McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil, calls Chavez a wacko

[cal04]

A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela -- an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's populist president. Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said recent action by "Mr. Chavez" and by Iran's leaders make it clear that the United States will be vulnerable as long as it remains dependent on foreign energy.

"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said. "We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy, and our very lives, have when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela," said McCain, who challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, with the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Mideast. Chavez, a frequent U.S. critic, accuses foreign oil companies of having looted Venezuela. He has promised that his socialist "revolution" is freeing the country from "imperialist" interests and restoring its sovereignty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_oil

[acmavm]

1. Chavez a wacko? Well McCain is both a greedy liar and a whore.

Who's worse?

edit: I called McCain sticky fingered. I guess he didn't steal that Keating money, it was given to him in exchange for (ahem) certain favors. Anyway, changed it to greedy liar and whore to be more accurate.

Go away John. You're a disgrace.

[0007]

10. ,,,and a two timing wimp

like many a dogs that always come back with their tail between their legs, after having the shit kicked out em.



[bullimiami]

18. calls chavez a whacko? and hugs bush the psycho?

he is screwed up mentally.

[0007]

27. ...well, it kind of goes with his bent frame. I know that's mean

I couldn't pass it up.

Yes, McCain is mentally screwed up, I think the POW years did him in.

[acmejack]

14. Just a matter of semantics.

If he didn't actually steal it, it was awfully close. Somebody got cheated, you & I for sure!

[acmavm]

15. Oh most definitely. The proverbial innocent victim took it in the shorts

as always. The American taxpayers.

[ixion]

2. see, in the new 'Murika, you're a whacko if your country

isn't subservient to the US.

[Sandpiper]

3. Wacko is GOP-speak for

Foreign leader who doesn't toe the line for US corporate interests.

[cantstandbush]

33. Funny, I thought Bush was wacko for Iraq invasion and I think he is

wacko for suggesting anything near a war with Iran.

[LuCifer]

4. We need to END the McCain worship RIGHT NOW...

...cuz he's an acompolis to these neo-KKKon WHORES. He sat there and did NOTHING when BU$Hitler smeared his ass in South Carolina in 2000. SO FUCK HIM. Enough is enough people. Time to cut the SHIT already.

Lu

[elehhhhna]

5. "Wacko"? Now that's diplomacy at its finest.

[Deja Q]

12. Reality too. Still, like Yucca Mountain, we made friends with the

most well-built regimes.

Seems we're all going to die of that equivalent of radiation poisoning.

[peekaloo]

6. Have you hugged your Bu$h today?

fuck him.

[Solly Mack]

7. but the US can murder people for oil - that's OK

Amazing what "bothers" people and what doesn't

[Deja Q]

13. Are you prepared to die? Are you READY to die?

Without oil, for any number of reasons, WE are dead.

No transportation, no crops, no means to efficiently harvest the crops, no efficient long-term storage of crops... no dining utensils... no music to listen to while eating the food... I could go on for a very long time and if I have to spell it ALL out...

So, hard choices now have to be made. We can't have it all. You are in power. You tell me. Who lives. Who dies.

Well?

[Solly Mack]

16. that justifies murder?

there's no other way to get oil besides murder? you can't trade? you can't buy? you can't reeducate the public into less consumption? you can't look for alternative fuel sources? Murder HAS to be an option?

In your world, murder is OK to garner resources? Cause it certainly seems so from what you've written. You seem to think murder is just one of those "hard" choices people have to make.
Iraq is just one of those "hard" choices, huh?

And just to let you know, I hold NO false sense of superiority that believes Americans are somehow more worthy to live than others. That the "American way of life" is somehow better. Civilization won't end if Americans, or the American "way of life", dies out.

There was civilization before America - there would still be civilization if America had never existed.

The need for oil does not justify murder.

[Deja Q]

25. Murder or suicide. Unless you know how to support billions of lives...

without endangering the environment, worsening global warming, et al.

Had we, during the original crisis, thought things through, what we are experiencing now.

Had we listened to the naysayers of the late-60s and early-70s, we would have stopped the man-made global warming problem - and some have postulated that we are beyond recrimination; it is too late to undo it. (so you can tell me that I am apparently justifying murder. Tell me all you want; it'll keep you from looking at the whole of the situation; distractions keep us in a false sense of security... Look at the whole picture and things become infinitely bleaker... our previous generation who sold out are the murderers and condoning murder. Not I. I am merely saying that is what those at the top ARE doing because they've noted the problems and they know of no other way. Or prefer not to spend the money, which wouldn't make a difference because we are $8 TRILLION in the hole!)

Just like how people say * is only treating the wealthy like people and screwing the rest of us while telling us what he's doing benefits us all, the phrase "compassionate conservative" means he's ridding the wealthy of the rest of us all so they can continue to live, unfettered. Much reduced strain on resources, much less stress on the environment, I could go on and on. (it seems a simple enough conclusion to postulate... and Cheney knew of peak oil long ago too! Peak oil, "the great die-off". Try googling some of these things and then you'll know as much as I do on the matter.)

Unfortunately, our society not taking such preventative steps means the death of far, far too many. And given how overworked our fields are, those who survive the upcoming disaster won't be happy at their predecessors for squandering.

And I've said lots of times "a pity our leaders never regulated in the first place" and other phrases to the same effect. Please don't judge or pre-judge me on one post alone; the situation is simply too large.

Iraq? Who's talking about Iraq? That was more about a personal blood-feud; we haven't seen any oil (or WMDs for that matter...). A report a few months ago, and posted by another DUer, said Iraq's output had been lower since the "war" from 2003. If it was about the oil, there's no way ANYBODY would have let that output decline by even a drop.

But in times of resource shortage or even impending resource shortage, how many people will stick to their morals? At what point do you feel your life is better than everyone else's? And would you stick to your morals in that respect? It is a difficult question. One of many.

I only observe society. And what I've seen these days is unavoidable. And things I don't even want to think about are likely going to happen.

I have an idea. Buy a gun. Look me in the eye. End my life. It'll be far more compassionate than what is otherwise going TO happen.

Unless "peak oil" is a lie, in which case I'll retract every single syllable I've said from 2004 onwards or from when I first started responding and talking about that problem. Can you prove to me that it is a lie, there is no crisis whatsoever, and corporate oil industry is simply being greedy and malicious? (never mind what the other oil-holding countries are doing, and if "peak oil" is a lie, why try to take other countries' oil by force in the first place, except to reinforce the lie, which also makes no sense because of the radical instability that would be so obvious even a high school sophomore in history class could fathom? You bet I'm confused!)

[Solly Mack]

28. Your first reply suggested that YOU embraced murder as an option for oil.

and unless you edited your first reply, you never once made a point of saying " I am merely saying that is what those at the top ARE doing because they've noted the problems and they know of no other way." or anything like it. Until your second response. Instead, in your first reply - you asked for alternatives to murder for oil and wanted to know who I would pick to live or die. You'll have to admit, for honesty's sake - one would hope, that your first response and your second response carry different messages.


My comment on murder was addressing the hypocrisy of (the rhetoric) claiming to be a "hostage" (to oil producing countries) - which is labeling those countries "criminal" (the word hostage suggest someone is holding you against your will - "kidnapping", "false imprisonment") - when your own regime murders for oil.




(I can't spell worth a poopie tonight)

[Solon]

34. The conflict is that you implied that war is a justifiable option as...

a response to peak oil. The thing is, it isn't, it would be a waste of resources to invade Venezuela(as an example), just like it is now that we invaded Iraq. That war is about the oil, but intentions do little when facing Murphy's law. In fact, Bush may have irreparably damaged the oil fields of Iraq, reducing the output dramatically. This may make the Peak in Oil production occur even sooner, and the United States is woefully unprepared for it. The largest waste of resources we have is the military and our high energy lifestyles, how much petroleum distillates are wasted on our jets, tanks, trucks, hummers, SUVs, and a car for every individual? How much of that could be used to ramp up fuel production, or even better, use the machines we have NOW to help with a transition, not only to alternative energy, but also alternative fertilizers, pesticides, and urban reconstruction?

The problem goes beyond arbitrary borders, goes beyond even national need, for if we really face life or death, and had a million barrels left, where would it be better used by the military and our cars, or for our food supply instead? Millions here can starve while the US goes on Military adventures, and the rich can waste further oil on Yachts and bigassed SUVs. That is what will happen, and when the poor, faced with destitute and starvation see that, it isn't going to be war, but revolution instead.

Given the state of our arable land here in the states(Dust Bowl part 2 coming up), we may have to import food for a long time after the Peak, unless alternative, sustainable alternatives to current Petrol-based fertilizers and pesticides are found. The only other option is basically invading Mexico and farming there, and they may not even be practical to begin with. We have two options, one is to stick together and try to find solutions, or the second is to split up into smaller entities and die one by one.

People in the United States actually have to face up to one fact, that is that the lifestyle of having two cars in a garage while having a family of four living in a McMansion on a half-acre or more plot of land is impossible when facing Peak Oil. Multifamily housing, flats and apartments are the housing of the future; riding bikes, taking buses and trains, even walking, are the transportation of the future. But in the grand scheme of things, this is just a minor inconvenience compared to having to face dying due to lack of either medical supplies(plastics) or food(fertilizers, pesticides).

[rman]

17. cut out the neocon rhetoric already

this isn't the forum for it.

[Deja Q]

21. Neocon?! Then what is the apropos forum? And would you do?

There is nothing wrong with alternative energy and, as all too many of US (WE, YOU, I, US) have been saying in GD, oil is not renewable. Without the means to support everybody, everybody can't exist. That's not neocon thinking, that's a sad reality to life. The resources must be there. Oil doesn't grow on trees.

And you're right. LBN isn't the place, no matter how relevant the topic or a legitimate tangent of. Wanna talk in GD? I'll be happy to discuss ideas and the free expression of question there. On the condition you stop the petty name-calling; I will not tolerate such infantile slurs.

I also now understand why nobody else has asked my question; because anyone asking would summarily be hung AS a neocon. :eyes:

[rman]

26. i'm not calling you a neocon

but "it's them or us so let's take their oil" does sound very neocon-like.

[mdmc]

20. couldn't I ride my bicycle?

I think we could thrive without oil. We just lack imagination!

[Peace Patriot]

30. I don't think we lack imagination. I think what we lack--what we have

quite deliberately been deprived of--is our right to vote.

We could turn things around 180, and almost immediately, IF all our votes were counted.

----------

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

[Lorien]

8. Funny, aren't we the ones who are holding other nations hostage

in our desire for more of that sweet black crude?

Yes, by all means, invest in alternative energy-and that means DEVELOPING new energy sources, not just falling back on nuclear power.

[EFerrari]

9. Why does he bother? We know he doesn't mean a word

of this "energy independence" stuff.

Is he filling his quota of ridiculous non sequiturs for the week or wtf? Doesn't he do this every weekend?

Get a hobby, John. We're not listening.

[Deja Q]

11. Yeah, but we were also told alternative energy is obsolete!

Who cares that Reagan said it in 1982. He said it, therefore it must be an eternal truth. x(

McCain is a lovely mouthpiece, and what he says IS the truth, but does he MEAN what he says? And if other repubs agree with him, why has nothing been done?

[mdmc]

19. I guess we are all wackos at DU, too

McCain ain't a bad guy, all in all.

[spanone]

22. McCain is worse, he's a politician.

:hurts:

[Nutmegger]

23. It's sad that under Chavez

CITGO has sold cheap oil to poor communities. Regardless if this is genuine or for political purposes, it's sad that we can't even take care of our own people. Wacko? McCain is the wacko nutjob who voted for the nasty bankruptcy bill and voted to cut food stamps. '

[raysr]

24. Why would that be McBush?

The oil belongs to Chavez, NOT YOU! I hope he cuts us off, I don't care how high gas gets. The US seems to claim an entitlement to whatever it wants, fuck that. Besides, McCain's crazy and fucked a black prostitute and his wife is a drug addict. You want him for the next prez? The pukes didn't in 2000.

[Peace Patriot]

29. A peaceful revolution is sweeping through South America, with leftist

governments having come to power over the last few years in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela and now Bolivia. Virtually the entire map of the subcontinent has turned "blue" (via TRANSPARENT elections--remember those?). These countries are banding together for regional economic, political and military security. And they have a common theme: self-determination for Latin America.

The effort of parrots like McCain--echo chambers of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies--to belittle Huge Chavez (when they are not calling him a dictator), and to single him out as some sort of oddity on the South American landscape, simply won't work, because the truth is that he is highly representative of the South American democracy movement. South American voters and the leaders they are electing are making their OWN decisions on who they want to be allied with, what they want from their governments, how their resources should be used, and what their domestic and foreign policy should be. They are acting in their own interest (saints preserve us!). Hugo Chavez is no anomaly. He is TYPICAL. He has received his country's endorsement four times in almost as many years--two presidential elections, a Bush junta-funded recall election, and by-elections (all closely monitored elections). In Bolivia, they just elected (overwhelmingly) Aymara indian and former cocoa leaf farmer, Evo Morales. In Chile, the first woman has been elected (also a leftist). In Brazil, a former steel worker is president.

All of these leftist leaders represent a new spirit in South America. The poor, the exploited and the brown--the vast majority--are finally coming into their own, after centuries of oppression. They are not particularly hostile to the U.S., from what I can see. What they seem to be is somewhat BEMUSED by us, as if we weren't quite with it. (Morales said, "I am the United States' worst nightmare." Chavez is busy providing cheap heating oil to the poor of the U.S., putting Bush and his oil handlers to shame.) And they also seem just very determined to end U.S. and global financial dictation over their policies. Chavez has made NO threat against us, as to cutting off oil. Nor has he confiscated anyone's property--oil giants, and even Halliburton, are operating in Venezuela--nor threatened anyone with ANYTHING. He and his supporters are operating entirely within the law. They are more than leftists. They are socialists. But they are not armed revolutionaries--they are entirely peaceful. Things are so out of balance in Venezuela (and elsewhere in So. America), that they NEED socialism to put it right--for instance, the gov't using its rightful oil revenues to build schools and medical centers, etc. Chavez is not hostile to business. His government is PROMOTING small businesses, and diversification, all over Venezuela. And they are negotiating honorably, and meeting contract obligations, with whoever they have to deal with.

McCain's allegation that we are somehow hostage to Venezuela is absurd. Who we are hostage to is Saudi Arabia! And to the Bush/Saudi ties--including ties to Osama bin Laden!

The MEANING behind this bird's statements is that Venezuela cannot be, and should not be, EQUAL. It cannot be, and should not be, an EQUAL trading partner, controlled by a SOVEREIGN people, who are exercising their sovereignty over the their nation's policies by means of their right to vote--like WE should be doing (don't we wish!). McCain is saying WE should have control of THEIR oil. WE should be able to dictate terms, and should not in the least have to honor and respect the views of their DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government. And the same with Iran, he is saying. How dare they be sovereign! How dare they act in their own interest! How dare they be EQUAL! They should have to bow to US!

McCain exemplifies Chavez's accusations. He is an imperialist, or at least a parroter of imperialist power-talk. Who knows what he is, really? A chameleon. A conniver.

[lectrobyte]

31. I don't agree on the wacko part, but I like the part about alternate

energy sources. Now, if we could just do something on the conservation side like CAFE for SUVs and trucks, we'd be getting somewhere.

[koopie57]

32. I was thinking today about Chavez

look at how much money * as spent destroying everything and who would support *. But Chavez has given a little bit to help our poor and who would fight for him? I guess my point is that if * had spent all this money on doing good, then we might not even need a military and the world would want to keep us safe. Does that make sense? I dont' know?