So? Point remains. In the vast majority of cases, the rifles churned out would still be waste, regardless of whether the waste winds up in Bolivia instead of Venezuela. In a minority, they would be actively used to destroy things and people and make the central government more powerful. Somehow, I don’t see this as a good thing.
And in Venezuela, money and effort is still being dedicated to a wasteful enterprise.
Point taken, and I was being jocular in citing the new rifle factories as an example of Venezuela economically diversifying under Chavez. OTOH, the country’s overall economic growth in 2004 was 16.8%, mostly in non-petroleum sectors. That ain’t chickenfeed.
What makes him a military thug is the fact that he’s a thug who was involved in a military coup. The value of Carter’s opinion on anything died when he brokered nuclear reactors to a nutjob.
Pretty tough judge of Presidents, Mac. Can only imagine the contempt you must feel for the current one.
You’ve always had a good imagination.
BTW, Pantom, you need to think harder about the economic potential of Chavez’ policies. He is using his country’s most valuable natural resource, oil (nationalized long before he was president), to finance social programs on a vast scale. We know from American experience from FDR through LBJ that such programs can lift millions out of poverty into the middle class and make even higher educational opportunities available to children of humble birth. That produces the kind of society a nation really needs to be, to compete in the modern global markeplace.
Only a quibble, friend BG, but I want education because it makes better citizens, not because it (may) make more effective workers.
When did Carter broker nuclear reactors to a nutjob? There’s nothing about that here.
You must (if you have any claim to being a rational being) admit, Magiver, that Hugo Chavez is not only a better man and a better national leader than George W. Bush, but that he has a better claim to being national leader.
Good point, but the two (usually) go together.
Well, yeah, BG, but its like asking who would make a better camp counselor, Hannibal Lecter or Charlie Manson?
I’m not sold on this guy, not by a long shot. Sure, he spouts progressive views, but he spouts them as dogma, not as political viewpoint. We’ve seen how autocratic he can behave when he wins an election, how will he behave when he loses one?
The gold standard on this would be the Sandanistas, who won a long and bitter civil war, held an election, and lost to a center-right coaliton…and handed over the power. That limns the distinction between a real progressive and an ambitious power-freak who exploits progressive principles for his own ends.
We’ll see.
Exactly. Well said.
Hugo Chavez is doing exactly what GWB is doing, promoting a narrow based ideology basically onto an entire area as some claim, in a 2nd or 3rd world (however you want to describe it) country, so he gets away with it. If there were a duplicate within the developed nations, you’d see a different picture. Hell, I could say the same about Uribe in Colombia.
Comedy is not your strong suit.
As a general rule you’re suppose to read the cites that you post.
In 1994, Carter went to North Korea at the behest of President Clinton. North Korea had expelled investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency and was threatening to begin processing spent nuclear fuel. Carter met with North Korean President Kim Il Sung resulting in the signing of the Agreed Framework, under which North Korea agreed to stop processing nuclear fuel, in exchange for a return to normalized relations, oil deliveries [COLOR=Black]and two light water reactors to replace its graphite reactors.[/COLOR]
Maybe you should look up this “light water reactor” stuff. Just sayin’.
So which part are you disputing?
That Carter didn’t broker the deal, that no nuclear reactors were involved, or that Kim Jong-il isn’t a nutjob?
IOW, the cite demonstrates that every single word that Magiver said is the exact truth.
Regards,
Shodan