Oil in Cuba

[Shira]

Do you believe that Castro would still be the president of Cuba if Cuba had oil like Iraq?

[Richard]

Yes.

[J.R. Brown]

Yes.

Why?

[Lunar]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

[TX_1824]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

[Platypus]

Has this oil just been dscovered? If so, yes. If it was 40 years ago, no, because the UIS would'ver funded a rebellion against Castro, and then a rebellion against his replacement

[J.R. Brown]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

Part oil, part personal vendetta, part evil dictator who murdered millions.

Evil dictator gone-good
Personal vendetta-resolved
Oil-1500 dead

If the main reason for the war was to destroy an evil regime who possessed WMD's, them why didn't we start with a country who actually had WMD's? You conservatives have always been isolationists, never wanting to put US resources in a country unless it directly affected us, so why have you become so humanitarian all of a sudden?

[TX_1824]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

Part oil, part personal vendetta, part evil dictator who murdered millions.

Evil dictator gone-good
Personal vendetta-resolved
Oil-1500 dead

If the main reason for the war was to destroy an evil regime who possessed WMD's, them why didn't we start with a country who actually had WMD's? You conservatives have always been isolationists, never wanting to put US resources in a country unless it directly affected us, so why have you become so humanitarian all of a sudden?

First, I'm not a conservative. I don't know how I can be a conservative if I'm pro-choice and not a Christian, so stop over generalizing. I'm a centrist (moderate) Republican.

I think most can agree that different problems call for different solutions. Not all problems can be delt with diplomacy. With regards to Iraq, I believe that the war was justified, however, the post-war was badly planned. They didn't seriously consider a Palestinian-like resistance and are now paying for it. I tend to take the Bill Maher approach towards Iraq. What is going in Iraq has led to popular democratic movements in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (to an extent; women still can't vote) and the Palestinian territories. The fact that the Palestinians might have an actual state and at peace with Isreal is a real probability and not just "talk". All this goes back to the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jon Stewart even said about George W. Bush, "my kids are going to a school named after him". To say that Republicans are isolationists is just a foolish thing to say. If isolationist means not working with the UN, then call me an isolationist. While your at it, you can call Clinton an isloationist as well. If anything you, not Democrats in general, lack foresight.

[The Duke]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

Part oil, part personal vendetta, part evil dictator who murdered millions.

Evil dictator gone-good
Personal vendetta-resolved
Oil-1500 dead

If the main reason for the war was to destroy an evil regime who possessed WMD's, them why didn't we start with a country who actually had WMD's? You conservatives have always been isolationists, never wanting to put US resources in a country unless it directly affected us, so why have you become so humanitarian all of a sudden?

If we knew we were lying about WMDs, but were clever enough to convice the world otherwise, why weren't we also clever enough to plant fake WMDs in Iraq once we got there?

[Blue Rectangle]

Do you believe that Castro would still be the president of Cuba if Cuba had oil like Iraq?

Cuba does have a fair amount of oil offshore.  Notice that the U.S. Gulf Coast, the Mexican Gulf Coast and Venezulea are all big oil producers.  Future oil discoveries in Cuba are likely to lead to friendlier relations between the U.S. and Cuba (much as we are currently forced to be nice Venezuela).

[J.R. Brown]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

Part oil, part personal vendetta, part evil dictator who murdered millions.

Evil dictator gone-good
Personal vendetta-resolved
Oil-1500 dead

If the main reason for the war was to destroy an evil regime who possessed WMD's, them why didn't we start with a country who actually had WMD's? You conservatives have always been isolationists, never wanting to put US resources in a country unless it directly affected us, so why have you become so humanitarian all of a sudden?

First, I'm not a conservative. I don't know how I can be a conservative if I'm pro-choice and not a Christian, so stop over generalizing. I'm a centrist (moderate) Republican.

I think most can agree that different problems call for different solutions. Not all problems can be delt with diplomacy. With regards to Iraq, I believe that the war was justified, however, the post-war was badly planned. They didn't seriously consider a Palestinian-like resistance and are now paying for it. I tend to take the Bill Maher approach towards Iraq. What is going in Iraq has led to popular democratic movements in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (to an extent; women still can't vote) and the Palestinian territories. The fact that the Palestinians might have an actual state and at peace with Isreal is a real probability and not just "talk". All this goes back to the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jon Stewart even said about George W. Bush, "my kids are going to a school named after him". To say that Republicans are isolationists is just a foolish thing to say. If isolationist means not working with the UN, then call me an isolationist. While your at it, you can call Clinton an isloationist as well. If anything you, not Democrats in general, lack foresight.

I was addressing conservatives in general. In general, conservatives in the past have been anti-intervertion when it comes to foreign affairs until recently. When you're presenting a simple generalizaton you tend to generalize. Hence my generalization. If I wanted to do an indepth analysis of conservatives I would. But I don't have time for that. They may have went into Iraq for a number of reasons. Oil or they may have really wanted to democratize the country. In doing all of this they may have accidently started a trend in the Middle East. Supporting the UN and cooperating with other countries is a good thing. The problem with the U.S. is that we're so ethnocentric, we believe that our culture is supperior to anyone elses, that we can't play nice with the other kids in the neighborhood. There are some that need to be bullied, but not the entire world. That's not how we work.

[KEmperor]

You need a better education about our history with Cuba, starting in the early 1960s.

[Platypus]

i'd go 20 years earlier, KEmp.

[opebo]

No, of course not.  Though the only reason Castro has not been killed by the US is that the 'threat' of Cuba was a good scare tactic to bring out right-wing votes during the cold war, as well as the rich-Cuban vote now residing in Florida.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yes, that's also why the US has it's extremely hypocritical stances on trade with China and trade with Cuba.

[ragnar]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

While i tend to believe the worst of Bush, i agree that he won´t invade Venezuela.
but I don´t think even the worst republican/conservative partisan would call Venezuel an dictatorship.
If there was discovered big quentaty of oil in a HOSTILE dictatorship close to USA in an nonmuslim country, do anybody really think that ANY American adminsteration wouldn´t takes step to bring this strategecal resource under american control?

[Lunar]

I'm an independent liberal and I don't feel that Castro and Chavez are really all that different in political status.  Chavez pretends a bit more and Jimmy Carter thinks he's decent, but that's about it.

Just like every country, American foreign policy acts in its best interests. 

[ragnar]

I'm an independent liberal and I don't feel that Castro and Chavez are really all that different in political status.  Chavez pretends a bit more and Jimmy Carter thinks he's decent, but that's about it.

Just like every country, American foreign policy acts in its best interests. 

1: Castro and Chavez are both autoritan leaders, but while Cuba is an one party dictatorship, Venezuela is not, it has nothing to do with the leaders, who are both amoral greedy bastards, who deserves to end up in prison for the rest of their lives, it´s the two countries who are different.

2: it was not an attack on US.

[The Duke]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

While i tend to believe the worst of Bush, i agree that he won´t invade Venezuela.
but I don´t think even the worst republican/conservative partisan would call Venezuel an dictatorship.
If there was discovered big quentaty of oil in a HOSTILE dictatorship close to USA in an nonmuslim country, do anybody really think that ANY American adminsteration wouldn´t takes step to bring this strategecal resource under american control?

I can't imagine any serious person not calling Venezuela a dictatorship.

[WMS]

So...it'd be like Venzuela basically?

I agree with Lunar. Venezuela is one of the largest producers of crude oil, 4th in the world if I believe, and has a very hostile president towards the U.S. in office. If we follow the theory that Iraq was all for oil, than Venzuela should be next on the list. Somehow I doubt we will have forces on the ground there anytime soon.

While i tend to believe the worst of Bush, i agree that he won´t invade Venezuela.
but I don´t think even the worst republican/conservative partisan would call Venezuel an dictatorship.
If there was discovered big quentaty of oil in a HOSTILE dictatorship close to USA in an nonmuslim country, do anybody really think that ANY American adminsteration wouldn´t takes step to bring this strategecal resource under american control?

I can't imagine any serious person not calling Venezuela a dictatorship.

The International Freedom of Expression eXchange agrees with John Ford and Lunar.

As does the U.S. Department of State

and so does the Global Coordinating Committee for Press Freedom Organizations (GCCPFO)

and the Inter-American Press Association

and Reporters Without Borders

even those lefties at Human Rights Watch agree

And that's just talking about the repressive press laws Chavez and company recently put into place...

[ragnar]

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/venezuela.htm

Political Rights: 3
Civil Liberties: 4
Status:   Partly Free


Venezuela is not a nice place, but it´s not a dictatorship

[J. J.]

Ah, Cuba might have oill.

http://www.energybulletin.net/1212.html

[WMS]

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/venezuela.htm

Political Rights: 3
Civil Liberties: 4
Status:   Partly Free


Venezuela is not a nice place, but it´s not a dictatorship

Those ratings have only been this good because of the resistance to Chavez. Now that Chavez stole bought 'won' the referendum, he's busy attacking anything that might possibly stand in his way. Read those links again - "The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities." - from Human Rights Watch. Hello, what do you think Chavez is doing with these laws if not crushing all dissent?

[ragnar]

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/venezuela.htm

Political Rights: 3
Civil Liberties: 4
Status:   Partly Free


Venezuela is not a nice place, but it´s not a dictatorship

Those ratings have only been this good because of the resistance to Chavez. Now that Chavez stole bought 'won' the referendum, he's busy attacking anything that might possibly stand in his way. Read those links again - "The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities." - from Human Rights Watch. Hello, what do you think Chavez is doing with these laws if not crushing all dissent?

It´s not the Character of the ruler, who tells us, whetever a country is dictatorship, but the character of the people. While they are rare there have been enlighted dictators (or rather monarchs), but this doesn´t make their countries democrazies, bad and authoritarian democratic rulers doesn´t make a country a dictartorship either.

[WMS]

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/venezuela.htm

Political Rights: 3
Civil Liberties: 4
Status:   Partly Free


Venezuela is not a nice place, but it´s not a dictatorship

Those ratings have only been this good because of the resistance to Chavez. Now that Chavez stole bought 'won' the referendum, he's busy attacking anything that might possibly stand in his way. Read those links again - "The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities." - from Human Rights Watch. Hello, what do you think Chavez is doing with these laws if not crushing all dissent?

It´s not the Character of the ruler, who tells us, whetever a country is dictatorship, but the character of the people. While they are rare there have been enlighted dictators (or rather monarchs), but this doesn´t make their countries democrazies, bad and authoritarian democratic rulers doesn´t make a country a dictartorship either.

The trendlines are worrying, and not headed in a good direction. You'll see in the months and years to come...