Told you so??

[9sublime]

I respectfully disagree. I hate socialism because... it doesn't work. That issue has nothing to do with America or Chavez. Socialism doesn't work, causes problems and poverty. That's the only reason I hate it.

Thats why I don't like socialism, but it doesn't mean I can't support them over worse regimes. Does it stop you from doing the same?

I knew nothing of Chavez until this very issue happened, and I research the situation, and I don't like what he's doing. Perhaps he's a decent guy, I don't know. But what he's doing seems very bad to me.

As for Columbia.... well, let me put myself in Columbia's place. So Columbia is dealing with an organization called FARC. Here is some information on them:
Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, narcotrafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional military action against Colombian political, military, and economic targets. In March 1999, the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. In February 2003, the FARC captured and continues to hold three US contractors and killed one other American and a Colombian when their plane crashed in Florencia. Foreign citizens often are targets of FARC kidnapping for ransom. The FARC has well-documented ties to the full range of narcotics trafficking activities, including taxation, cultivation, and distribution.

Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, kidnapping, guerilla and conventional military action? Sounds like something every government does - don't see why its so bad. At least they attack political, economic and military targets - which is more than can be said for civillian strikes by 'respectable' nations.

These organizations, unlike governments, don't have tax to fund their bombs, so they need to get their money some other way. Of course drugs and kidnapping for ransom is very bad but its only to be expected from any rebel group whether they are fighting a just cause or not. However, I find it hard to choose who to support, a government that kills civillians in bomb strikes indscriminatly - or an organization that kidnaps a few people and deals hard drugs - they are both dispicable.

Now, I happen to find out that the leader of this organization is in Ecuador, less than one mile from the boarder. What to do... well in the past Ecuador hasn't done anything to help. So what to do? You have only a short time to do something before the rebels move to a new location. I know... send in a strike team and nail those (insert not so kind word) people. In the process you find evidence that your other neighbor Venezuela, was funding this monster.

How about I translate this to something we can related to. Let's say Osama Bin Laudin was one mile north of the Canadian boarder, and Canada refused to do anything. So we sent in a strike team and after killing him found evidence that Mexico had funded him. Now who has more right to be upset? The US or Mexico?

American's dont have a problem with running over other peoples borders and taking their residents - but if it happened to someone in your borders from Mexico lets say - you would go absoloutley nuts. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Andy]

Thats why I don't like socialism, but it doesn't mean I can't support them over worse regimes. Does it stop you from doing the same?

Generally speaking, Socialism is the worse regime. Can't really say since I haven't found someone running a socialistic system that was good.

Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, kidnapping, guerilla and conventional military action? Sounds like something every government does - don't see why its so bad. At least they attack political, economic and military targets - which is more than can be said for civillian strikes by 'respectable' nations.

I'll repeat: "In March 1999, the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. In February 2003, the FARC captured and continues to hold three US contractors and killed one other American and a Colombian when their plane crashed in Florencia."

Executed. Not opps missed the target, executed. Not blew up a building housing terrorist, that happen to have civilians nearby, but executed. As in, I know you have nothing to do with this, you are not military, not part of the government, but just a civilian... kneel, (loud blasts) dead Indian rights activist.

If you can support this, well that's your choice. I can not.

These organizations, unlike governments, don't have tax to fund their bombs, so they need to get their money some other way. Of course drugs and kidnapping for ransom is very bad but its only to be expected from any rebel group whether they are fighting a just cause or not. However, I find it hard to choose who to support, a government that kills civillians in bomb strikes indscriminatly - or an organization that kidnaps a few people and deals hard drugs - they are both dispicable.

American's dont have a problem with running over other peoples borders and taking their residents - but if it happened to someone in your borders from Mexico lets say - you would go absoloutley nuts. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

I am disturbed by this. If I understand your point, you would suggest that because others do it, this is ok and supportable. How can you look at two wrong actions and suggest one is ok?

How can you look at a group and say just because they don't have a tax to fund them (which they did through Venezuela) and say that makes randomly killing civilians who crashed in a plane, an acceptable action?

Granted, you say that 'both are despicable', but clearly you can't really mean that because you support this despicable action. Two wrongs = a right?

Of course we would cross the boarder to nail a terrorist. I have no problem with that what so ever. Nor do I have a problem with Columbia running across the boarder to nail a terrorist killing their people. I'm confused as to why you would suggest otherwise? If a group across the boarder from where you live, attacked and killed your family members, would you not want the government to do something about it? Would you not try to do something yourself? This makes no logical sense. If Ecuador had handed FARC's members to Columbia on a silver platter, this could have been avoided, but since they didn't, yes I'd go across the boarder too, without hesitation.

 

[PLC1]

This is a clip from a "conversation" that I was involved in some time ago with popeye:





That bit of conversation is interesting in light of this news:

Venezuela Troops Head to Colombia Border

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5idVeR04d1FtNZsGLgohMrOgvjNxwD8V6NC383

It looked for a time like you might have been right.

It seems Venezuela has taken a step backward from war

Latin America retreated from the brink of war this weekend after agreeing to seek a peaceful solution to a bitter dispute over Colombia’s cross-border raid into neighbouring Ecuador.

The incursion, to recover the body of a guerrilla leader killed in a Colombian bombing raid, led both Venezuela and Ecuador to send troops to their borders.

“We’re going to begin to deescalate,” said Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s left-wing president.

That's not to say that Chavez isn't a left wing demagogue, just that he may not be the threat to the world that some fear he might be.

 

[9sublime]

Palerider you were never right in the first place. Chavez wasn't taking land, he was retaliating for an illegal act committed on an ally by Columbia. And regardless, your wrong becuase they have agreed a peace treaty.

 

[Andy]

Palerider you were never right in the first place. Chavez wasn't taking land, he was retaliating for an illegal act committed on an ally by Columbia. And regardless, your wrong becuase they have agreed a peace treaty.

Well, that may or may not be true... Just so you know, I'm not following you around to be disagreeable.

But I would make two quick points.

First, really now, dictators rarely give their true intentions. Would you expect for Chavez to stand up and state openly that he intended to go on a military rampage across south America? Of course not. A crafty dictator will always have some excuse to support their actions. Read up on Hitler for example. Hitler never sent his troops into a country without a 'reason' for doing so, never because he wanted to control all of Europe, even though that was the goal from the start.

Don't you even find it just a bit curious that Venezuela moved their troops to the boarder first? That Chavez was in the headlines first, even though Ecuador was the country that Columbia went into? Why was Chavez so hot to march over there before even Ecuador called?

Second, peace treaties, sadly, prove little. In fact, treaties are often used by dictators to get their intended victims off guard. A tactic that Hitler used often. Hitler signed many peace treaties just before invading.

Now, this isn't proof either way. It doesn't prove wrong or right on either account. It's just saying that it's a bit early to make a judgment. There is one thing that stops a dictator, and that's knowing they can't win. Perhaps Chavez was shown that Columbia would win, or perhaps that the US would help and thus make it impossible to win. Who knows.

But only time will tell for sure if Palerider is right. I think if I were Chavez, and I was planning military conquest, I'd wait till after Bush left office. Bush will support our allies. None of the people currently running will. So no matter who wins the election, Chavez will be safer doing a military campaign after Bush leaves office.

 

[9sublime]

Don't you even find it just a bit curious that Venezuela moved their troops to the boarder first? That Chavez was in the headlines first, even though Ecuador was the country that Columbia went into? Why was Chavez so hot to march over there before even Ecuador called?

I'm pretty sure thats a misconception based on the way the US media reported. If I'm not mistaken, Chavez followed after Ecuador.

 

[Andy]

I'm pretty sure thats a misconception based on the way the US media reported. If I'm not mistaken, Chavez followed after Ecuador.

Actually, in checking it out, it's even more amusing. Chavez actually announced that Ecuador was going to send troops to the boarder for them. Chavez announced what Ecuador was going to do, before they did... So no, Chavez didn't follow Ecuador.

But more than this... I found this article covering more information. Now I really dislike Chavez. If you can read this article and still have any support for the man, well... that would scary to me.

Chavez: Hero or Villian?

Quick summery... FARC, Captures wife and two young boys sleeping in their home. Non-military, civilians. FARC issues ransom. Husband pays full ransom. FARC releases two children, but breaks the deal and keeps the wife. Husband attempts to negotiate to get wife, and is shot and killed. (this over a 4 year period)

Meanwhile, Chavez came to power through the support of FARC. They helped supply his military coup. Chavez gets wind of this event, and publicly pays the ransom to FARC, which he already was funding to begin with, and frees the widowed women, to which he is praised widely for securing the release of the widow from the evil terrorist group.

How sick is that. You fund a terrorist group, and then hide your funding in the form of paying the ransom of kidnap victims to get public praise for dealing with the evil terrorist group, while purposefully still funding the terrorist group. An international terrorism scam. This is like some of the charities that fund Hezbollah.

 

[9sublime]

Yeah, thats not nice and I'll say it again, I don't actually support Chavez indepdently. I support him when comparing him to the right wing dictatorships which have been backed by the US and who commit far worse atrocities. America is simply in effect a charity for these horrible dictatorships.

If you hate Chavez for that reason, hate your own government too or its double standards. Chavez is the lesser of two bad things and mainly his intentions are good.

 

[Andy]

Yeah, thats not nice and I'll say it again, I don't actually support Chavez indepdently. I support him when comparing him to the right wing dictatorships which have been backed by the US and who commit far worse atrocities. America is simply in effect a charity for these horrible dictatorships.

If you hate Chavez for that reason, hate your own government too or its double standards. Chavez is the lesser of two bad things and mainly his intentions are good.

Scary. You are in essence saying that two wrongs is a right. Intentions are irrelevant. Hitler had good intentions for his horrors. He believed he was doing it for the good of the nation. So intentions mean very little to me. Further, I wager you would find most of the mistakes the American government has committed, were done with good intentions. So that should work both ways and cancel each other out.

This is disturbing. In the current election, I have already determined to vote for neither side. Obama and Hilliary, neither stand for what I believe, and McCain is a Democrat calling himself republican, which means I can't trust him on anything since he isn't even truthful to what he really is.

I will vote for none of them because none stand for what I support. Point being, when you take a side, you are by virtue of giving one support, you stand for the actions they have taken.

Chavez is directly supporting the murder of innocent civilians. He's even doing it in ways to gain public support against the very group he is supporting. If you support that, you support those actions as well. Saying it's ok because someone else is worse, is a cop out. And murder is murder regardless of intentions.

With that said, perhaps I would better understand you if you gave some examples of what you refer to? List at least a couple since everyone, and every government makes mistakes, but give me a few examples of situations where our government supported a group directly, that was engaged is random acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, and then ransomed people from the same group in a public display against them, while still supporting them? Or something similar?

I just need something to go on, since I can't think of a direct comparison to what is happening here.

Best to you.

 

[9sublime]

Scary. You are in essence saying that two wrongs is a right. Intentions are irrelevant. Hitler had good intentions for his horrors. He believed he was doing it for the good of the nation. So intentions mean very little to me. Further, I wager you would find most of the mistakes the American government has committed, were done with good intentions. So that should work both ways and cancel each other out.

Ah, dragging up Hitler and the Nazis to make me defencless. A cheap tactic. You are admitting America did things with good intentions, but it would be unfair to compare them to the Nazis, as with Chavez.

This is disturbing. In the current election, I have already determined to vote for neither side. Obama and Hilliary, neither stand for what I believe, and McCain is a Democrat calling himself republican, which means I can't trust him on anything since he isn't even truthful to what he really is.

I will vote for none of them because none stand for what I support. Point being, when you take a side, you are by virtue of giving one support, you stand for the actions they have taken.

You vote for the best option, its a basic idea in the system of democracy you obviously don't grasp. Voting for niether serves even less of a purpose than voting for neither.

Chavez is directly supporting the murder of innocent civilians. He's even doing it in ways to gain public support against the very group he is supporting. If you support that, you support those actions as well. Saying it's ok because someone else is worse, is a cop out. And murder is murder regardless of intentions.

America supports right wing governments that do the same to this day. America is thus a murder too and you should despise your own government. Its hypocrisy otherwise.

With that said, perhaps I would better understand you if you gave some examples of what you refer to? List at least a couple since everyone, and every government makes mistakes, but give me a few examples of situations where our government supported a group directly, that was engaged is random acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, and then ransomed people from the same group in a public display against them, while still supporting them? Or something similar?

I just need something to go on, since I can't think of a direct comparison to what is happening here.

Best to you.

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Right-Wing-Dictatorships-1965-1989/dp/0521861330

I reccomend this book if you don't know anything about your governments sordid past.

 

[Andy]

Ah, dragging up Hitler and the Nazis to make me defencless. A cheap tactic. You are admitting America did things with good intentions, but it would be unfair to compare them to the Nazis, as with Chavez.

I think it's a fair point. Do intentions make actions justified? Of course America has done things with good intentions that were wrong. No one suggests otherwise. In fact, every government on the planet has done things with good intentions that were not right.

You vote for the best option, its a basic idea in the system of democracy you obviously don't grasp. Voting for niether serves even less of a purpose than voting for neither.

There is not a 'best option'. When looking at three equal piles of dirt, you can't pick one and say it's the 'best dirt'. Personal attacks aside... when none of the options are 'best' then voting for no one is better since I would not want anyone to think I support the bad options. Sorry if that sounds like a cop out, but see absolutely no difference between Obama McCain and Hilliary. Each and everyone of them has the exact same socialistic views on every important issue. I absolutely will not vote for someone who doesn't stand for a single thing the country was built on.

America supports right wing governments that do the same to this day. America is thus a murder too and you should despise your own government. Its hypocrisy otherwise.

Until you convince me that what you claim is true, then hypocrisy is less factual, than it is opinion.

In looking up the book you listed, I found some interesting things. However, I hope you will not find this an attack on you personally when I say, it's very ironic.

This first section I read was about the Congo, and General Mobutu. The first thing I noticed was the very few references given. Whereas most books of this nature have dozens on each page, this book gave one or two on most. Thus, this book comes across as a book where they found evidence to support the already determined answer, rather than finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it.

But to get to the evidence given, I have two issues. First, the book claims Mobutu was a right-wing dictator. Is this true? I suggest not. Mobutu confiscated foreign owned businesses and nationalized them. That's left-wing socialism. Mobutu consolidated labor and trade unions, into one union, and then nationalized it. That's left-wing socialism. Mobutu stamped out all free speech. That's a left-wing, not right-wing policy. Mobutu garnered majority control over the two largest industries in the Congo, namely foresting and oil. This governmental take over of business and industry increased even more in the later years. That's left-wing socialism.

So why did the US support Mobutu? A number of reasons. Mobutu, prior to his rule, was a very stand up guy. He supported his country, and his goals were stability and peace. From 1960 to 1965, Congo was a mess, and I'm being nice. Assassinations, ethnic violence, rebellions, terrorism, coups, Soviet influence, Chinese influence, Belgium influence, and on and on. When you have 5 or 6 changes in government in 5 years time, and bloody fights between each... that is what you call unstable.

So there were 3 things the US government wanted. Mobutu promised all of them. An end to the chaotic national violence. Stop the spread of Soviet Communism. A return to a government elected by the people. Mobutu promised all 3. Of course he failed the last one.

One massive difference between US and Mobutu and Chavez and FARC, is that the US didn't know what Mobutu was going to do with the opportunity given to him. And at the start, it looked like he was going to do great things by restoring order, and rebuilding the nation. Further, even when Mobutu did do human rights abuses, we constantly pressured him to change.

In contrast, Chavez never told FARC not to do the meaningless slaughter of innocent civilians, and in fact supported them in the very acts they did by openly paying them for those acts.

But the most interesting thing is, the rational for still supporting him over the Soviets. Isn't that interesting? They believed that they picked one who, despite being a bad dictator, was still better than the alternative. Sound familiar?

It is the very rational that you use to support Chavez and FARC, over the US. I find that very interesting, that the very same reasoning the US supported 'an evil dictator', is the same reasoning you support an evil dictator over them. Maybe you are no better than the very government you are against? Again, this isn't personal. I don't know you, perhaps you are a decent guy. However, I can't help but make that outside observation that you suggest I pick the 'less of three evils' in voting, while that is exactly what the US did with Mobutu.

 

[9sublime]

I don't want to go through and answer every point you've made if thats OK - I'd rather just sum up my position now as we seem to be going round in circles.

I admit, Chavez is far from perfect, as is socialism. I admit, I cannot truely support what he is funding, but I believe his intentions on socialism and funding this group are good - but he is aware of the negatives of each.

Just like America, whos government is far from a perfect democracy and nowhere near the 'land of the free' image they give off. America has supported, and continues to support some very bad people in some very bad governments and groups e.g. Bin Laden, various African and South American dictatorships who regardless of whether they are left or right wing, commit massive human rights abuses. America supports them not even for their ideologies, but for their oil or other valuable goods.

So, we can assume that both are hypocritical and bad things - Chavez and the US. So I'd like to draw a point out of your view on voting out of three piles of crap in the election race.

America, bad. Chavez, bad. Which one is better? I say on some issues chavez, on some the US - and in this instance I've decided I like Chavez because hes sticking it to the US and other evil governments around him.

If you don't admit both are equally bad in the respect of support evil groups, governments and people, I venture to say that your rational is clouded by your bias towards America.

 

[9sublime]

When it comes to the election, voting between Hiliary, Obama or McCain - you have to pick the best one out of the three, even if you regard them all as terrible candidates, because if you don't vote for anyone, your vote is even more wasted.

 

[Andy]

When it comes to the election, voting between Hiliary, Obama or McCain - you have to pick the best one out of the three, even if you regard them all as terrible candidates, because if you don't vote for anyone, your vote is even more wasted.

We agree to disagree then. Each and every single one of them is absolutely horrible. I can not find one redeeming position taken by any of them. If I had to vote by force, I'd just have to draw straws, or after the Obama Hilliary garbage is done, just flip a coin between the two remaining trash heaps. I still hold out hope that an independent will pop up that is better than the two main ones. Even if the independent has no hope of winning, at least I can vote for someone I believe in.

 

[9sublime]

We agree to disagree then. Each and every single one of them is absolutely horrible. I can not find one redeeming position taken by any of them. If I had to vote by force, I'd just have to draw straws, or after the Obama Hilliary garbage is done, just flip a coin between the two remaining trash heaps. I still hold out hope that an independent will pop up that is better than the two main ones. Even if the independent has no hope of winning, at least I can vote for someone I believe in.

A vote used is never a wasted vote.