pinochet.)

49

I rather think they were, to their countrymen.

That said… Mr. Chavez? You better succeed. Or you’re going to have a very uncomfortable time being hung by the neck until dead.
If you don’t get lit on fire first.

50

Jeepers, 48 posts about Chavez and no one has said “Boycott Citgo” yet. I admire the restraint.

I will state my opinion, then let it be savaged: like Saddam just prior to the second Gulf war, Chavez is quite simply no credible threat to the UK or the US. His eccentric comments, on the other hand, are certainly newsworthy, although for me more in the sense of ‘look at what the blustering loon is saying now’ rather than ‘OMG! It’s 1938 all over again!’.

It’s interesting to compare the tones of the linked Guardian, Telegraph and Times articles; the first two both stated rather dispassionately that Chavez demanded the return of the Falklands, while the third stated, indeed trumpeted as its headline: “Chavez Vows Revenge for Falklands War”, although without quoting him as using the term ‘revenge’ in his speech. The Times article does quote large chunks of highly belligerent rhetoric along those lines; none of that, however, seemed to make it into the other articles. I don’t know, the Times piece struck me as rather classically Murdochesque; not propaganda, necessarily, but clearly trying to stir up the public, likely more to sell newspapers rather than anything more sinister.

I don’t read Spanish well, and I don’t have time to pore through the Alo Presidente site looking for specific phrases anyway, but it might be an interesting exercise if someone could pinpoint a few of the lines the Times claimed were used by Chavez, particularly his comments about sinking the British fleet and the “stained with blood” remark. I would then be less inclined to think there might be a bit of embellishment going on there.

51

Well, what’s Citgo charging for a gallon of regular this week?

52

Well, that’s neither here nor there. (Specifically, it is in Cuba and Chile. But not here, which is the United . . . no, that’s not “here” . . . well, Cyberspace. :wink: )

53

Not sure, really. Their web site show only 10 stations in the Houston area, none near a location where I routinely travel. If it’s a dollar, I’m there, but I kinda doubt it. :smiley:

54

I rather hope Mr. Chavez pulls whatever he’s going to do, off. I favor experimentation.

I just feel sorry for the people who have to live with the disruption. Also, from his speeches, I have low expectations of his success.

55

From this site:

President Hugo Chavez demanded that the United Kingdom return the Malvinas islands to the argentinian people, “illegally occupied by the old british empire.”

“I demand, in the name of the latin american people, that the british government return the Malvinas island to the argentinian people”, said the venezuelan leader.

The statement by Chavez was made during his Sunday radio program where he argued that latin american countries must unite to confront such situations.

Chavez pointed out that the disunion of latin american countires allowed “the british to run over the argentinians in the Malvinas”, during the war of 1982.

“The british empire ran over Argentina because we were divided. If we had united, we would have sunk the british fleet, as powerful as it is, and they would not have gone beyond the mid-Atlantic to the south Atlantic”, said the president.

“But we remained with arms crossed, while the United States and Great Britain ran all over Argentina and masacred a group of heroic soldiers that went there to rescue the islands, and they sank a ship, that wasn’t even a warship, the Belgrano, and there were hundreds of dead, and they had plans to bomb Buenos Aires”, added Chavez.

"That’s the old imperialism, and only when we’re united can we say to them “this is as far as you go!: no more empires, no more domination and exploitation”, finished the president.

56

The Falklands/Malvinas are just a talking point. What Chavez really wants to do is form (and ideally, I am sure, lead) a Latin American union along left-wing or “Bolivarian” lines – probably something a lot more like the European Union than the Soviet Union; but, at any rate, something clearly opposed to neoliberalism, the World Bank/WTO, NAFTA/CAFTA, and U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. He might pull it off, too. (See here and here.)

57

To everyone but the citizens of Venezuela Chavez is just entertainment. Sadly for his countrymen he is their Mugabe.

58

Thanks, lalenin, for the translated quotes, which make it pretty clear that the Times writer and/or editor decided to sex up the story a bit. I guess Chavez’ actual theme of resistance to colonialism, whether reasonable or not, wasn’t interesting enough.

No sign of a ‘revenge’ quote as yet, and although he did make a remark about sinking the British fleet, that was in context of what might have happened had South American countries been united against the UK, not a promise of a battle to come.

On the other hand, Chavez certainly does let his mouth run away, doesn’t he?

Huh? What did the US do, aside from providing satellite imagery and information about Argentina’s US-made weapons systems to the UK? And I think most observers would agree it was a stand-up fight, not a massacre.

Say what? The Belgrano was a cruiseliner, was it? And maybe the UK did have plans to bomb Buenos Aires (I have no idea), but, uh, they didn’t.

I likewise have no idea why the Times would make stuff up rather than run these wacky, actual remarks, but there it is.

59

You certainly must, its your favourite way of seeing the world.

The translation of Chavez actual words read rather differantly.

When come back, bring evidence.

60

Evidence of what? You’ve pointedly ignored the ample evidence presented here of Chavez’s screwups economically as well as his regime’s human rights violations (as documented by groups like Amnesty International)).
And you still apparently are desperately clinging to the bizarre idea that a British newspaper’s coverage of Chavez is a sign of attempts to stir up Americans against him, despite the fact that Americans don’t read the Sunday Times and don’t give a rat’s ass about the Falklands.

When come back, make sense.