Chavez to provide cheap oil to poor Americans

[opebo]

It is heating oil that is being given away, John Ford.  The program is of course organized as a direct sale to people who meet certain income qualifications, not just anyone off the street.  Excellent publicity and of course a tremendous help to a small portion of the desperate working class in the US.

[opebo]

Chavez's offer is about 200k barrels of heating oil.  This will have no impact on heating prices, which Chavez is doubtlessly aware of.  It is simply a public relations stunt that does nothing to help average Venezuelans, let alone poor Americans.

Obviously it will greatly help the American poors who recieve the heating oil.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hah, I think you're confusing him with Bush, who has wasted hundreds of billions of his country's riches on wars that are destructive of the national interest.

[opebo]

The answer was "no", but that leftist prick in Spain is going to sell it anyway, even though anything with over 50% of the components of U.S. origin can be blocked by the U.S. - and that includes 10 CASA-295 cargo planes in the deal. I hadn't previously considered Zapatero to be a U.S. enemy, but with selling U.S. technology to a regime hostile to the U.S., I guess he is now.

Oh, and nice to see Chavez spending his oil wealth on his people.

The same could be said for the regime in Washington, which wastes enormous amounts of money on similar military nonsense, leaving a large percentage of Americans in dire poverty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In fairness, his opponents no doubt have their own right-wing death squads as well, and certainly right-wing death squads, backed by the US, are commonplace throughout Latin American history.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly.  Remember you're only getting a version of events filtered through the American (right wing) press.

Anyway, the main point to make about Chavez is that you right-wingers don't seem to mind the dozens of right-wing dictators that have thrived throughout the third world, and particularly in Latin America.  In fact nearly all of that type of dictator have been generously supported by the empire.  Turnabout is fair play, don't you think?  If Pinochet can slaughter the socialists, why can't Chavez slaughter a few fascists?

[opebo]

opebo i thought you were a big fan of pinochet?

Blue Opebo was.  And I still find him an effective political servant of his class - the owners.  In point of fact the man was enormously more ruthless in pursuit of his fascistic cause than Chavez is in his (supposedly) socialist cause.

[opebo]

The same could be said for the regime in Washington, which wastes enormous amounts of money on similar military nonsense, leaving a large percentage of Americans in dire poverty.

Actually, it's all the spending on old people that consumes the budget.

No, I'm fine with that spending.  Regardless of how much is spent upon the old, the - what is it? - 500 billion dollar 'defense' and war budget is almost entirely wasted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, those 'reasons' are just manufactured for the fearful public's consumption by the War Party and the military-industrial complex.  Nor do we have enough money to do both, as the lower half of the American populace now exists in a state of desperation, deprivation, and ill-health.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Chavez isn't planning to cause trouble, he knows he is a target of the empire, which will cause plenty of trouble for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chavez's is also a democratically elected government.

[opebo]

No, those 'reasons' are just manufactured for the fearful public's consumption by the War Party and the military-industrial complex.  Nor do we have enough money to do both, as the lower half of the American populace now exists in a state of desperation, deprivation, and ill-health.

In your opinion. Maintaining national security requires many things, among them a globally-capable military force. Every other time we've slashed military spending we've come to regret it since some damn hostile force comes at us (the Germans in the 1930s, the Soviets in both the 1940s and 1970s, the Islamists in the 1990s) and we end up having to catch up our spending anyway. And I'm enough of a nationalist to support remaining on top of the global power scale.

Well, in the first place, the Germans didn't actually 'come at' the US, it was the Japanese who did that.  In the second place, when did the Soviets ever commit an aggression against the US?  Certainly I don't remember them doing a damn thing in the 1970's.  You surely aren't referring to their support of indigeonous  leftist revolutionary movements the third world?  Because the US did far, far more to support various fascist dictatorships during the whole postwar period than the Soviets ever did for their part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, he's already meddled in Colombia and Bolivia and is targeting Ecuador, Peru, and maybe Honduras and other countries.[/quote]

He isn't 'targeting' those places, he's helping various left-wing elements within those societies, just as the US meddles on an enormously greater scale to help the right-wing elements within those societies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps.  If so he will join the company of a very long list of right-wing Latin-American dictators, and, as you say, Castro.

[opebo]

The Soviets made a serious push at exerting control over all of Europe in the 1940's and early 1950's, most definitely with the aim of wiping out U.S. allies and gaining control of Eurasia, something that would have left them with enough power to seriously try and dominate the planet.

Someone's a Risk player!   But seriously, this is a reasonable point, but just try looking at it from their perspective.  I'm sure to them the map looked like their cold, relatively unproductive lands were surrounded by richer territories dominated by a considerably more powerful opponent.  They may have viewed control of Eurasia as essential for their survival.  I think both sides encompass their agressions in terms of defense.  Lastly, in places like Korea, China, and Vietnam, they really were responding to significant indigeonous revolutions in those countries, rather than leading the way.  In fact they just as frequently as not left their socialist brethren hanging when the larger superpower confronted them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but the point was that the American empire had far more influence than the Soviets before that.  The 70's were just a poor attempt to equalize the situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm sure that is a lot of people's fondest dream, but where they fall flat is in the 'possible' nature of that goal. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now this is absurd - the US wanted the Third World firmly under control for the purpose of profit.  The purpose of US foreign policy has always been - like that of any imperialist enterprise - to fend off foreign powers and control satellite states for exploitation by the capitalist interests of the mother country.  The Soviets were usually supporting indigenous left-wing movements that arose out of the misery this imperialist system caused, and as often as not they actually gained no material benefit from trying to help out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any and all US influence in Latin America - that is a tall order!  His only advantage is that virtually everyone down there hates us.  But I don't see how you can blame Chavez for wanting to support his fellow leftists, just as the US wants to support its fellow rightsts in Latin America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, Da Silva is also not much of a leftist - he's governing from just about the center, and hasn't really done anything to redistribute.  But I would say that Chavez's ambitions seem much greater than Cuba 2.0.  Obviously Venezuala is an enormously richer country, and in addition has much greater international significance due to oil.  Whether Cuba did or did not exist tomorrow wouldnt' really make much difference to the rest of the world.

My final point would be - isn't it impressive that this little fellow is shaking his fist at the empire?  Whether you agree with him or not you have to admire his machismo.  Quixotic, but rather bold.

[opebo]

It does strike me how little Chavez, and the left in general, think of human freedom -- willing to sell their their liberty to a communist dictatorship for a bowl of rice or a tank of gas.

Yes, freedom means nothing to someone who is starving.

[opebo]

It does strike me how little Chavez, and the left in general, think of human freedom -- willing to sell their their liberty to a communist dictatorship for a bowl of rice or a tank of gas.

Yes, freedom means nothing to someone who is starving.

Except: in those socialist and leftwing dictatorships, the extent of starvation is often a great deal worse than it was previously, q.v. Ukraine in 1930s, Ethiopia in mid 1980s, etc.

Sure, but no one who is hungry is thinking about that.  If you're hungry all you are thinking about is food, and you're willing to anything to get it right now.