poorbuthappy.com/chavez

Miguel says on Oct 1, 2006, 10:42:

Sr T Grácías por sus palabras. A veces la gente aquí en PBH necesitan un "reality check".

¿Me entiendes mccraig?

utopiacowboy says on Oct 1, 2006, 10:44:

Como siempre, tiene razon.
Como siempre, tiene razon.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

Peter (Moderator) says on Oct 1, 2006, 13:59:

"poorbuthappy senior analysts"! Hahahahahaha!

Poor but snappy

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 15:15:

I'd tend to agree... I'm not that interested in all those Chavez / Venezuela threads either, in fact I've grown gradually bored of them too, but I also participated in a few once the subject came up, basically just because. Pretty much in order to burn away some time.

Tinto's right in that the forum's woes are partially responsible for this (I remember a topic of mine about landmines that mysteriously vanished, for example...guess I posted it at the wrong time), but that's not all.

I also happen agree with Sr Tertius in that many important subjects, directly dealing with Colombia, tend to be totally or relatively ignored here. Even before the forum's problems came up.

I'm usually very willing to participate in such discussions and, sometimes, even create new topics about that kind of subjects. But I'm afraid that my participation in PBH, never that much to begin with, has also been increasingly reduced (both voluntarily and not).

Still, I'm going to stick around in some way or another because I have a good opinion of PBH and some of the people involved in it, even with all of its flaws and even if the available discussions aren't always that interesting (to me, at least).

This next comment may be a quite a bit OT, so I'll keep it short...

"And these are just the tip of the iceberg. They all made the front cover of one or another magazine of national circulation. Any other Colombian president in its recent history would've had to resign if confronted with something like the "false positives" scandal alone."

I have to disagree here. No Colombian president in the last 50 years has resigned, even when the worst scandals came to light, nor when the country almost seemed to be going down the drain (Samper's presidency, anyone? Though it wasn't all Samper's fault, nor was everything in his term that bad).

As for the "false positives" scandal (or scandals, to be accurate, as it isn't just one big event but several), recent articles in both Semana and El Tiempo (other than their original pieces on the subject) have added layers of complexity to the matter, to say the least, going beyond initial versions of the story.

Nevertheless, the result of all this appears to be that the Army has in fact lost some prestige and credibility, but that the government itself and Uribe himself haven't suffered as much (or at all).

Part of this can be explained because "false positives" are not a thing of the present, but something that has happened for years, if not decades, in Colombia. It just so happened that it wasn't made public so easily.

That doesn't excuse what happened, no, but it provides context for the rather limited reaction of many people (including, to an extent, myself) to the events.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 1, 2006, 16:01:

Different order of magnitude Miguel, UC: Thanks. I believe you know well who "PBH senior analysts" are. They were entertaining at the beginning, but now they are rather annoying.

Tinto: Part of the reason is in what you say. But there are a hell lot of stuff coming from our little corner--I just wished they were positive, but that's not going to happen in the near future. Autocrats from Antioquia? That's like Rastafarians from Jamaica: A local curiosity. The news don't stop because of them.

Juance: You are right about pluralizing the "false positives" scandalS, but I don't agree that it is a problem comparable to those faced by past presidents. The worst Samper had to face was the infiltration of his campaign by the Cali cartel. He played the same card that Uribe plays now ("if it happened, it was behind my back"), it was the demise of many political careers, but it wasn't enough to take Samper down. Just like the evidence of infiltration of AUC in Uribe's campaign in 2000 did not even affect his re-election. What really hit Samper hard was Clinton's disapproval of his administration.

Far more complicated were Gaviria's deals with the narcos. Betancur probably had the worst crisis with the Palace of Justice, which was a matter of ineptitude more than criminal conspiracy. The big scandals of the 70's, e.g., Lopez Michelsen with La Libertad and the highway to the Llanos, seem like petty misdemeanors compared to what's going on today: The Army attacking--not verbally: physically, with guns and explosives--civilians and other public institutions in order to produce the appearance of chaos and to support the agenda of Uribe. I believe many in the US would agree that prior regimes in Washington have been more or less corrupt, but if it was found that 9/11 was planned and executed by government officials, it would put Bush down in a second (or so it would be hoped). No, of course the bombs and massacres in Colombia are not 9/11, but the principle stands: If the government starts attacking its own people to justify its actions, anyone with minimal intelligence will ask for a major house cleaning. Except that Uribe is too popular for that... he'll stay... for now...

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 17:26:

Sr Tertius "Juance: You are right about pluralizing the "false positives" scandalS, but I don't agree that it is a problem comparable to those faced by past presidents."

Maybe not the nature of the problem, "apples and oranges" and all that, but the scale...has even been worse in previous instances, IMHO, and the implications have more directly involved those presidents on a personal level.

"The worst Samper had to face was the infiltration of his campaign by the Cali cartel."

One of the worst things, indeed, but far from the only.

"He played the same card that Uribe plays now ("if it happened, it was behind my back"), it was the demise of many political careers, but it wasn't enough to take Samper down."

True, but even if the card was the same, the game wasn't.

"Just like the evidence of infiltration of AUC in Uribe's campaign in 2000 did not even affect his re-election."

Except that in Samper's case, the Cartel didn't just infiltrate but actually paid off many people and provided huge funding, even way past what would be legally allowed, and the money involved was actually covered up, creating many actual violations of the law by the national campaign staff.

Not to mention that the race was initially relatively close and that the influx and effects of such large amounts of cash had to be noticed by the candidate, at the very least. Samper, if he didn't know about something that permeated the entire national campaign, really had to be blind.

In the case of Uribe's campaign, there was no such money or funding scandal at all (save that of "La Gata", if you want to bring that up, but her company's contribution, her moral qualifications aside, was small, legal, public and not from a druglord, as much of an awful character as she may be).

Serpa himself once admitted that even if say, up to 1 million of Uribe's 2002 votes could be estimated as somehow fraudulent (a completely random and baseless estimate, but as good as anything else one might come up with), that wouldn't have changed the final result.

The scandal there had more to do with what some people, apparently with links to the AUC, did (or claimed to do) on a local scale in order to gain or alter votes in a specific region. The race wasn't decided due to this (Uribe crushed Serpa in important urban centers where there was little chance of any significant fraud happening, such as in Bogotá).

Most importantly, the crime that may likely have been committed did not require or even imply Uribe's direct knowledge or approval in order for it to exist. Did Uribe need to know that a campaign manager and some staff in the Middle Magdalena were allegedly collaborating with paramilitaries in order to committ a local fraud (the true scale of which is unknown and anyone can toss any random estimate to the table)? No. Should he still be held accountable? Yes, but not in the same way that Samper was, by all means.

Morally, both campaigns had clear flaws and the presidents that were elected due to them would have to face the consequences, but those wouldn't be the same at all. Samper's scandal went much further up the ladder as it affected the national campaign as a whole, it was not something going on a local level that a candidate can realistically (and not merely plausibly) deny knowing about.

Finally, though this is only important on a personal and political level, Carlos Gaviria, the candidate who I voted for in 2006, has not demanded Uribe's immediate resignation over any of this, and neither will I.

At least not for now. He did, however, allow for that possibility to remain, and so do I, if the extent of what happened is confirmed and the resulting situation justifies it.

However, what is clear is that the government should have, as you wrote, taken responsibility for what went wrong and should need to pay a political cost. That I can agree with. I just don't share the specifics of that cost.

"What really hit Samper hard was Clinton's disapproval of his administration."

Maybe that contributed to making things worse, on one level, but it wasn't Clinton who revealed the narcocassettes, nor was it Clinton that tried to create a "ruido de sables" in order to oust him (an unlikely prospect, but the possibility existed), it wasn't Clinton who underfounded the military at precisely the worst point in time to do so (and as important as current U.S. aid may be, it doesn't even amount to a half of a quarter of what we spend, yearly), and it wasn't Clinton who politically mismanaged the whole thing.

"Betancur probably had the worst crisis with the Palace of Justice, which was a matter of ineptitude more than criminal conspiracy."

But that ineptitude was enough to force him to admit responsibility on TV, paying a high political cost as his popularity never recovered (though it was already rather low by then).

"The big scandals of the 70's, e.g., Lopez Michelsen with La Libertad and the highway to the Llanos, seem like petty misdemeanors compared to what's going on today"

I respectfully disagree with the comparison here, for reasons explained above and below.

"The Army attacking--not verbally: physically, with guns and explosives--civilians and other public institutions in order to produce the appearance of chaos and to support the agenda of Uribe."

That they needed to produce the "appearance of chaos" is debatable, since only one instance resulted in anything close to real chaos, and that Uribe's agenda didn't require such support in order to succeed.

From what has been currently revealed, the officers were thinking more about their personal reputation, careers and fortunes. Their intentions, as far as is known, did not include those you are speaking of. That's a hypothetical extrapolation that can be made, but the facts do not require it at all, to say the least.

"I believe many in the US would agree that prior regimes in Washington have been more or less corrupt, but if it was found that 9/11 was planned and executed by government officials, it would put Bush down in a second (or so it would be hoped). "

Except that it very likely wasn't, and that something on the scale of 9/11 and with its consequences is a whole different ballgame.

However, what is true is that U.S. officials have committed abuses in Irak and Guantanamo, places where there are probably more than a couple of "false positives" involved too, yet that hasn't led to Bush's resignation or anything remotely like that.

"No, of course the bombs and massacres in Colombia are not 9/11, but the principle stands: If the government starts attacking its own people to justify its actions, anyone with minimal intelligence will ask for a major house cleaning. "

The thing is, the "false positives" scandals were not a case of a government attacking its own people in order to justify its actions, but of agents of the government doing so for their own benefits.

Several of the cases involved soldiers killing (presumably but very likely) a number of innocent people and dressing them up as guerrillas in order to advance their own careers.

And one of the others (based on what is currently known) was a case of some officers apparently planting and deactivating a number of bombs or explosive materials, plus one real bomb that did went off. They weren't the only ones involved though, as jailed, former and active members of FARC also appear to have participated in those events for their own reasons, as chronicled in several recent Semana and El Tiempo articles.

"Except that Uribe is too popular for that... he'll stay... for now..."

Indeed. Still, sooner or later, he'll be out and we'll see if the alternative will be better, as it should be (something that I truly hope will be the case, but unfortunately only time will tell).

mcraig says on Oct 3, 2006, 19:53:

Your assumptions are wroing chavez an colombia is major topic Latin America can all be brought together by there economy , brazil right now is creating more jobs for colombians than the colombia goverment does. Chavez is tryint to spread his virus of anti ameican BS in every latin american country including colombia an its neighbore. An guess who has all the energy that Colombia usues , Chavez an bolivia so the topic of chavez is a strong topic in the colombian economy an political realm an should be treated as such.

Miguel says on Oct 3, 2006, 23:40:

Stratfor Report 10.02.06

Venezuela, Nigeria: Empty Threats of Lower Oil Output
Summary

Venezuela and Nigeria both recently announced they are going to cut their oil outputs -- by 50,000 barrels per a day (bpd) and 150,000 bpd, respectively -- in response to tumbling oil prices. Although these numbers should be inciting panic in the oil-speculating world -- since Venezuela and Nigeria are OPEC members -- little fluctuation was seen when the markets opened Oct. 2. This is because Venezuela and Nigeria are the least reliable and stable of the 11-member OPEC group and because the two countries have no real intention of making the cuts in the first place.

Analysis

Following Nigeria's Sept. 28 announcement that it will cut its 2.6 million barrel-per-day (bpd) oil output by 120-150,000 bpd, Venezuela followed suit later that day and said it will cut its 3.3 million bpd production by 50,000 bpd. The cuts come in response to oil prices' tumble from their July peak.

Though these numbers should be inciting panic in the oil-speculating world -- since Venezuela and Nigeria are OPEC members -- little fluctuation was seen when the markets opened Oct. 2. This is because Venezuela and Nigeria are the two least reliable and most unstable of OPEC's 11 members, and because neither country actually plans to implement the cuts.

It is widely known that both Nigeria and Venezuela are not the most truthful when it comes to reporting their oil output. Nigeria reports that it is producing 2.6 million bpd, far above its OPEC-mandated quota of 2.3 million bpd. However the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that the most Nigeria could actually be producing -- in light of numerous attacks on its energy infrastructure just this year -- would be the quota-bar of 2.3 million bpd and that Nigeria is more than likely producing approximately 2.2 million bpd. Venezuela's numbers are estimated to be even more fudged than Nigeria's. Venezuela claims it is producing 3.3 million bpd, though the EIA estimates it is probably more around 2.45 million bpd -- far below its 3.2 million bpd OPEC quota.

The countries' announcements that they will cut oil output are simply reactions to lower oil prices (oil dipped below $63 a barrel Oct. 2, down 20 percent from its July peak of $78.40). Lower prices could hit both Nigeria and Venezuela hard -- not only economically, but politically as well.

Attacks on its infrastructure are already affecting Nigeria's output; however, lower oil prices along with lower production could spell real trouble for President Olusegun Obasanjo's government. Nigeria counts on oil revenues to help sustain its great bribe continuum, which in turn keeps the many violent and troublesome parties -- rival private security forces, political and tribal militias and criminal gangs -- under some sort of control. Obasanjo is already under pressure to show that his government can contain the violence aimed at oil companies, which has seen a recent uptick. The growing violence and lowered oil income comes as Nigeria prepares to hold its presidential elections in six months.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has his own reasons to keep oil revenues high. Though Venezuela is tapped into the world's largest energy market -- roughly 11 percent of the United States' oil imports come from Venezuela -- Chavez has tripled government spending within just three years and needs money to keep coming in from somewhere. This is not to say that low oil prices will crush Chavez; he has a currency reserve account pushing $35 billion. However, Chavez counts on that money before it is even fully in his bank account to pay for loyalty. If prices continue to slide, Chavez will have to think hard about which among the 100,000 gun-toting loyalists, the subsidized rural population in the millions, or the fellow left-leaning Latin American countries he wants to cut out of his budget.

Though both Nigeria and Venezuela are attempting to incite panic and raise prices with their mythical production cuts, the one OPEC member that could effectively incite this fear would be Saudi Arabia. The largest producer among the OPEC members, Saudi Arabia produces 9.3 million bpd -- well above its 9 million bpd OPEC quota. The country already cut its production in early 2006 from 9.6 to 9.1 million bpd (but later raised it to its current level). Saudi Arabia will not easily be spooked into cutting its production, not only because of its close ties with the United States but also simply because market movements -- any market movements -- affect the Saudis' bottom line more than anyone else's. Saudi Arabia will closely and cautiously watch U.S. inventories in order to make a decision.

With U.S. inventories brimming and U.S. demand down after the end of the summer travel season, Saudi Arabia could very well cut production, but it seems pretty comfortable with oil prices hovering in the $60 area. If oil trends towards the $40 mark, then OPEC as a whole will move without delay to change its quotas and production -- but that would be too late for countries like Nigeria and Venezuela.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 14, 2006, 06:30:

The last 7 topics 1. "Chavez scary? Ask yourself, where do you get your beliefs? U.S. media sources"

2. "Article about Chavez..scary for Colombia"

okay... I see a trend...

3. "Colombia Tops List of Land Mine Victims" Interesting... if it wasn't 36 weeks old

4. "Franchising Jihad To South America" half of the article is about... you guessed it... Venezuela

5. "Colombian paramilitary leaders end peace talks" Oh, so this IS about Colombia.

6. "7-eleven gives Chavez an Citgo the boot" No, not really.

7. "NYT on violence in Venezuela" Definitely not.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

juancegomez says on Dec 14, 2006, 09:54:

That pretty much sums it up All of those definitely stem from the same continuing trend, each thread giving birth to another on mostly the same subject (Chavez/Venezuela). Things really need to get a bit back on track by now.

utopiacowboy says on Dec 15, 2006, 14:40:

I say delete the frigging threads.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 15, 2006, 15:52:

Brand new policy Not that I participate that much, but this may serve as general rule for other people.

Tertius' Rule of participation in dumbass discussions:

As a matter of principle, I will discontinue my participation in any thread as soon as any of the following is mentioned:

1. Hitler
2. The holocaust

Or if any of the following is intended to be discussed as a topic in itself, disregarding its relevance to Colombian politics, etc.:

3. Chavez
4. Bush
5. Iraq

So, if somebody says "Remember that Hitler..." That's it for me, ipso facto. If somebody says "The invasion of Iraq is illegal because..." ZIPPED! I'm out. But if someone says "Colombia may play an important role in US foreign policy regarding Chavez," that's probably okay... getting hot, but not quite.

There's an exception, though:

Exception to Tertius' Rule: It is always acceptable to drop in for a brief, sarcastic comment, particularly if it is derogatory of the off-topic discussion.

Now that I think of it, I'll probably follow the exception more than the rule. Nevermind.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

esanch36 says on Dec 18, 2006, 11:23:

i dont think anybody would give a shit if you did not post I have an idea, if Sr Tertius post dumb stuff like the Tertius rule then nobody post..hahaha
esanch36

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

Sr Tertius says on Dec 19, 2006, 07:24:

esanch36 Let me know when the irony hits you.

And, btw, Merry Christmas to you too.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

esanch36 says on Dec 19, 2006, 12:03:

Thankss Merry christmas to you too

esanch36

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???