Hugo Chávez is left without any stadium in Libya

[naaman fletcher]

The green sign with white letters of the modern sports complex originally named Benina Stadium (located in Benina, a town east of Benghazi) still has the name Hugo Chávez Stadium, but the Libyan opposition decided to rename the soccer stadium as "Martyrs of February" to pay homage to the victims of the revolt against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, as indicated in a red graffiti on the walls of the complex.

"The name has been officially changed to 'Martyrs of February.' The decision was made by the National Council (which opposes Gaddafi) following a request from the local population," Jaled el Barghati, a Benina police officer who is responsible for guarding the stadium, told AFP on Tuesday.

Mustafa Ghuriani, a spokesman for the Libyan opposition, confirmed to AFP that the name of the stadium, which is located in the town of Benina, near the airport of Benghazi (621 miles to the east of Tripoli), had been changed.

When asked about why the signs with the name of the Venezuelan president were still in place, the policeman said that "they were difficult to change." He said that they were waiting for the "new" signs.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2011/03/08/hugo-chavez-is-left-without-any-stadium-in-libya.shtml

[davidinalameda]

1. poor Hugo

maybe he can get naming rights to another dictator's stadium

wonder if there are any in Iran or North Korea that need named

[HEyHEY]

2. I think they're all pretty well named "Kim Sung Ill"

[davidinalameda]

3. I'm sure they need some hard currency

he could always slip some money their way

everyone has their price

[rabs]

5. Well, how about this dictator's Estadio Chile

In downtown Santiago where the pinochetistas assassinated Victor Jara and scores of other Unidad Popular followers?

But too late to get naming rights; the stadium is now known as Victor Jara Stadium.

Btw, how many people have been killed in the stadium named Hugo Chavez?

[davidinalameda]

7. what does anyone being killed in Hugo's stadium have to do with squat

does Hugo's affiliation with Qadaffi embarrass his followers on here or something?

[rabs]

8. Why not answer the question ?

How many people have been killed in the stadium named after Chavez in Libya?

When you say "his followers" are you talking about Qadaffi? Nah, you probably tried to mean Chavez because have noted your previous posts have all been anti-chavez.

You know what? It all Machts Nicht.

[davidinalameda]

16. I didn't "try" to mean Hugo

I meant Hugo

you might want to brush up on your grammar since you can't recognize the subject of my sentence

[sabrina 1]

9. Not nearly as embarrassed as followers of Blair, Obama, Bush

Clinton, Brown, Beyonce, and so many more, the list is too long for me to include them all here, about THEIR affiliation with Qaddafi?

Especially since, unlike Chavez, all these world leaders and entertainers and Big Oil magnates, prestigious universities etc. MADE SO MUCH MONEY from their affiliations with him, or their donors from Big Business did.:

Below is a link with photos of Qaddafi and a few of the world's leaders who were friends of his, including President Obama, not a complete list by any means, he had a lot of friends around the world.

Even Obama was happy to be seen with him, Bush, Sarkozy, Chirac, Berlusconi, Blair, Brown, Hillary Clinton, Condy Rice. He had many, many influential friends all over the world, even including people like Nelson Mandela


Tony Blair embraces Col. Qaddafi

Check it out. He was a very popular guy with most of the world's leaders and entertainers and Oil Cartels:

Qaddafi with some of his friends from around the world

French President Sarkozy, U.S. entertainers like Beyonce and Lional Richie and leaders from all over the world, were proud to have their photos taken with Qaddafi. But you have to hurry if you want to find them now, they are disappearing from the net as those who were only too happy to deal with him, in return for getting huge oil contracts, are now attempting to hide their association with him.

I could post photos of Gaddafi with leaders from all over the world all night, but you get the picture. There are some nice ones of Hillary Clinton with his son, welcoming him to the State Dept, and several with Condy Rice in Libya, a woman he gave expensive gifts to.

Poor Hugo indeed. All HE got from his association with Qaddafi was a stadium named after him.

But every one of those other leaders got huge business contracts for their major donors, like BP, Halliburton, Bechtel et al.

Not to mention the arms dealers. Would you like some information on the sale of arms to Qaddafi? By everyone BUT Chavez.

Chavez, unlike the rest of the world's leaders, became friendly towards Libya about two years ago, long after the rest of the Western leaders began making deals with him. But he was way too smart to involve himself in oil deals or arms deals, eg, which sadly, Britain, Canada, the U.S. France, Germany (they made torture instruments for Mubarak eg) were all more than willing to do.

Too bad the rest of them were not as smart as Chavez. The U.S. eg, was actually in talks with him to sell him nuclear power!!

So, what were you saying about 'followers' of friends of Qaddafi again? Obama followers really ought to be embarrassed, since it was during his admin that the Wikileaks cables who how ready the U.S. was to sell arms to Libya.

You might want to revise your thinking on Chavez. Clearly he was far less involved with Qaddafi than OUR presidents, and Blair et al.

I don't think there was a single Western power that didn't befriend him, for the oil.

[rabs]

10. Well said. n/t

[sabrina 1]

11. Thank you. I get such a kick out of the

Chavez haters. The only connection between Chavez and other Latin American countries and Arab nations like Libya, was a shared history of Western Colonialism. And when Chavez saw what was going on between the Western Powers and Libya, he simply decided to join the party. But he never even came close to enabling this dictator the way Britain, the U.S., France, Italy, Canada and so many others did. And now all of them are scurrying with red faces, hoping if they point fingers at Chavez, as Britain's foolish Hague did last week, everyone will forget how they were willing to overlook Qaddafi's past history of backing terrorist attacks on the west.



A few of the puppets Qaddafi had on a string, and there were many, many more. Chavez, however, was never a puppet of Qaddafi. It's hilarious to see the blatant, ignorant attempts to try to equate the relationship Chavez had with him, worse, to inflate it, when the world now knows how despicably hypocritical all of the Western powers were and how they did it all for money.

I see no one has returned to correct the misinformation in this thread.

[joshcryer]

29. Yes, Gaddafi is calling the revolutionaries colonial interests and Chavez is "unconvinced" that...

...thousands of Libyans were and are being massacred by Gaddafi.

Of course the only thing they have in common was their anti-colonialism. I mean, if you're convinced that people fighting you (the revolutionaries) are colonialists, then it's real simple. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

33. Do you live in Ven?

I live here, so I am far more concerned about what our government has done regarding the number of dictators we support. I believe the people of Venezuela are perfectly capable, as they have demonstrated, of taking care of their own business, Why are Americans so concerned about other oil producing countries when their own country is literally falling apart? It never fails to interest me.

Hugo's reaction was disbelief, as was Obama's regarding Mubarak, although how he could not have known what Mubarak was doing is inconceivable. The U.S. was SENDING DETAINEES TO EGYPT to be tortured after all.

Was Hugo sending anyone to Libya, to Egypt or elsewhere to be tortured?

President Obama during the early stages of the Egyptian Revolution even after the government had sent their thugs out to quash it said "President Mubarak has always been a good friend and ally of the U.S." I guess like Hugo, Obama was hoping our great friend and ally was not doing what he was being accused of at the time.

Politics makes strange bed-fellows sometimes, but the U.S. claims to be the moral arbiter of the world, unlike Ven. So considering that and the fact that I live here, I expect a lot more from our government, than what we are finding out.

Iow, no American has the right anymore to point fingers anywhere else. I assume you are American, I am just reminding you of what the world is telling us now. 'America, clean up your own backyard and leave everyone else to clean theirs' I agree with that actually.

[joshcryer]

41. 300-400 people died in Egypt uprising. Tens of thousands are dying in Libya.

Egypt has a population of 82 million. Or 0.0004% of the population was killed in the uprising.

Estimates in Libya http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/71535-death-toll-in-libyan-popular-uprising-at-10000">are as high as 10,000. Or .15% of the population!

Huge huge difference and this equivalence crap isn't going to work with me, sorry.

I can point fingers at dictators, I don't support any dictators anywhere. Just because past governments have fucked shit up in the country I live in does not magically make me complicit in their behavior. I grew up after 90% of the USs bullshit interfering was dying out. I protested the Iraq war and I didn't vote for the asshole that started Afghanistan and Iraq.

My hands are clean, sorry, I know it bugs you to hear an American say it, but my hands are fucking clean.

[Catherina]

12. You tell too many uncomfortable truths Sabrina n/t

[malaise]

14. Wish I could rec your post

:yourock:

[joshcryer]

25. I'm far more embarrassed in my ideological support for guys like Castro and Chavez...

...before learning how ignorant and stupid I was being for said support.

Otherwise I don't follow anyone, and I voted for the Democratic candidate as a lesser of a much higher evil.

[sabrina 1]

35. Wow! You have learned nothing then from the recent

revelations of just what those fallen dictators were doing to their own people? You display a really sad degree of ignorance by even trying to equate Chavez' treatment of his people, reducing the 80% poverty and illiteracy rate by half, eg, to the treatment of their own people by Mubarak, Ben Ali and Qadaffi. Those three men gave NOTHING to their people. They tortured and murdered them for decades, keeping them from participating in any political process.

I would love to see you try to make that comparison to any of the revolutionaries risking their lives today. I think they would be highly insulted by the attempted comparison. Living in Venezuela, and I have friends who live there, is living in paradise compared to what those poor people in Egypt and Tunisia were subjected to. To try to compare the two truly is a gross insult to the people of those N. African dictatorships.

No wonder America has so little credibility in the world anymore. This kind of ignorant propaganda has beome par for the course ever since we lost control of the media to corporate interests. A fact recognized now around the world.

I can see now why you hold the opinions you do. You really are very ill-informed about world politics.

I will keep that in mind from now on.

[joshcryer]

39. Fortunately I never supported Gaddafi, Mubarak, or Ben Ali, so their ouster is not embarrassing.

However, having supported Castro and Chavez in the past it is certainly embarrassing to know of their connections which went largely ignored in the past. I found a cute discussion here about the hotel in Venezuela being expropriated for a fair sum in order to host Gaddafi in the future. It was hilarious that no one in that thread denounced Gaddafi yet they go on and on about how evil the US empire is.

[sabrina 1]

44. Then you must be very embarrassed about having supported

President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton if your disappointment with Chavez has to do with his far less lucrative, and much shorter term, association with Qadaffi.

Qadaffi was hosted in many countries at a huge cost, as were his family members, especially his son Saif, who was viewed by the west as the future of Libya until about one week ago.

I imagine there is no one left in the world that you could now have any respect for since almost all of them had far closer associations with Qadaffi than Chavez ever did.

[tiny elvis]

45. my dear lady, you are nonpareil

and our cups do run over at your font
:patriot:

[sabrina 1]

46. Lol, I will take that as a compliment, even if it wasn't ~

:-)

[tiny elvis]

53. sincere. carry on

[joshcryer]

48. Not really, they never coddled Gaddafi to the extent Chavez did.

Obama was a lesser of two evil vote, and I'm damn glad I voted for him as I have no doubts that McCain would've continued Bush's Gaddafi coddling.

But you're distracting. I'm embarrassed that I supported Chavez and Castro. I actually believed those people were good people, but I know better now.

[sabrina 1]

54. Are you serious?

Clearly you know nothing, and have made no effort to find out, about the relationships between Western leaders and Qaddafi.

The fact that you would make this statement: they never coddled Gaddafi to the extent Chavez did demonstrates you are not qualified to have any opinion on this matter.

Do you KNOW anything about how the entire Qadaffi family was coddled in Europe? Chavez could have never competed even if he tried. Have you any idea of what you are talking about at all? Have you read any of the Libya Wikileaks Libya cables?

You really should stop now while you're only this far behind.

Check out Qadaffis relationship with Tony Blair e.g. And who was it again who said that Qadaffi was 'like a member of our family'? Yes, they all LOVED him! He was funny, amusing, a bit eccentric, interesting and most of all, GENEROUS with his country's resources.

I can't believe what you just said and think it explains in any way your double standard when the facts prove how wrong you are. Not interested in facts, you reveal that it is pure bias, no doubt learned from the U.S. propaganda machine, that is the real reason for your double standards.

I am more than willing to demonstrate just how coddled Qadaffi was by Western leaders. Maybe you should try another excuse, because this one is simply laughable.

'They never coddled him'!! :rofl:

They HAD to coddle him to get those huge multi-billion dollar contracts!! The man insisted on it and they were more than willing!

Unbelievable!

[joshcryer]

55. "They" Obama / Hillary. Your misleading and dishonest rhetoric is not amusing.

It's downright insulting. How the fuck did I support any EU/UK policies? I didn't. I didn't vote for, campaign for, or even advocate any policies of the EU. None. Nada. Period.

Yet you write this insulting garbage implying that somehow I did. I didn't. You are being patently dishonest. I ask you to stop being dishonest.

Obama and Hillary did not have any significant relationship with Gaddafi. Chavez visited him 6 times, had a stadium named after himself, etc, etc.

Oh and told the world that he was "unconvinced" that people were being massacred by Gaddafi.

[sabrina 1]

64. They represent the U.S. Government. The U.S. government

has had a long and profitable relationship with Qadaffi. Even before the formal lifting of the sanctions. Hillary and Obama continued, rather than changed those policies.

Chavez' relationship with Qadaffi and other African nations who suffered, as Latin America did, under Western Colonialsim and their dictators, was for different reasons. But they WERE political, not personal as you are attempting to lie about.

I am not going to give you a history lesson, I'm tired of your childish whining to be honest. But I will say this, it is absolutely understandable that Latin American countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia et al WOULD have a lot in common with African nations like Libya. ALL OF THEM, African nations and Latin American nations were victims of Western colonialism, and those who have risen up against it and established democracies, like Ven. are still being undermined by the U.S.

So, for the sake of his country and others in Latin America, Chavez very wisely formed alliances with countries in Africa, ONE of which was Libya. That is all there is to that relationship, so stop lying and trying to it turn into something it is not. It is a political decision and at least he is not hypocritical like the west who up to just two weeks ago were partying with Qadaffi, and now are trying to deny they ever knew him.

[joshcryer]

68. Oh please, you are so misguided about Gaddafi's relationship with Chavez...

...that it is embarrassing. If Gaddafi gets in to the International Criminal Courts it'll be interesting to hear the stuff he has on Chavez.

[joshcryer]

49. BTW, don't spread this dishonest meme about Gaddafi/Chavez. They had a 10 year relationship.

Chavez visted Gaddafi 6 times in that same time frame (most of those visits in the last 4 years). Their relationship was well established in other threads, though, it's just dishonest for you to say that "Chavez has to do with his far less lucrative, and much shorter term, association with Qadaffi."

You don't get a stadium named after you for a short term relationship. Where's Hillary or Obama's Libyan stadium?

[sabrina 1]

62. The U.S. government under Bush

and then Obama, have gotten far more than a tiny stadium from Qadaffi. But it's not what they GOT from Qadaffi, it is what they GAVE him.

Do you have any idea of what this country has been up to? Where do you think he got the weapons he is now killing his own people with? Chavez?? No, he got them from Europe and the U.S.

If only our only gift from Qadaffi was a tiny stadium named after one of our leaders. I wish that was the case.

Let me ask you.

Are you happy that your government, under THIS PRESIDENT, the one you voted for, is selling weapons to dictators like Qadaffi? Or to the Egyptian military who we trained with and sent billions to pay for their weapons which were used mostly against their own people?

ARe you happy that your government even now as they condemn, finally, one of their recent dictator friends, are funding an even more brutal dictator in Uzbekistan?

Can you even honestly compare Chavez' relationshop with Qadaffi to the U.S. relationships with dictators all over the world who are even now abusing and torturing their own people?

Are you happy that we would still be supporting Mubarak and Ben Ali had their own people not finally had enough? That this president called Mubarak 'a good friend and ally' just weeks ago?

What is this stupid obsession with Chavez? The man is harmless to the rest of the world and to his own people.

But you have nothing to say about our close ally Karamov of Uzbekistan who is a brutal vicious, genocidal, maniacal dictator that we support with millions of dollars each year because, according to the Wikileaks cables 'he let's us build bases in his country'!

If DU spent as much time on the many brutal dictators who are torturing their own people, and to whom WE are sending detainees to torture for us, as they do on Chavez, maybe we could accomplish something worthwhile.

What is your beef with Chavez?

Is he taking detainees from the U.S. and torturing them for us?

Is he shooting down protesters on the streets in his own country as our puppet government friends in Iraq are doing?

Is he selling arms to dictators as we are?

Is he boiling his own people in oil and delivering their bodies to their families as our friend Karamov in Uzbekistan has done?

Is he abusing Venezuelan women the way our friends the Saudis are doing to Saudi women?

What is this obsession with a man who has only tried to improve his country?

Who has reduced poverty and illiteracy in his country by half since he took office?

Who has more than once extended his hand in friendship to this country only to have it slapped down?

Explain it please. I. just. don't. get. it.

Why are there not daily negative OPs about Karamov eg? Why do you Chavez haters not care about what Karamov is doing to his own people?

I know the answers to these questions.

I'm wondering if you do.

[joshcryer]

65. Obvious answers which you should know.

Are you happy that your government, under THIS PRESIDENT, the one you voted for, is selling weapons to dictators like Qadaffi?

No.

Or to the Egyptian military who we trained with and sent billions to pay for their weapons which were used mostly against their own people?

No.

ARe you happy that your government even now as they condemn, finally, one of their recent dictator friends, are funding an even more brutal dictator in Uzbekistan?

No.

Can you even honestly compare Chavez' relationshop with Qadaffi to the U.S. relationships with dictators all over the world who are even now abusing and torturing their own people?

No. Chavez is an individual. The United States is a government entity. The United States has terrible foreign policy decisions that I disagree with on every level (I got in deep trouble for commending the US for not interfering in Libya, now the revolutionaries are being discredited simply because the west is talking about intervention, good for all those assholes discrediting the freedom fighters :puke:).

Now, if you'd like to talk about Venezuela's relationships with dictators all over the world, http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_international/venezuela_abroad/index.html?SITE=AP">they're as happy dealing with them as the United States. Chavez' relationship with Gaddafi gets a stadium named after him. Venezuela's relationship with Iran gets people fucking killed (and no doubt the joint fund that Venezuela and Libya set up went to killing Libyans).

Are you happy that we would still be supporting Mubarak and Ben Ali had their own people not finally had enough?

No. I'm happy that the internet has backfired on US foreign policy and made people rise up against tyrants.

That this president called Mubarak 'a good friend and ally' just weeks ago?

I found it repulsive and denounced it.

What is this stupid obsession with Chavez? The man is harmless to the rest of the world and to his own people.

Obsession? People post a non-controversial article. Then you come in distorting, being completely dishonest, being completely insulting (do any of these questions merit being asked and should I not be offended that I have to answer them?).

If DU spent as much time on the many brutal dictators who are torturing their own people, and to whom WE are sending detainees to torture for us, as they do on Chavez, maybe we could accomplish something worthwhile.

Absolutely.

What is your beef with Chavez?

None really, he's irrelevant.

Is he taking detainees from the U.S. and torturing them for us?

Nope.

Is he shooting down protesters on the streets in his own country as our puppet government friends in Iraq are doing?

Tens of thousands have died under his reign, as a head of state he has failed in the greatest regard, to protect his own people.

Is he selling arms to dictators as we are?

Nope.

Is he boiling his own people in oil and delivering their bodies to their families as our friend Karamov in Uzbekistan has done?

Nope.

Is he abusing Venezuelan women the way our friends the Saudis are doing to Saudi women?

Nope.

What is this obsession with a man who has only tried to improve his country?

Who has reduced poverty and illiteracy in his country by half since he took office?

Who has more than once extended his hand in friendship to this country only to have it slapped down?

Explain it please. I. just. don't. get. it.

Why are there not daily negative OPs about Karamov eg? Why do you Chavez haters not care about what Karamov is doing to his own people?

I know the answers to these questions.

I'm wondering if you do.

DU wouldn't spend so much time talking about Chavez if you were honest and not dishonest. If you would admit to certain failings rather than dance around the issue. I admit that Obama should have supported the Egyptian supporters from the beginning (of course, other posters would just say that was proof Obama was sullying their victory). You are not being truthful. You are distorting the facts. That is unsettling to some of us. Do you think I actually give one shit about Chavez? He's irrelevant and will likely be ousted by 2012, that's how I see him. But I am emmensly offended by distortions and misleading information being posted, insulting information, even. I don't like this debate tactic. It is very low, and I am compelled to defend myself when I see it, and defend others when they are hit by it. I spent two days arguing about an ALCU case I didn't care about because people were distorting, misleading, and outright speaking untruths in that thread. I like the truth, and I assure you that if you keep it up I'll keep it up.

It is extremely offensive that you 'have' to ask these questions given my progressive history of posting on DU for almost a decade. The real reason you're posting these questions is because you don't actually care what my position is on anything, you don't, you'll be repeating the same old lines within the next day, because you are afraid to admit the failings of certain politicians. I can do it with Obama, you can't with Chavez. That's the difference.

[sabrina 1]

70. Where to begin ~

First, thank you for answering the questions. If they are meant honestly, as they appear to be, then as you point out yourself, your only reason for being in this thread is to 'defend' Chavez haters from people who, in your estimation, are 'not being honest' and trying to 'distract'.

I don't know how familiar you are with this phenomenon on DU over the past year or two. By that, I mean the regular posting of Western propaganda (the linked article in the OP eg, is from a biased, anti-democratic Venezuala rag the goal of which is to search for any trivia to use to attempt to discredit Venezuela's Democracy) For those of us who have followed the Venezuela/U.S. conflict since the CIA backed coup in 2002, the relatively recent appearance on Democratic boards of anti-Venezuelan Democracy, these propaganda publications and their propagandists are very familiar.

I first became involved in politics after the installation of George Bush in the WH. Something was clearly wrong and drew my attention to politics the summer before 9/11. When 9/11 happened, I and many others at the time, knew that the Bush gang would use it as an excuse to invade some sovereign country. By then I knew a little about the Bush Crime Family. I hoped someone would stop them.

In 2002, on the blog I was then posting on, someone posted an alert that the democratically elected president of Venezuela had been ousted in a coup d'etat. I knew little about Venezuela at the time, but along with people around the world, we watched the events, later documented in the award-winning film 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' as they unfolded. Just before the coup failed when the people of Venezuela came out into the streets and forced the removal of the coup leaders, Condi Rice made a speech, assuming the coup had been successful, in which she revealed, somewhat unwittingly, that the U.S. had played a role in the coup. Not long afterwards, Chavez the rightful and duly elected president, was restored to office by his people.

Like just about every other Democrat and sane Conservatives and Independents and people around the world, once it was obvious that the U.S. had attempted to undermine Venezuela's democratic process against the will of its people, I was truly concerned. Knowing that the Bush gang were now planning to invade another oil producing country, Iraq, many feared that while they had failed the first time, they would not give up on Venezueala, or any other country in Latin America which, at that time, might attempt to establish its independence from the Western Backed dictatorships so many had lived under for so long.

Latin America, at that time, like N. Africa is doing now, was rising up against oppression and over the course of the last decade, while the U.S. was distracted and mired down in two failed wars, finally succeeded in establishing several democracies, in Bolivia, in Chile, Argentina among others, and of course, Venezuela.

For those of us following events in Latin America, it was a very exciting time and somewhat of a counter to the horror of the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many believed that had Bush not gotten the U.S. involved in those two wars, Latin American countries might have had a more difficult time, extricating themselves from the oppressive influences of Multi National forces.

Chavez, like Aristede and other leaders of these emerging democracies, had goals for their people that were NOT approved of by the Western Powers. Aristede was the next leader of a struggling democracy to be ousted in a coup again backed by the U.S.

What they were doing that made them so unacceptable to the U.S. was to try to improve conditions, such as poverty and literacy, of their people. They wanted to raise the minimum wage, eg. A real threat to Global Capitalists who depend on the slave labor of third world countries. And an educated population? That was not acceptable. So throughout the past decade, U.S. and their Global Capitalist allies funded operatives in many of these countries, like Bolivia and Venezuela and of course Haiti, to undermine their democracies. It was hard to watch, but once a people decide that they are going to determine their own fate, after decades of oppression and they have a taste of indepence, they don't give up easily.

We, every Democrat I know, were rooting for the people. Just as we are rooting for the people in the ME and N. Africa now. We supported the democratically elected leaders of all those countries, including Aristede (who I believe, despite the efforts of the U.S. to keep him out, is returning to Haiti I am happy to say).

We all assumed that the Democratic Party also supported the people of these countries. Venezuela, because of its oil money, was able to help some of the other poorer countries, including Haiti, and all of them feared that they might once again fall prey to Western powers. So, led by Chavez, they formed their own version of NATO. Chavez paid off Venezuela's debt to the World Bank, freeing the country finally of their influence. INDEPENDENCE! It was incredibly exciting to watch Latin America during these past few years.

But the U.S. doesn't give up easily when there is oil involved, or other resources as there are in some of those other countries and the interference never stopped. To add to the physical interference in some of these countries, a media smear campaign was funded against leaders like Chavez in an attempt to discredit him as he was seen as the most dangerous threat to Global Multi Corps interests. The man believed that every country deserved to take care of their own business and that the people should benefit from their resources, not Multi National Corps. That cannot be tolerated. So he became their main target.

It was around 2004 when democrats across the country started a petition to stop the U.S. from attempting to overthrow leaders of these countries and it was sent to Kerry with tens of thousands of signatures. People assumed, being a Democrat he had the same goals as we did, 'leave other countries alone, respect their right to choose their own leaders'. But, unfortuanately we learned that Kerry was not going to support any such thing. That the U.S. had policies and both parties were involved.

It was a blow, and a huge disappointment and the beginning of an awakening to the way things really are for many people. Still, no Democrat, Liberal, Progressive a I knew would ever go along with those policies. Venezuela being the main target, was defended on Rightwing boards by Democrats because at that time, it was only ON Rightwing boards you ever saw what we are now seeing on leftwing boards, the kind of propaganda that is in the linked article in this OP.

Defending Latin American countries, their rights and their people's rights to choose their leaders, was a Progressive Democratic cause. Chavez was not the issue, nor was Aristede or Lulu or any of those leaders, it was our policies. Policies that again were used to back the recent coup in Honduras.

So, when you accuse ME of being the interloper here, because I and others expose the fact that these 'articles' are a continuation of the vile cold war policies of this country against third world countries, in Latin America, in the ME, in Africa and elsewhere, you have it backwards. It is the sudden infiltration of rightwing propaganda against these countries and their leaders, Iraqis, Arabs, Latin Americans, Africans, it is THEY who are spreading lies and distortions and I will never, ever stop exposing them.

I see you now taking over Catherina's threads. Supporting the people of the ME and Africa's rights to establish their own governments. Some of those countries, like the Latin American countries once free, will want to nationalize their oil eg. Once they do that, our policies of undermining anyone who does not fully cooperate with us, will go into effect.

YOU, because you have been supporting them, will be outraged when you see smear campaigns against their leaders, because you will know the reasons why. And it WILL happen. We are nothing in this country if not consistent. We just did it in Honduras.

So don't dare to tell me I am being dishonest. Anyone who knows me and the policies of Bush, now clear to us that they are the horrific policies of both parties, policies that got us into Iraq, that we are struggling to change, knows how long we have been fighting off the attempts to get support from the American people for another invasion if necessary of a sovereign nation, by conducting a propaganda campaign against democratic leaders of other countries, or a secret war such as the one Reagan conducted in Central America and would be appalled that someone on a democratic board would accuse those of us who have been in this battle for so long, of being dishonest.

I will never NOT expose the propaganda so don't expect it.

It's strange though that you do not see that while you support the people of the ME and Africa's right to the freedom to choose their own government, when it comes to Latin America you enable the forces who would deny THOSE people who struggled and suffered for so long, the very same rights.

Venezuela elected the president they wanted. When they do not want him, they will not elect him. It is THEIR choice. The U.S. has a long, bloody history in Latin America and they are still there, undercover but there, and Chavez knows it and so does every other leader of the region of the world. They ousted Aristedes and Chavez, and Honduras' elected president.

That's three democratically elected presidents in less than ten years. Along with invasions of two countries.

No, they have NOT stopped their criminal intereference in Latin America and I for one will never enable that by allowing their smear campaigns to go unchallenged.

Demonizing leaders like Aristedes, Chavez, Lulu and anyone who won't cave in to them, is how they start. Get the American people to hate a leader of a foreign country, and they will cheer when we decide to invade that country. I am sure you do not want to deprive the people of Venezuela of their rights, but each time you support the propaganda against their chose leader, you ARE helping those who would take away their freedom in a nano second in order to get their hands on the oil.

[joshcryer]

71. You still don't get that this "phenomenon on DU" is because of this kind of belittlement.

Your entire spiel is highly insulting. I answered your questions straightforwardly, yet you still think you have to "inform me what is going on." People are tired of blanket approval for any politician, here and elsewhere. This is because people by and large have anti-authoritarian tendencies, even if they don't know it. You look at DU, a place that was so supportive of Obama during the elections that it would completely have shocked anyone at that time to know that DU would become one of the most critical outlets for Obama's policies. There are a few posters who take it upon themselves to point out issues with Chavez and his Venezuelan government, I myself have done it, but not because I want to affect change in that government, I'm not Venezuelan, that would be preposterous. It's done because of that blanket approval. It's done because of that lack of criticism. There are a few Chavez supporters who have come out against the relationship with Gaddafi, who have come out against the implicit support that certain regimes have for Gaddafi's tyranny. Those people aren't the targets of the criticism, and indeed, likely aren't phased by it.

But when you spend an inordinate amount of time defending every single thing, it becomes clear that ones intentions aren't a search for truth or honesty, but rather a blind devotion which ultimately supports detrimental policies. There was a very popular thread here where Chavez was, by decree, going to force all party members to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4669547">vote with their party, on DU this idea was so preposterous the "usual suspects" (Chavez bashers) hardly had to even chat in that thread. It was just a given and you had people from all over the board commenting, names you won't naturally recognize in a "negative Chavez posting."

It goes further, though, I mean, you speak positively about Chavez and Aristide while I wouldn't say much of either of them. Why? Because while you think that the United States is wrong in interfering in Latin American countries, I think it is wrong for any western state to interfere in any country. And given that western states depend on globalization, by default any country that trades with the west is being interfered with. Indeed, from my point of view Chavez is just as much a pawn of the United States as Mubarak was! This of course is horrendous for you to hear, but it's true. Venezuela gives the United States 20% of the oil it consumes. That's 20%. That's a lot. That 20% enables the United States to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq. Chavez, by trading with the United States, is enabling death and murder. Yes, this is a hard line view, but that is how I see it, and that is why your insulting screeds don't even affect me, because I see things quite differently than others might. Don't even get me started about Aristide, a person whom the United States is aware takes bribes and who had possibly the best relations of anyone in Latin America. You take it further to the case of Zelaya who was, by all accounts, the United States' political "in" to http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/borrador/aprobado/OEA/2009/elpepuint/20110129elpepuint_21/Tes">ALBA and to smoothing relations with Chavez! Yet, the "blanket approval" of these people continues, despite these clear indicators.

But, I accept that Venezuela must sell their oil to some states, I just don't buy the pathetic rhetoric that these states "are under constant imperial invasion" or whatever you want to call it, because they're the ones selling! You assume that any sort of criticism is "right wing propaganda" when in reality it's mere criticism coming from people with anti-authoritarian tendencies in order to get a jab in here or there. The primaries illustrated this behavior perfectly. Basically people see your blanket approval, and indeed, outright defense in light of clear evidence to the contrary, as something that must be challenged. It doesn't help that in almost every conversation there is deflection, misquoting if not outright misrepresentation of positions because to defend detrimental policies one must go way out of their way to accomplish it.

I see you now taking over Catherina's threads. Supporting the people of the ME and Africa's rights to establish their own governments. Some of those countries, like the Latin American countries once free, will want to nationalize their oil eg. Once they do that, our policies of undermining anyone who does not fully cooperate with us, will go into effect.

No, see, you're wrong. You're assuming "they'll nationalize the oil." Libya's oil, for instance, is already nationalized (National Oil Company). As long as the oil flows the global markets don't give one iota how a country operates the wells and refineries. Now, if they de-nationalize their oil (which I don't think they'll do, but if they do), you will use it as evidence that the revolutionaries were "pawns of the empire." From my point of view they're pawns at all for even having to sell the oil to the west. It doesn't matter if it's nationalized or not to me. The only people who will attempt to delegitimize the revolutionaries are those who have political intentions for how they want the revolutionaries to be. Right now they're a rag-tag group of people who want to dispose of a tyrant, what they want to be may not be realizable right now.

Saudi Arabia's oil is nationalized (Saudi Aramco), Iran's oil is nationalized (National Iranian Oil Company), the reality is that you have bought in to this sort of uncritical thinking that you take sound bites at face value and don't research. I'll repeat, the west, the United States in particular, doesn't care how the oil gets out of the ground as long as it gets out of the ground. The United States is particularly self-sufficient, as the majority of the oil it gets is from Canada and it is sitting on top of the largest reserves of oil shale on the planet (and don't think that the United States isn't sitting on it for a reason; as oil prices go up it becomes more and more viable, thus rendering the United States the global oil provider for the future).

YOU, because you have been supporting them, will be outraged when you see smear campaigns against their leaders, because you will know the reasons why. And it WILL happen. We are nothing in this country if not consistent. We just did it in Honduras.

No, I won't, they're pawns either way. I will be outraged if smear campaigns continue against the Libyan people after they have freed themselves, created a constitution with enumerated rights, and are denigrated in a way that makes it seem as if they "were forced" into their situation. Let's reiterate, if they continue nationalizing their oil and if they implement a lot of social policies, you won't have any criticism for them. If they denationalize their oil (which oil states can't really do but let's play devils advocate) and then privatize everything, even if their standard of living was just as well, even if their freedom to move about was just as well, even if their freedom of expression was just as well, you'd denigrated them for making that choice and call them pawns, you won't recognize that if they did things "your way" that they would still be pawns.

So don't dare to tell me I am being dishonest.

It is absolutely dishonest to pretend that a developing countries internal political structure is relevant toward whether that country is a pawn to the empire or not. Given globalization by default every developing country is a pawn to the interests of the developed world. It's a given. When Venezuela passes an internet censorship law, I disagree with it. When the United States passes an internet censorship law, I disagree with it (and so far we have been successful in the United States stopping those laws from being passed). I suspect that you won't come out against the former. That's dishonest.

It's strange though that you do not see that while you support the people of the ME and Africa's right to the freedom to choose their own government, when it comes to Latin America you enable the forces who would deny THOSE people who struggled and suffered for so long, the very same rights.

Calling me an "enabler of the forces who would deny those people who struggled and suffered for so long, the very same rights" is extremely dishonest. I state the facts as I see them. And that's precisely what I mean about your dishonesty. You conflate, misconstrue, misrepresent others positions, and that's the very thing that paints a target on your back. It's easy to debunk this sort of thing. Simply saying "Hey, sabrina 1, why don't you quote me actually "enabling the forces" you're talking about." And pow, you can't do it because it's a dishonest fabrication, and it won't be done, and if anyone follows the discussion they will see that in fact I am not "enabling the forces."

[sabrina 1]

72. I won't waste any more time on this.

I will continue to expose Imperialism and Colonialism and the right of the people of Venezuela to choose their own leader.

I will be outraged if smear campaigns continue against the Libyan people

But you're not outraged at the insult to the Venezuelan people by the well-funded smear campaign that shamefully, has now reached DU. My friends in Venezuela want you and everyone else who do not live there, to mind your own business, and to stop insulting their intelligence with stupid, tabloid stories about the man they chose in several elections now, as their leader.

They KNOW he is not perfect, how stupid to make the assumption that anyone believes any human being is.

Sorry you don't like facts countering tabloid nonsense, but when an OP coming from a disreputable site is posted, that is what will happen. I suggest you get used to it.

[joshcryer]

73. You dishonestly called me an "enabler of forces."

A "disreputable" site does not invalidate a source. AJE reported on the renaming of the stadium, and BBC followed, too. Chavez will be gone in 2012. Bookmark this page. Bank on it.

[sabrina 1]

74. It is a disreputable source which is why it lied by omission and

published a piece of trivial garbage, a tiny stadium with Chavez's name on it, OMG! hoping to deceive people into thinking that Chavez was the only leader in the world who was friends with Qadaffi. I am familiar with their tactics. And I more than happy to fill in the blanks they deliberately leave out.

I corrected that deception, as I have done before with their garbage and will continue to. I don't like propaganda. From anywhere, about anyone. The facts would have done just fine.

And here you go doing as I said you were doing, enabling them. Fortunately though, I have already exposed their game and people now can read further up in the thread to get the proper and balanced information.

I will post some photos too, of the weapons now being used to kill the Libyan people, with the names of the various Western countries and the U.S. who sold them, written on them.

Egypt too ~ I remember the photos. Germany, maker of torture instruments sold to Tunisia's secret police and used on the people there, and probably some of our detainees they were happy to torture for us, for a price.

I have good photos of those weapons and torture instruments revealed last week.

Too bad you find a name on a stadium, especially in the middle of what is happening in the world, and the revelations every day of the complicity of the West in the slaughter and torture and destruction of so many lives to be so very important. My priorities are a bit different, I'm happy to say.

These events will be world changing, and will definitely lead to big changes in U.S. policies. We don't control the message anymore.

There was a time when the garbage in this OP would have been taken seriously, but now with what the world has and is learning each day about this country and others, people simply shake their heads at this kind of petty, trivial garbage easily exposed as such.

[joshcryer]

75. Where is Hillary's Stadium? Where is Obama's Stadium?

There was no deception, it was a simple story about a stadium. You made it out to be a bigger deal than it was and this story has persisted for several days because of it. Good job. You are the one who keeps bumping this thread (particularly when I'm around, might I add, as I am not looking for it, by all means bump it next time and I won't respond to your dishonesty if I don't see it).

[sabrina 1]

77. Of course I'll bump it. It is a deceptive piece of propaganda

from a disreputable source which has now been corrected and exposed. The more people who see it the better.

[joshcryer]

76. And you still haven't apologized for calling me an "enabler of forces."

:puke:

[naaman fletcher]

13. it's a standard reply

anything bad about Hugo.. point out that someone else has done worse.

[davidinalameda]

15. pretty much

it's called deflection and the Little Sisters of St. Hugo are masters of it

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. The first one is the first one for a reason.

[sabrina 1]

17. The truth tends to remain 'standard' so it should not be a surprise when

it gets repeated, often. It doesn't change, so it's hard to make it 'interesting' by throwing in some extra fun stuff to get people's attention. They either care about the truth or they don't. To those who do, the truth is always important and should be repeated to refute false propaganda as often as necessary.

This OP has provided wrong information to the DU community. It did so by omitting facts (which I was happy to supply above) and by using an old propaganda trick of highlighting something that is in fact very insignificant when the real goal is to place 'blame' on someone for something that they actually were not guilty of.

I thought this was a community that actually did respect facts, and I think it is.

This period in history is one of the most important in our lifetimes. And frankly, it is disgusting to see attempts to use it for someone's own personal and insignificant agenda. Although the anti-Chavez propaganda funded by the U.S. government, is not insignificant, it is criminal as it is, yet again, an attempt to interfere with and undermine a sovereign nation's right to choose their own leaders.

We have a history of committing that crime, as the latest revelations about Libya show. Not to mention our brutality and installation of a puppet government in IRaq.

Anyhow, if facts are what you care about, I have posted some above, which should help understand what is so wrong with this OP. I appreciate this board providing me with the opportunity to do so.

[naaman fletcher]

18. Nobody said it wasn't true, we did not comment on truth

The issue is that every single time something unflattering is said about Chavez, that you deflect to something else. That something else may perfectly well be true. Nobody said it was not true. What was said is that all discussion about Chavez get deflected to something else, the way the Repug's used to say but, but, but, Clinton! every time W did something wrong.

As to the "real goal" you are talking about, what makes you think that you can read peoples minds?

[sabrina 1]

21. What was the purpose of posting what is a completely

misleading OP intending to put forward the idea that the Venezuelan government were the sole collaborators of the Libyan Govt and as a reward, Chavez got a stadium named after him? Because everyone knows that that is to be expected of a Democratic, left-leaning, uncooperative-with-the-Global-Oil-Cartels Latin American leader, who MUST be in league with worlds current pariah. :eyes:

That is completely false, and required that someone correct it. It is a lie by omission. It was not to 'deflect' it was to 'correct' an intentional effort to create a false impression that for some people, not familiar with the facts, might have become fact.

If you can explain the purpose of such a post, then I'd love to hear it.

I eg, could post the photos of Hillary welcoming Qaddafi's playboy son to the U.S. State Dept. in his ridiculous silk suit and make it seem that only the U.S. was collaborating with the Libyan dictator and his family because everyone knows that the U.S. is greedy and powerhungry. If my agenda was to make the U.S. look bad, that is exactly what I would do, regardless of the truth.

But that would be a false impression which some people might accept as a fact, and have a good laugh over it also.

Instead I prefer to post facts, all-inclusive facts. that the U.S. collaborated is a fact, but they were not the only ones. Why would I want to put that idea out there unless I had an agenda?

We disagree but I will always correct false impressions and/or outright inaccuracies about matters as important as this.

Sorry if that offends you.

[naaman fletcher]

22. huh?

"misleading OP intending to put forward the idea that the Venezuelan government were the sole collaborators of the Libyan Govt and as a reward,"

nobody did that.

[joshcryer]

27. Reading comprehension fails are also common.

[joshcryer]

28. What do you mean you "could" post photos of Hillary doing that? YOU DID.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x504604

You even included the famous photo of Obama shaking hands with Gaddafi at the G8 summit (Obama and Gaddafi never met on any policy issues whatsoever, pure realpolitik at G8, they even sat at the same dinner table).

Hypocrisy never ceases to amaze and amuse me.

[sabrina 1]

31. Of course I did and I could and will do so again as I said, as apparently this

OP was under the impression that only Chavez was BFF with Qadaffi. And I could post many, many more but I made my point so to anyone who was simply unaware, the point has been made, the facts laid out so it is not necessary until the next time I see someone who appears to be ignorant of the facts, and then I will do so again. That is how the truth overcomes propaganda, we have a duty to spread truth do we not?

But speaking of reading comprehension fail. You missed my point completely. I said I could post those photos WITHOUT adding the information that the U.S was not the only country that was entertaining and promoting the Qadaffi family. But I did NOT do that, did I? I included others and did not try to make the U.S. appear to be the only one, as this OP did. That is because my agenda is the truth no matter who it makes look bad. You should looke bad if you are doing bad things.

Do you object to posting facts for some reason? You seem annoyed about it. I did not make Hillary and Condy, and Obama, Bush, et al shake hands and welcome the Qadaffis to the State Dept. I personally would not have done so, but they DID. I'm hardly to blame for that. I think your anger should be directed at them, after they represent US. And it does not represent us very well to be doing business with a brutal dictator. But they are still doing that, in Uzbekistan eg. And will continue to do so until the media highlights HIS brutal policies against his own people, then they will, hypocritically, condemn him too. I think we as citizens need to be aware of what our government is up to. I don't live in Ven. Some Americans seem more obsessed with Ven. than their own government and as a result appear to be ignorant of what THEIR government is up to.

Thankfully information can be provided by people who have it to correct that state of affairs.

Those are the facts, sorry you dont' like them, I don't either.

hypocrisy never ceases to amaze and amuse me

Well, I agree it is amazing to see our president shaking hands and posing for photos with one of the world's best known supporters of terror, the hypocrisy did strike me at the time. Because our president was telling us that we needed to fight terrorism which is why we had to accept the destruction of our Constitutional Rights. It was extremely hypocritical therefore to see him pose for photos with the man everyone knows was behind the Lockerbie bombing among other terrorist acts.

You must have been VERY amazed and amused also. I found it amazing, but I was definitely NOT amused.

Funny too that you don't seem to mind that our president was promoting this dictator for business purposes, but you are opposed to Chavez's far less lucrative or dangerous (like selling weapons dangerous) relationship with him.

And that, apparently, is NOT hypocrisy?? Now that is amusing, I agree.

[naaman fletcher]

36. huh?

"OP was under the impression that only Chavez was BFF with Qadaffi."

Who said that?

[joshcryer]

42. You're being completely dishonest. The OP never did that. But YOUR OP DID!

You used cheap shots of Obama and Hillary to try to form a connection where one didn't exist. The OP merely wrote about how a stadium was no longer named after Chavez. It's easy to rile up the defenders of tyrants, because they put so much effort in defending they don't think critically.

[davidinalameda]

30. when they name a stadium after Hillary

get back to us

[sabrina 1]

32. How about when they give a quarter of a million dollars

worth of gifts to our SOS? Would that count for anything do you think? And it is possible that other stadiums and buildings were named after high profile Western leaders. I haven't checked, have you?

But Qadaffi sure was enamoured of our Sec. of State, Condy. Were there any objections from Congress when she received those gifts from him? I don't recall any. And reading the Wikileaks cables, I can see why. They were bending over backwards not to insult him because of all business deals which he was making a bit difficult for them to get, using them to get what HE wanted. And he was very sensitive to perceived insults. So, Congress airc, had nothing to say at all about that.

He may, for all I know, have even named a ship after her, it's happened before.

[davidinalameda]

37. you do realize that public officials can't keep those gifts

don't you?

maybe you should do your research before posting stuff like this-it just embarrasses you

[sabrina 1]

43. Before you lecture others on how not to embarrass themselves

it would save YOU embarrassment to do a little research first. If you are familiar with me at all, which I doubt, you should know that I never post about issues I know nothing about.

You: you do realize that public officials can't keep those gifts don't you? maybe you should do your research before posting stuff like this-it just embarrasses you

Libya's Qaddafi Gave Condi Rice $212,000 In Gifts, Including A Diamond Ring


The article linked above contains the State Dept. Report which lists the gifts received by Bush Admin. officials including Condi Rice and the gifts she received from Qadaffi. You may scroll down in the article to see the actual report.

Since I did not say, as I do not know, what Condi Rice did with the gifts she received but simply pointed out that Qadaffi did give her nearly a quarter of a million dollars worth of gifts, which she apparently accepted. Officials can and most often do, ACCEPT gifts from foreign leaders for the reasons given in the report. Here is a synopsis of those reasons from the article:

There are strict rules about the acceptance of gifts by public officials but when it comes to foreign leaders, diplomatic concerns take priority. For each of the gifts, the reasons cited for the acceptance of the gift was listed as "non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government." By law, officials are required to turn such gifts over to the U.S. government, even the brown leather Hermes saddle given to President Bush by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

You can read the entire report here:

Libya's Qaddafi Gave Condi Rice $212,000 In Gifts, Including A Diamond Ring

Scroll down for the State Department report

In its final months in office, the Bush administration made out pretty well in odd and exotic gifts from foreign leaders - including diamond jewelery, a taxidermied lion, and Israeli bike shorts.

One of the most generous gift-givers was Libya's Moamar Qaddafi, who seemed particularly grateful for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Tripoli last year, giving her gifts with a total value of $212,225, including a diamond ring and a locket with his own picture inside, according to a newly-released State Department report.

You realize you missed the entire point of my comment which had nothing to do with whether she kept the gifts or not?

[joshcryer]

40. Like how Castro and Chavez both got the Gaddafi Peace Prize with a $250k prize?

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

51. Are you saying that they should not have joined the Global

party that was being thrown for Qadaffi? Any reason you'd like to offer as to why your standards for Chavez are different from your standards for Blair, Obama, Hillary, Bush, Condi, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Putin, BP, Halliburton, Bechtel, elite universities here and elsewhere. The list is too long, I'm getting tired just trying to remember all of Qadaffi's adoring fans around the globe.

I'm very interested in these different standards you have for Latin Americans as opposed to Europeans and Americans, Canadians and Australians.

Could it be you don't think Chavez was .... I'm searching for a word .... maybe he wasn't 'acceptable' enough to hob nob with all those wealthy elites from Western nations and their various associates.

Do you have something against Latin America? Personally I think it was brilliant of him to crash the party. Showed them all up for what they were, and they couldn't very well whine about HIS association with Qadaffi when they knew he would not be shy about publishing the dirt on them. Very clever of him. He does enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.

[joshcryer]

52. What? I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't support any arms deals.

See, you're being completely dishonest about where my position is.

Chavez doing realpolitk is fine. Realpolitk doesn't get stadiums named after you.

Reality is I searched DU for Gaddafi supporters in the past. They're non-existant. He's had an extremely low profile. Likewise there has been very very very little criticism of Gaddafi here on these forums over the years. I personally didn't even know he was still alive and when the uprisings began I was surprised to learn that he still was. It just shows how little anyone gave a shit about Libya and the Libyan people.

[sabrina 1]

59. You shouldn't assume that because there is not much

about him here on Du or in the U.S. media, that he hasn't been all over the news everywhere else for years now.

I was very much aware of him over the past decade and he was constantly in the headlines around the world when the U.S. decided to rehabilitate him in 2005. That sparked outrage among the family members of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and was constantly in the news for a long time.

Recently, he was all over the headlines again when Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber to Libya, with the help of Prince Andrew and Qadaffi's son Saif.

If you had been reading the European entertainment pages, or the tabloids, you would have been very familiar with a few of his wealthy, playboy sons who were well known all over Europe.

And not so long ago, one of his sons sparked a diplomatic crisis between Libya and Switzerland when he was arrested for abusing his wife. That made all of the tabloids and angered Qadaffi as it 'embarrassed the family' but he blamed the Swiss rather than his wayward son.

America is so cut off from the rest of the world, that I am not surprised you missed the past decade worth of news about Qadaffi. He has been constantly in the news as he visited repeatedly and was treated like a king, countries like Italy eg. Berlusconi couldn't get enough of him. He was pure entertainment for the news media and enjoyed every minute of the attention he got.

However, he WAS headline news HERE when he arrived at the UN and insisted on putting up a tent in the middle of NYC not so long ago.

He has a flair for getting attention and definitely got it in NYC.

We don't get much news in this country which is why it is necessary to go elsewhere to find out what is going on in the world. And the U.S. government didn't want to draw too much attention to their newfound friend, Qadaffi as they knew what a controversial issue it was for them to suddenly embrace him with open arms.

Btw, I never said you voted for Bush. Don't know where you got that from.

[joshcryer]

61. Why wasn't this posted on DU? Why no criticism then?

Why the lack of criticism for Gaddafi when Chavez took over the Hilton: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x24504

I assure you DU has been silent on Gaddafi before this fiasco began.

You said my standards were different for Chavaz than they were for my "standards for Blair, Obama, Hillary, Bush, Condi, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Putin, BP, Halliburton, Bechtel, elite universities here and elsewhere"

Blair I have no control over and I don't give a shit about except that I made fun of him for being Bush's lackey.

Bush I didn't vote for. Condi I didn't support.

Sarkozy I don't fucking give a shit about because there are plenty of others here who do and are better at it, Berlusconi I don't give a shit about because there are plenty of others here who do and are better at it, Putin I don't get a shit about because there are plenty of others here who do and are better at it, BP I shit all over in E/E because that was something I felt I was good at, Halliburton and Bechtel I don't give a shit about because there are plenty of others here who do and are better at it, "elite universities here and elsewhere" I can't remember but I know I have issues with them so you can probably find posts of mine cutting them down.

MY STANDARDS FOR CHAVEZ ARE THE SAME. LACK OF CRITICISM IS NOT THE SAME AS "DIFFERENT STANDARDS." I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR PATIENCE TO SIT AROUND MAKING LARGE TEXT FILES OF ALL MY CRITICISMS COPY PASTING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I AM AN ORIGINAL FREE THINKING PERSON.

[sabrina 1]

63. You don't live in Venezuela.

You live here. Yet, you and several others here appear to be obsessed with the leader of a country that is none of your business. They are not attacking the U.S. They are not doing anything to us. They did not join in our wars in the ME. They do not take our detainees and torture them for us.

They are a sovereign nation with some of the cleanest elections anywhere, as attested to by the Carter institute among other reputable organizations.

They are an emerging democracy in a part of the world that has for so long have been the victims of U.S. backed dictatorships and now, something we should all be thrilled about, have finally emerged from those dark days, just as the N.African and ME countries are trying to do now.

The U.S. should be helping these democracies, NOT undermining them as they are doing.

I have seen you in Catherina's threads supporting the revolutions in N. Africa. I support them also.

It is inconceivable to me that you do not realize that Latin America WAS until very recently, doing exactly what those people in Africa are now doing, rising up against the brutality of Western backed Dictators and any decent person knowing that history should be SUPPORTING THEM.

But the U.S. likes its dictators, it does not like Democracies like Ven. Because Chavez will never hand over his county's resources to a foreign entity. He will SELL them those resources, but he wants the people of Ven. to own their country. And you criticize him for that?? Yet you support, you say, the African people who are trying to do the same thing, own their own countries?

You are a victim of the well-financed propaganda machine set up to smear Chavez because, like the revolutionaries in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Algeria, he wants the people of Venezuela to be independent of foreign interference.

I can see from your post that you don't even know why you join in the smear campaign against Chavez. I think you really should start studying Latin America history and why Chavez has been reelected so many times by the people of his country and how important it is that he succeed in keeping Venezuela free from the influence of the U.S. and Multi National Corps, despite the U.S. wanting him to fail.

I'm going to bed. It really is sad to see how successful our propaganda machine is.

[joshcryer]

67. Yeah, the same propaganda machine that Castro says is fomenting revolution in Libya.

Please, I am a free thinking individual who can see through propaganda.

I don't criticize Venezuela for nationalizing their oil, more power to them. I criticize Venezuela for being corrupt.

[joshcryer]

26. It's standard, and uninteresting.

[joshcryer]

24. Unknown, no media was allowed into Libya until the uprising.

We will have to wait until the revolution is over to find out how many people were killed in Hugo Chavez Football Stadium.

[sabrina 1]

34. Can you explain that comment?

The point that was made earlier was an accusation that people were killed in that stadium. You were asked to prove it. Now you have moved the goalposts, because you could not prove it, and are making the most ludicrous claim ever, that if someone is killed in a stadium the person after whom that stadium is named, is responsible??? Do you realize what that, if we were to accept, would mean? Think about it!!

Now you are actually beginning to amuse me.

But we do know this. This is NOT a supposition, it is a fact, and you must have noticed by now that I only post facts.

Since you want to talk about who is responsible for the tragic deaths in Libya, and Egypt and Tunisia, let's do that.

You clearly are longing to blame Chavez, so I did a little research for you. I tried to find out if any weapons, or teargas, or torture instruments used in these revolutions, came from Ven. And guess what I could not find any evidence of that at all.

But, as you must know since you have been following Catherina's excellent threads on the revolutions, U.S. made weapons, British, Italian, French, German (instruments of torture eg) have tragically been used to kill people in those countries.

And just a short time ago the U.S. was entering into talks to provide Libya with more weapons.

Can you show me where Venezuela has done anything like that? If they have I will gladly add them to my list of countries to condemn.

[joshcryer]

38. Actually, no one ever said there was anyone murdered there, people asked, rhetorically...

...if anyone was murdered there.

That is unknown.

The media was not allowed into Liyba.

We will not know the answer to their rhetorical question for some time.

Venezuela did not give Libya weapons but the material aid in the form of a $1 billion joint grant could easily have been used to funnel in to arms accounts. The joint grant was never explained. There's no accounting for it. It was agreed upon and then silence.

[Kalun D]

60. the enemy of my enemy

Just because Hugo is "affiliated" with a dictator doesn't mean he's not a just leader who has raised the standard of living of the working class in his country by saying no to the greed pig American corporations


that's why the US corporate media hates him so. He told corporate America to fu*k off.

Hugo is way better than Obama, he's what you see is what you get

Obama is a two faced predatory corporatist dressed up as a democrat

[sabrina 1]

78. Couldn't agree more with what you said.

[pinboy3niner]

4. "Martyrs of February" is a MUCH better name

Libyans will never forget this part of their history.

[HuckleB]

6. +1

[bobbolink]

20. Now there will have to be another one for the Martyrs of March. :(

:cry:

~~~praying there aren't anymore after that!~~

[AngryAmish]

19. I think Hugo needs a hug!

[rabs]

47. Speaking of football (soccer) stadiums in Libya

Hugo Chavez Stadium ملعب هيوجو تشافييز


Hugo Chavez Stadium "تصويرزياد الكاديكي "ملعب هيوجو تشافييز

The Hugo Chavez Stadium in eastern Libya is tiny. It holds only 11,000 spectators. It was named for Chavez just a couple of years ago.

-----------------------------

Then there is this monster.


ملعب 11 يونيو طرابلس June 11 Stadium Tripoli

It is one of the largest football stadiums in the world and the biggest in North Africa. It holds up to 80,000 fans.

The name; June 11 Stadium, located in Tripoli.

I found the name curious, so went poking around. It turns out that the date is the day the huge U.S. Air Force base named Wheelus in Libya was shut down.

That was in 1970, about a year after one Capt. Gaddafi toppled the monarchy and kicked the U.S. military out of Libya.



F-86 Sabres roar off the runway at Wheelus AB, Libya. (Think this would have been in the 1950s/60s when the Sabres still were used by the USAF.)

Good read on Wheelus AFB and how and why it came to be shut down by Gaddafi.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/...

--------------
I doubt that the June 11 Stadium's name will be changed by whichever side eventually triumphs in the civil war.

[joshcryer]

50. The US military left at Gaddafi's request to coddle him.

The "June 11 Stadium" will likely be renamed as Gaddafi's "revolution" was false and only tyranny.

[rabs]

56. "to coddle him????"

Once again have to request from you a credible link that says the U.S. military left Libya voluntarily to "coddle" Gaddafi. Need facts to back up your pithy remark. Thanks.



From the U.S. Air Force magazine article on the closing of Wheelus
----------------

The base’s fate was determined on Sept. 1, 1969, when a small group of Libyan Army officers seized control of the central government, declared the abolition of the Libyan monarchy, and announced establishment of the Libyan Arab Republic.

Shortly after the bloodless coup, a new strongman, 27-year-old Muammar Qaddafi, rose from captain to colonel and became Libya’s maximum leader. In a single day, Libya was changed from a monarchy friendly to the United States to a radical Arab state led by a political firebrand who incessantly demanded expulsion of American forces.

On Oct. 16, 1969, Qaddafi called for “the liquidation of foreign bases on Libyan soil.” Fourteen days later, Palmer received a formal Libyan note asking for discussions on the evacuation of US forces. Requests for the resumption of USAF training flights at Wheelus were rejected by Qaddafi.

--------------

[joshcryer]

58. I know it's hard, but it's basic logic. The US had no desire to maintain that base.

The base contract was about to expire anyway.

You make it seem as if Gaddafi made the terrible US leave when the reality is that the US didn't care about that base.

[sabrina 1]

57. Poor Hugo, He should have sold arms to Qadaffi

or promised to consider giving him nuclear power, for domestic purposes only of course.

That might have gotten him more than a tiny stadium. He needs to learn from those Western leaders how to profit from dealing with dictators.

But, he is not in the arms trade like we are and Britain and Italy and France and as a man of principle, I doubt he's interested.

Interesting information, thank you.

[rabs]

66. You're welcome

The history of the June 11 Stadium was intriguing, as was the kicking out of the U.S. military by the 27-year-old Gaddafi.

Read your replies tonight to JC. Outstanding.

[joshcryer]

69. US army was closing that base, just fyi. Not sure if you saw my other comment.