[QUOTE=pantom]
And it is true that selling something for someone else to burn is just the definition of primeval. If you’re a true leader, you realize this and get the conditions together for your people to advance so that when the burnable stuff is all gone they can sell more valuable stuff to the rest of the world. I don’t see any evidence that Chavez is doing this.
[/QUOTE]
But, he is! He’s providing Venezuela with its own completely independent national automatic-weapons industry! See this thread, post #31.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Some of what he said was directed at Bush, but lots of it was generic anti-American, anti-Globalization stuff. He’s not making friends with any of the big powers with that kind of rhetoric. It’s the big powers that pull the strings, whether he likes that or not.
[/QUOTE]
Of course he knows it and of course he doesn’t like it – that’s why he’s doing this, that’s what he’s fighting against. See thread linked in previous post. What Chavez apparently is trying to do is cobble together an alliance of second- and third-tier powers that have nothing in common but a shared opposition to the global political/military/business agenda of the U.S. The biggest power he can reasonably expect to get on his side is Russia – and he’s already got that covered.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:rolleyes: Chavez attempted a coup in 1992, went to prison for it, and was later elected president in 1998, again in 2000, and survived a recall attempt in 2004. He also survived a coup attempt in 2002, and put it down because that’s what heads of government do. No fair crying “Foul!”
[/QUOTE]
I’m aware of his history, that’s why I worded it as I did. He’s a military thug with the Jimmy Carter seal of approval. His behavior at the UN did nothing to raise his stature above that description.
Sure is a good thing for you that the Bushiviks don’t have any allies who are military dictators! What luck, huh? Saves you from any nasty implications of hypocrisy. Which is at the very tippy-tip-top of things they want to avoid, huh? Being all pure and righteous. And stuff.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sure is a good thing for you that the Bushiviks don’t have any allies who are military dictators! What luck, huh? Saves you from any nasty implications of hypocrisy. Which is at the very tippy-tip-top of things they want to avoid, huh? Being all pure and righteous. And stuff.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t this be one of those excluded middle thingies? Couldn’t, in theory mind you, one look rather narrowly at Carter AND Bush at the same time and think that perhaps they had both made some rather bad moves? Just as an intellectual game, ken?
Sure, Barbie. If one were interested in such things as “intellectual games”. But if one is determined to approach politics as an intellectual game without grave implications for humanity, one wouldn’t be a radical, one would be a libertarian. Wouldn’t one?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
OK. I should not have just assumed Dr. Deth was right in his paraphrasing. I guess it’s the difference between being non-aligned and being of The Nonaligned.
[/QUOTE]
Per that cite "And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the *nonaligned * for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.
Unfortunately they thought, “Oh, Fidel was going to die.” But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned." Note that “nonaligned” isn’t capped in either this cite or the other. I guess it could be a translation issue.
Thus, the precise wording said that Cuba was a nonaligned state, as opposed to *being a member * of the “Non-Aligned Movement” which is about as “nonaligned” as East Germany was Democratic. :rolleyes:
I knew that Castro was the Leader of the NAM, but my point was that Cuba and Castro is hardly “nonaligned”.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sure, Barbie. If one were interested in such things as “intellectual games”. But if one is determined to approach politics as an intellectual game without grave implications for humanity, one wouldn’t be a radical, one would be a libertarian. Wouldn’t one?
[/QUOTE]
Obviously a difference of opinion old boy. You seem to be implying that being a radical is a good thing…and that to not be a radical one must be a libertarian. I dinna think one needs go quite so far myself…
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Per that cite "And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the *nonaligned * for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.
Unfortunately they thought, “Oh, Fidel was going to die.” But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned." Note that “nonaligned” isn’t capped in either this cite or the other. I guess it could be a translation issue.
Thus, the precise wording said that Cuba was a nonaligned state, as opposed to *being a member * of the “Non-Aligned Movement” which is about as “nonaligned” as East Germany was Democratic. :rolleyes:
I knew that Castro was the Leader of the NAM, but my point was that Cuba and Castro is hardly “nonaligned”.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously, Chavez was referring to Castro’s position in a specific organization; after all, you can’t be president of a general tendency. Any perceived ambiguity here can be attributed only to mistranslation, and/or to really, really stupid nipickery.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sure is a good thing for you that the Bushiviks don’t have any allies who are military dictators! What luck, huh? Saves you from any nasty implications of hypocrisy. Which is at the very tippy-tip-top of things they want to avoid, huh? Being all pure and righteous. And stuff.
[/QUOTE]
I’m curious as to what your point is. Do you think Bush invented realpolitik or that he even brought it to a new level? We’ve always been cozy with dictators who do our bidding and not cozy with those who don’t. But you know that…
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Oh oh. Who did Dubya threaten to invade this time?
I’ve no doubt John “The Animal” Bolton diplomatically left his seat for fear of biting Chavez’s neck when his boss was called a “devil,” but would you happen to have a cite telling us who else was missing?
[/QUOTE]
Just going by what I saw on CNN as I watched the speech. One of the commentators also mentioned the number of empty seats.
You’re not serious, I hope, Brain Glutton.
I mean, at least oil is an asset to a peaceful economy. Weapons, you can’t even say that much about them. At best, sterile, at worst, destructive.* Bought* en masse or if a country’s economy is geared towards production of these tools of death, it destroys the economy.* Used* en masse, it has the added bonus of destroying life.
Used in moderation, of course, it protects the assets of a peaceful economy. But militarists like Chavez and Bush wouldn’t know that.
[QUOTE=pantom]
Used in moderation, of course, it protects the assets of a peaceful economy. But militarists like Chavez and Bush wouldn’t know that.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, Chavez knows it. After all, what occasion would he have to use the rifles en masse? Remember, there is no mass insurgency against him, and not likely to be one; the people who staged the 2002 coup attempt are not the sort to strap on bandoliers and camp out in the jungle. Nor are there any visible opportunities on the horizon for Venezuela to engage in foreign military adventures. Obviously – after what nearly happened to him in 2002 – he wants the guns to defend against any possibility of military intervention (direct or by proxy) by the U.S. And, this is the key thing, he wants to be able to make the guns in Venezuela rather than rely on his allies for supplies. Well, why not? And it is an industry, one that will create jobs.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I’m aware of his history, that’s why I worded it as I did. He’s a military thug with the Jimmy Carter seal of approval. His behavior at the UN did nothing to raise his stature above that description.
[/QUOTE]
Your wording was misleading and dishonest. And what makes Chavez a “military thug”? He has a military background (like Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower), but he did not come to power by military means but by free elections. As for Carter – whose opinion in such matters should count for a very great deal – he has put his seal of approval only on the fairness of the last couple of Venezuelan elections; not the same as approving all Chavez’ actions in office.
BG: Start with Syntactic Structures.
As for your little bit, allow me to introduce you to the notion of an asset.
Say you buy a fork. Said fork can now be used by you, until it breaks, to eat. Ditto for a plate.
If you buy a rifle, you can use it to hunt down a deer to put on your plate and eat with that fork.
What does Chavez do with all those rifles he bought? Mostly, they sit around. Now, I will give you that a certain number are needed for defense, and that that number may be larger than you or I would think given that he does have to worry about the Marines showing up uninvited one day, a common worry in Latin America. So, the rifles can be seen as kind of an insurance policy. Fair enough.
But, according to you, he gives a bunch of people jobs by building his rifle factory and turning out a high number of rifles. To the extent those rifles aren’t needed to keep his insurance against attack, however, what he’s turning out is waste. The jobs in that factory need to be paid for by someone, and since it’s not a private enterprise, that someone would be some Venezuelan taxpayer. Said person will spend on the maintenance of the rifle factory, and not spend on something else. That something else would have likely been something of value to that person, an asset. Perhaps a hoe for farming, a light to read by, a fork with which to eat, or a bag of rice to eat with that fork. The money spent would partially go into profit in a bunch of businesses, like the retailer who sells the item, the wholesaler who stocked it, the trucking company that transported it, and finally the factory that made it or the farmer who grew it. A part of the profit made by each would be reinvested in some way at some future point. The private, asset-building part of the Venezuelan economy would benefit.
Instead, his money is wasted on various governments and government enterprises, none of whom are in the business of making things that normal people can use in their everyday lives, but rather of making things that only other government employees (soldiers) can use to destroy things, if they use them at all, which isn’t likely. The Venezuelan nation is made poorer by the amount spent.
[QUOTE=pantom]
But, according to you, he gives a bunch of people jobs by building his rifle factory and turning out a high number of rifles. To the extent those rifles aren’t needed to keep his insurance against attack, however, what he’s turning out is waste.
[/QUOTE]
To the contrary. If they can’t find an export market for Venezuelan Kalashnikovs, the sun just came up in the west.
See this thread, post #31.
Your wording was misleading and dishonest. And what makes Chavez a “military thug”? He has a military background (like Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower), but he did not come to power by military means but by free elections. As for Carter – whose opinion in such matters should count for a very great deal – he has put his seal of approval only on the fairness of the last couple of Venezuelan elections; not the same as approving all Chavez’ actions in office.