Chavez considers buying Russian Military aircraft..

[Skink]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1759656&C=america


An in your face political move.:wow:

[SteppingRazor]

1. Yeah, a stupid one.

What constructive purpose does this serve?

[atreides1]

4. Why is it stupid to want to defend your country

It serves the purpose that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are not a US puppet state, and that as a sovereign nation they have the right to purchase military equipment for their defense from anyone they choose.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Defend from whom?

You and I both know this is pure politics, not any reasonable defense purchase.

[Virginia Dare]

6. Perhaps, um....

Us?

[SteppingRazor]

8. Oh yeah. We're gonna invade Venezuela.

:eyes:

[Virginia Dare]

10. Why does that seem so unlikely to you?...n/t

[SteppingRazor]

12. On the contrary, why does it seem so likely to you?

First, with the conflict in Iraq, it's not militarily viable.

Second, without a trumped up U.N. mandate, it's not globally politically viable.

Third, given the present outlook of the Iraq War and the general attitude toward Bush, it's not domestically politically viable.

Fourth, with a nationalized oil industry that marks its oil to the dollar, has no intention of turning Euro and counts the U.S. as its biggest customer, there's no economic reason.

Fifth, Venezuela poses no real threat to the U.S. or its interests, instead serving only as a whipping boy for the rhetoric of conservative American politicians -- rhetoric that would no longer be effectual without the Chavez government in power.

There is, in other words, not a single reason to go to war with Venezuela, and a host of very good reasons not to.

[Virginia Dare]

14. I don't know if it's likely or not...

but it's certainly something that Venezuela should be thinking about..as should any other country out there with rich oil reserves who isn't happily turning them over to the oil lords.

[SteppingRazor]

15. Well, one last rather morbid point about that...

Suppose Chavez bought a few Russian fighters. Hell, suppose he bought 50 of them. If we decided to invade, do you really think they'd do him any good whatsoever? Or would they be bombed to pieces before they ever got off the ground? I'd go with the latter. If there's one thing this country does well, it's blow the shit out of other countries.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. But that wouldn't happen if they bought American...? Wake up to

yourself.

[SteppingRazor]

22. Well, the last time I tried to debate you...

you said I wasn't "fit to lick Castro's boots." So, you'll forgive me if you've lost any credibility you may have had with me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. That dratted briar patch again. Oh me, oh my...

You mean you realy think you are?

[SteppingRazor]

46. .

:boring:

[Virginia Dare]

20. Another point...

I doubt Chavez is going to announce to the world exactly what he is or is not doing, but at least he's letting every one know that he's not going to sit back and let the U.S. tell him what to do.

[SteppingRazor]

21. I can certainly agree with you there...

I suppose I just don't like the idea of more killing machines being tossed around.

[Virginia Dare]

33. No argument there...

I was just debating you on the point that he was being stupid. I don't think Hugo Chavez is a stupid man at all. George Bush on the other hand....

[Jayhawk Lib]

25. He is wasting his people's money....

If the United States or anyone else decided to invade Venezuela those planes would do him no good whatsoever. Plus they are going to be very expensive to maintain.

If he was really interested in helping the poor, and the majority in Venezuela are poor, the money would have been better spent to help them.

I know I am in the minority here at DU but I do not trust Chavez at all.

[AllieB]

29. There is good evidence that he needs to defend himself against the US

And this is from a reliable source:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

But then again, you also said that in your opinion, "the Kennedys are on the same level as the Bush family" and Ted is a 'hypocritical elitist' on another thread, which begs the question, do actually ever check your facts before you post?

[Jayhawk Lib]

34. If the US decides to attack

Venezuela those planes will be useless. The US is not going to attack Venezuela and if it did his air force would be impotent.

This guy, Chavez, is not playing with a full deck. There is so much need in Venezuela that it is fool hardy to try to be like the big boys. It looks like a little kid trying to add toys to his toy box.

What I said about the Kennedys in a previous post still goes. Ted is a hypocritical elitist.

[AllieB]

35. Well, it's very telling that you compared the Kennedys to the Bushes

What exactly makes him a hypocritical elitist? There were actual links that disproved your private jet talking point on that other thread. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2639077

What actual evidence have you presented about Kennedy's record, his supposed elitism, or Chavez for that matter? :-)

[Jayhawk Lib]

36. Why doesn't

the senator condemn flying of private jets. They are way more inefficient and use much more fuel than suvs. I cannot give you the link but he flew in on a corporate jet last week to make a speech. He does fly commercial from time to time but he likes to fly on corporate private jets when ever he gets a chance. That is fine with me but when he bad mouths suvs being inefficient and not private aircraft that makes him a hypocritical elitist. He gives a lot of lip service to causes of the poor but has accomplished very little.

Why is he fighting a wind farm that has been approved to be put near the Boston Harbor. It has been approved but he and Walter Cronkite are fighting it because they will be able to see it from their elite retreat at Hyannis Port.

IMHO Chavez is spending his poor country's resources to buy those fighter jets from Russia or from anybody. Those jets will do him as much good as Saddam's did to protect his regime. It is foolish for him to spend money on them when there is so much need in his own country. It looks like to me he just wants to have some toys in his toy box so he will look like a big boy.

Time will tell what kind of leader he will be but he is looking more flaky all the time to me. That is my opinion and I am as entitled to it as you are yours. We will just have to wait and see who is correct.

[AllieB]

37. He flew a small plane that got struck by lightening last week

not a corporate jet.

Again, you can't support his failures with, but plenty of people on that other thread posted FACTUAL INFORMATION WITH LINKS about Ted's accomplishments. Opinion needs to be supported with actual facts around here, though that may not be the case on other message boards you frequent.

More opinion and BS about Chavez. Have you ever read any books or articles about the US interference in South American governments? Here is hard evidence that the US tried to overthrow Chavez in 2002:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

[Jayhawk Lib]

44. Wait and see what Chavez

turns out to be. Time will tell.

Ted K. we already know what he is and what he is about.

[AllieB]

45. Another specious attack with no links

Again, I ask you to post a link to his Senatorial failures, and you can't, unless they're from right-wing sources. And you're from a state that's not represented by Ted, so you have no idea how he's helped Massachusetts. We're not #1 in education, healthcare for the poor, and standard of living because he hasn't done anything on the federal level to help us.

Same with Chavez. Are you still in high school or college? Did you ever take a basic history or poli sci class? You could never get away with strawmen, ad hominem attacks, anecdotal evidence, and not backing up your assertions.

Maybe you'd feel comfortable at another website where you're not regularly challenged to provide concrete evidence? As I recall, Yahoo is full of these types of messageboards, and so are some other websites that you are probably already familiar with.

A Democrat who hates Ted Kennedy is an extremely rare creature, and, I wonder if that creature really exists...

[Judi Lynn]

47. Thank goodness you finally mentioned it. I've been wondering during

the strange attack on Senator Kennedy who on EARTH would go to a Democratic message board and try to savage a very effective, hard-working Democratic senator.

Damned odd.

People who have an obsession with Kennedys are usually called idiots Republicans.

[AllieB]

48. Exactly, Judi Lynn. I was waiting for someone to bring up Chappaquiddick,

the drug overdose of David Kennedy, the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith, all in an effort to provide right-wing talking points to back up what is, at best, a very suspicious hatred of one of the best Senators that we've ever had.

[Jayhawk Lib]

50. I do not hate anybody...not even you

I do not need a link to let you know that that I think Kennedy is an elitist hypocrite and I do not trust Chavez.

Kennedy's record is already established and with Chavez it is just a wait and see thing. So far, to say the least, I am very skeptical of Chavez and he has done nothing to change my scepticism....

[AllieB]

51. Who is this 'we' that you speak of?

99.9% of Democrats view him favorably.

Ted K. we already know what he is and what he is about.

Well, obviously you don't know what Ted's all about, because intellectual laziness has prevented you from even googling his record to provide links.

Nice try spreading manure here.

[Jayhawk Lib]

53. WE!!!!!

That is you and me, know what Ted K. is and what he is about. There should be no debate on that. You know what he is and what he is about and I know what he is and what he is about.

[AllieB]

54. Have you taken a lesson in abstruse obfuscation from Rumsfeld?

I'm amazed you didn't use the terms 'known knowns and unknown knowns'.

I really don't think you know what Kennedy is all about, or that you share the opinion of the WE that is 99.9% of the Democratic party.

[Jayhawk Lib]

57. I am really glad that

99.9% of the Democratic Party agree on something.

Is there something about 'known knowns and unknown knowns' that I should know about????

[AllieB]

65. No more Rumsfeldian slips

:-(

[Horse with no Name]

61. WTF are you talking about?

"we" know what Ted Kennedy is and what he is about?

As Allie stated, Massachusetts wouldn't be leading the nation in things that are near and dear to progressives if he wasn't doing his job.

Please explain your position and cite your sources for your position.

[Judi Lynn]

56. Yeah, AllieB, we know what he's like, don't we, wink wink, nudge nudge

You're looking at possibly some of the oddest posting ever attempted here.

You're right, a little more time diving in there for some actual facts to post would make so much more sense than insinuation!

Some people have gotten completely out of touch with the actual job definition, and hope to avoid dealing with his far more than adequate (according to his constituents) handling of his job, and try to live in the murky world of fantasy and unwholesome gossip and lies, instead.

I once heard Rush Limbaugh claim many years ago, Senator Kennedy and Senator Thomas Dodd stayed in a restaurant after hours and had a "threesome" with a waitress who worked there. I nearly fell out of my chair hearing that. Why on EARTH would a grown person want to wallow in this kind of yarn weaving, and gossip spreading? They are simple idiots.

Jeezus H. Christ.

[stevekatz]

59. since links are so important

Can we have a link where 99.9% of registered democrats view Chavez (or Kennedy) favorably?

[Judi Lynn]

60. How about the results of the elections ,when they win?

That's about as good as you can get for statistics.

[Horse with no Name]

62. Nice of you to come over and help your friend

:)

[AllieB]

63. The stench is unbearable, isn't it?

Now all we have to do is sit and wait for more strawmen and unsubstantiated opinions.

[AllieB]

64. What do you think of Ted Kennedy?

What do you think of Chavez?

Can't wait for your well-informed answers!

[Judi Lynn]

49. A well focused article always helps balance against near malaria ravings.

Thanks for posting this Observer article concerning the _Bush (a pathetic buttinsky) coup against Hugo Chavez. Might as well paste in here a bit of their remarks, to increase the odds certain visitors slow down and read them:

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.
(snip)

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.
( snip)

It couldn't be much clearer than this. Anyone who approves of _Bush's attempt to overthrow the will of the Venezuelan people through their election is wildly at odds with democratic principles.

[primative1]

38. Military build ups are a waste of resources

I am totaly in agreement. You need to look no further than home.
I was watching the cprporate nightly newscast last night and they were brodcasting from Africa, trying to depict the misery level for some yet unknown purpose and I got into a discusion about whether there realy were enough resources left in the world to do anything about that. If the world pooled all the actual assets that are left today into one big bucket could we feed the world? I wonder.
We likely spend 3/4 of ours on "defense" and have for decades. We didnt defeat the soviets, we outborrowed them and they went bankrupt. Now Venezuala is trying to step up to the plate and get involved in the next military buildup? Whats the point, if push comes to shove I think there is little doubt that old uncle sam will spend more, we have a higher credit line (for some reason),
Stop the insanity.

[Paulie]

41. We have a history

Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"?

It's laid out quite clearly how we helped engineer the most recent coup just before the Iraq invasion.

We had no mandate for Iraq, trumped up or not. No nation can act to enforce UN resolutions INDEPENDENTLY of the Security Council. It was illegal.

As I said, we have a history...

[Union Thug]

7. nonsense. The US has been a threat to democratically elected

governments in latin america for decades and decades. Chavez is making a wise decision.

[SteppingRazor]

11. A threat, absolutely. A military threat? Not at all.

Economic destruction via "free trade" and neo-liberal economic policies won't be stopped by a couple of MiGs.

You could point out that we had a large hand in aiding rebels in proxy wars throughout central America in the 1980s, thus the military threat. I would respond by saying that such hardware would serve little use in a guerilla conflict, other than serve up heavy collateral damage. Besides which, there is no popular rightist movement in Venezuela, unlike the central American conflicts of the 1980s, so citing such conflicts is a moot point.

[rman]

43. Panama, Greneda...

[paparush]

13. Once upon a time, Iraq was pure politics too....

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. See if you can guess... Go on. What's political about it?

Still waiting for your answer. Not just me, but other DUers. Is it written in the stars that they should buy US? Are their fighters better than the Russians'? Even though they won't provide an after-sales service!!!! Dumbo!

[dansolo]

67. This is a PR move. Nothing more.

It is obvious to me that this is just a response to the US banning arms sales to Venezuela, including pressuring other countries to not sell arms to Venezuela either. Every country has a sovereign right to defend itself. The purchase of these jets is more of a symbolic gesture, on the part of both Venezuela *AND* Russia.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0517/dailyUpdate.html

[rman]

42. Just look at the history of US foreign policy in Latin America

[Bandit]

52. You do know that Venezuela is and has been under constant

attack from Columbian Militias and more than a thousand Venezuelans have been murdered by the Colombians in just the last year. Along the northern border there is no place safe. Are you so uninformed that you know nothing of this?

[radio4progressives]

55. Pure Politics? Then no worries, no point in responding.

Are you versed in what is a "reasonable defense purchase"?

[IndianaGreen]

66. Defend Venezuela from the biggest terrorist in the world: Bush!

What is not a "reasonable defense purchase" is our own bloated Pentagon budget, the largest in the entire world! Thousands of WMDs, submarines and carriers we don't need, against imaginary enemies.

[Dufaeth]

23. There are other unfriendly right wing countries in the americas

such as Columbia. This could be just as much a message for them

[ladjf]

26. The U.S. has refused to supply Venezuela with spare parts for

the 21 F16's they now own and they are disallowing anyone else from sell them the parts. So, Chavez is selling the F16's and has to replace them with some for which he can buy parts. What else could he have done?

[unhappycamper]

2. Chavez buying American military aircraft is about as smart

as dimwit&co buying Chinese computers for secure communications.

Never mind.

Chavez is smarter.

[flamin lib]

3. What the hell, the US has cut him off for spare parts for F-16s.

What good is an airplane with a busted engine or avionics? Don't see as he has much choice.

[Skink]

9. Maybe Chavez should just lease the Russian Military..

We outsource all the time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Nuff said.

[ladjf]

28. Not only did the U.S. refuse to sell him parts for the F16's they

wouldn't allow anyone else to sell them either.

[AllieB]

31. Now that's hubris

Wouldn't allow any other country to sell him replacement parts. Jeez.

[cliss]

17. Do you ever get the feeling there is more than one

Global Warming? As I read this article, I felt like the world is on a big crust of ice. As things got warmer, the ice began to break off in chunks. We're drifting farther and farther away from other countries. We're allying ourselves with the wrong countries, for the wrong reasons.

Good countries are floating away.

Stupid Bush.

[htuttle]

27. It doesn't say what model they're looking at, but Sukhoi's are very nice

The newer models are probably more advanced than F-16's. I believe they're quite a bit more expensive, however.

[ProudDad]

77. But the Russian stuff is probably a hell of a lot more reliable

The soviet stuff could be fixed with a monkey wrench while all that high-tech American shit was falling out of the sky.


Anyway, the point is that Chavez is showing the bushies that he don't f*ckin' need them but they sure need him. Check it out:

U.S. Total Imports of Petroleum (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jan - Mar 2005
CANADA..........2,078
MEXICO..........1,578
VENEZUELA......1,590

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Update: the whole list:

Country YTD 2006

CANADA............2,273
MEXICO............1,801
VENEZUELA.........1,516
SAUDI ARABIA......1,387
NIGERIA...........1,249
ANGOLA..............477
IRAQ................476
ALGERIA.............523
VIRGIN ISLANDS......297
UNITED KINGDOM......229
ECUADOR.............287
RUSSIA..............220
NORWAY..............205
BRAZIL..............193
COLOMBIA............178

Interesting list, eh?

[CHIMO]

30. Venezuela Arms Sales Won't Hurt U.S. Ties

Russia will not bow to U.S. pressure over arms sales to President Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as there is little chance of such deals making U.S.-Russian relations any worse than they currently are, defense experts said Monday.

Chavez reiterated Sunday that he was eager to buy Russian fighter jets in place of the F-16s Venezuela bought from the United States, and that any nation, including Iran, was welcome to buy the U.S. planes.

Alexander Denisov, head of the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, said last week that Moscow saw no reason to stop selling arms to Caracas.

"We are not going to bow to the nations that attempt to hinder the expansion of Russian weapons on the global market," he said. "We have our own national interests that we are obliged to defend."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/05/23/043.html

[Acadia Blue]

32. Not good, but this is the idiots fault for poor diplomacy

[dasmarian]

39. I think most of you are missing the point

I doubt Chavez worries about war against the US. The move is more likely intended to further political ties and goodwill with Russia. If these countries align, then it could eventually lead to mutual defence treaties and/or combined war games (in the Caribbean, can you imagine?). It is just a statement and has nothing to do with preventing or defending against a US invasion.

[Virginia Dare]

40. Good point...

and welcome to DU

:headbang:

[LittleClarkie]

72. I get the feeling the world is forming alliances all around us

and we're standing outside like the kid who was last to be picked for the team.

[1932]

73. The US isn't the victim in this situation.

The world is choosing up sides--neoliberals on one side and the anti-neoliberals on the other. It'd be nice if we'd side with the anti-neoliberals.

[LittleClarkie]

74. Neoliberals?

Don't you mean neocons?

And no, we're not the victim. But we will soon be odd man out.

[1932]

75. Nope. I definitely mean 'neoliberal.'

Click through some of these links on this page and you'll understand:

http://books.google.com/books?q=neoliberal&id=UCW0ipGP51MC&vid=ISBN0807079553&dq=lisa+duggan+twilight+of+equality

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

76. This is a pretty good definition of the term:

Neoliberalism is a description of the revived form of economic liberalism that became increasingly important in international economic policy discussions from the 1970s onwards.

In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights. In foreign policy, neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means, using economic pressure, diplomacy, and/or military intervention. Opening of markets refers to free trade and an international division of labor. Neoliberalism generally favors multilateral political pressure through international organizations or treaty devices such as the WTO and World Bank. It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favors laissez-faire over direct government intervention (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labor policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights.

According to its critics, it opposes socialism, protectionism and environmentalism. Likewise, these critics argue that Neoliberalism is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue that labor rights and social justice should have a greater priority in international relations and economics.

In its US usage, neoliberalism is associated with some of these positions such as support for free trade and welfare reform, but not with opposition to Keynesianism or environmentalism. In the American context, for example, economist Brad DeLong is a prominent defender of neoliberalism, although he is a Keynesian, supporter of income redistribution, and fierce critic of the Bush Administration. In US usage, neoliberalism ("new liberalism") is commonly associated with the Third Way, aka social-democracy under the New Public Management movement. Supporters of the US version of neoliberalism present it as a pragmatic position, focusing on "what works" and transcending debates between left and right, despite new liberalism's similitude to classical center-of-left economic policies (such as has been traditional to 20th century Canada). The overlapping of these usages can create considerable confusion. In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[Judi Lynn]

58. Statement from Venzuelan ambassador to the US, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera

Posted on Tue, May. 23, 2006email thisprint this
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Recognize Venezuela's efforts against terrorism
By BERNARDO ALVAREZ HERRERA
www.embavenez-us.org

The State Department recently announced it was banning all sales of weapons to Venezuela, alleging that the government of President Hugo Chávez was not cooperating in the worldwide war on terrorism. Although the sanctions are mostly symbolic -- Washington sells few weapons to Caracas as it is -- the extreme nature of these false allegations indicates that Washington is continuing its long campaign to de-legitimize and undermine my country's democratic government.

No threat to the U.S.

As the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States, I was not surprised. In January, we received word that the Bush administration was considering designating Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism -- politicizing the war on terrorism. Bush administration officials feebly attempted to link Chávez to terrorist groups and acts, although they have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate such claims. They also claim that Venezuela's friendly relations with Iran and Cuba constitute an ''intelligence-sharing relationship'' that threatens U.S. security. This is nonsense. Venezuela, like many other countries, maintains relations with Iran and Cuba based on specific interests -- oil with Iran, social programs with Cuba. This poses no threat to the United States.

The administration also has accused us of working with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and the Army of National Liberation, or ELN, both of which have been engaged in a five-decade-long conflict with the Colombian government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Good relations with Colombia

Chávez and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe maintain close and cordial ties, cooperating on everything from law enforcement to commerce. We have extradited a number of irregular fighters to Colombia, including leading figures from the ELN and FARC. And Venezuela has started a process of military modernization to shore up defenses along the country's shared border with Colombia, a process that the Bush administration has attempted to derail through unfounded criticisms and the recent blocking of the sale of Spanish patrol boats and Brazilian transport planes that would help secure the border. And at the request of Uribe, Venezuela has been assisting the Colombian government in its peace negotiations with the ELN.
(snip/...)

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/14645323.ht

[AusGail]

68. My point of view

From where I'm sitting in my corner of the world I would trust Chavez long before I could ever trust the tyrannical triangle - Bush, Blair and Howard. It has been obvious that in recent times the CIA has been trying to instigate coops in Venezuela. Remember a few years ago when it was supposed to be the military that was going to overthrow Chavez's government? What is it with the Bush administration, that when another country has oil, they have to control it. Good on Chavez for not taking the shit that Bush is dishing out. I love the way he befriends Castro and Hussein, just to rub George's nose in it.

As for trusting Ted Kennedy. He has done a few things in his past that showed a lack of character and has used his family money to attempt cover things up. Unfortunately,in most cases with American politics, one has to be very wealthy to enter politics in the first place. I would prefer someone to represent me who came from a similar lower to middle class background. Someone who knew first hand what its like to exist on the minimum wage.

[1932]

69. I suspect Bush has nothing to do with Chavez befriending Castro.

I suspect that has to do with their shared disinclination towards neo-liberalism. Also, Chavez never befriended Hussein. He has made annual trips to visit the heads of other Opec nations to talk business, and his trip ti Iraq was spun by western media as something more than what it was.

[AusGail]

70. Thank you for lesson in media spin

Being a cynic I should have already realized that. Anyway I still love the way he is his own man. At least he realized that Bush was a criminal long before a lot of so-called more sophisticated nations did.

[1932]

71. Being informed, I have a hard time finding any motivation for Chavez's

politics that is determined by Bush. Chavez has been building towards this Bolivarian revolution long before he ever heard of George W. Bush.

I challenge anyone to read Aleida Guevara's and/or Richard Gott's book on Chavez and find anything in it that would lead the reader to believe that Chavez is motivated by anything but a well-informed political philosophy that has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush.

Simon Robinson, Martí and Bolivar are his inspiration, and not George Bush.