Frustrated U.S. Finds Few Willing to Join Anti-Chavez Coalition

juancegomez says on Sep 17, 2005, 17:47:

Chavez is actually easing, rather than reducing, poverty, through social programs, some of which work, others not so much...as far as simply those intentions go, I'd be a Chavista.

But in fact poverty has gone up in Venezuela since he came in power...waaaaay back in 1999 (and he's still got at least another 6 years ahead of him come the next election, with signs of wanting more...talk about personalism), according to the statistics provided by his own government, but I guess perceptions matter more...

Chavez's accusations against the U.S. of being "terrorist" ring hollow, since Chavez himself can't even be honest enough to use the same word when talking about groups like the FARC (and it is undeniable that the FARC are proportionally more "terrorist" than the U.S. is...I repeat, proportionally, terrorism makes up a higher percentage of their activities, whereas U.S. acts that might be considered terrorist are proportionally minuscule when compared to the vast majority of U.S. actions. Try spinning that).

Not to mention that Chavez has met and hugged plenty of Middle East and worldwide despots (even if you don't count Castro)...whose only common denominator is/was to be "anti-U.S." or "un-U.S.". But I guess people like to forget that, even while they still criticize the U.S. for doing similar things.

Criticizing Plan Colombia and prohibition as a counter-drug policy is fine. Lots of people do that. But Chavez usually goes much, much farther than that: he has repeatedly said the the "true objective" of Plan Colombia is to invade his country, and he has NEVER proved that such a thing is true, at all. That is paranoia.

But of course...if Chavez says it and since the U.S. is evil, it must be true! And since the evil opposition tried to coup him, that makes it even worse...yet Mr. Chavez himself was a coup plotter in 1992 and served (a brief) time in jail for it, and instead of showing remorse he even celebrates the date of that previous coup (which people try to justify as a "necessary and popular" thing, as if any coup against a democratic government can be justified...neither against Chavez nor against the Venezuelan president in 1992).

Normally I'd be willing to cut Chavez some slack, but since the discussion has been taking a certain direction these days...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Sep 17, 2005, 18:02:

Interesting I know the U.S. is the Great Satan, a terrorist police state, with a rotten economy, non-existent opportunities for advancement, no freedoms and all that. But still, 230 illegal immigrants have died in the desert trying to get here in the last 11 months and 100 Ecuadorians drowned trying to do the same. I wonder what the death numbers will be in January 2009 when we have a new president and people REALLY want to come here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Sep 17, 2005, 18:11:

More importantly why did the US put a desert there in the first place? I have often pondered this.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 17, 2005, 20:01:

Come now, Kernow, surely you must know that it is... not their desert... it was stolen from Mexico and a lot of Mexicans feel it's OK to return to their country of origin.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Sep 20, 2005, 23:50:

Chavez & Castro I am by no means an expert on Cuba or Venezuelan, but from what I have seen and heard, it seems Chavez is trying to model his country after Cuba. I think he is a fool for doing it, but I really think Chavez sees himself as the NEW CASTRO of Venezuelan

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

protocol13 says on Sep 21, 2005, 17:29:

Platano The Southwest US was in Mexican hands for only about three decades. Before that it belong to Spain and before that to various Amerindian tribes. There was a war and Mexico lost (not stolen). So what, it is part of the past and now is now and the Southwest have been part of the US a lot longer than the miserly few years it was under Mexico.
Throughout history, countries have taken land away from other countries just like Peru with Ecuador, or Chile with Peru and Bolivia, or Colombia with Peru or Russia with several countries or....
So what. What matters is the present and who is control of those lands. These Mexicans should obey inmigration laws and not try to cross illegally accross the desert area. They know what can happen and therefore, they are solely responsible for whatever happens to them. Para los ganadores, el derecho a escribir la historia y para los perdedores las excusas.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 7, 2005, 08:23:

You Can't be serious... not their desert... it was stolen from Mexico and a lot of Mexicans feel it's OK to return to their country of origin.

Yes, and the Spaniards stole Mexico from the Indians.

I'm sure the Mexicans are illegally crossing the border because they like the American side of the desert sand better than their own.

Like the mexicans are crossing the border and staying in Texas. The Northeast has been overrun by central americans. Now the pandillas are causing havoc in some urban areas. This is a big problem.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 10, 2005, 20:26:

Chavez is doing exactly what he said he would do all along, and he is doing it with the overwhelming support of the population. Personally I think it's gonna blow up in their faces, but he is a democratically elected leader. And I have no problem believing that the US has already covertly attempted to assasinate him at least once.

Tinto, there are a lot of people dying to get out of here but they can't because they can't afford to declare bankruptcy first! Or a lot more of them get caught in the trap of wanting to leave here with a little money saved and always seem to wind up back at Square One, so they figure they will stay 'one more year.'

0 funny, 0 helpful.