RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela

RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

AnimusRex -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 1:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg I am not aware of anytime where the Monroe Doctrine was dropped. Keeping Foriegn armies out of "Our Hemisphere" has been a goal of US policy for a very long time. Whose side were we on in the Falklands Islands war? Maybe some of the Brits here can answer that.

Moonhead -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 1:33:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg I am not aware of anytime where the Monroe Doctrine was dropped. Keeping Foriegn armies out of "Our Hemisphere" has been a goal of US policy for a very long time. Whose side were we on in the Falklands Islands war? Maybe some of the Brits here can answer that. You weren't involved at all.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 1:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Vincen, you are rather unclear as to what the Monroe doctrine was. Of course it was not voted on, its not a law, its a policy. That for centuries has been a bedrock principle of foriegn policy for the USA, despite party in power. It never was the "a defensive proclamation of a surrounded and threatened nation " That,s just nonsense. You and I have not read the same history books, Dawg. The Monroe Doctrine was a fairly impotent concept compared to the imperialistic ambitions of Manifest Destiny. The Monroe was pretty much a bluff from the beginning. We did not have the warships to stand against the British in force. Hell, the battle of New Orleans was won after the War of 1812 was settled at a peace conference in Paris. The Monroe was just a shake of the fist at the surrounding bullies. Once we had settled our sectional conflict and were no longer a nation divided, once the question of how to admit new territories was decided and we were once again a unified nation with enormous wealth, we no longer had fear of any foreign enemies. We were no longer on the defensive but had become an aggressive land grabbing nation. Actually, this began with the Mexican Wars even before our Civil War, but it was the latter once completed that made us strong and no longer in need of the Monroe Doctrine. True, it was dragged out again by Kennedy/Reagan/Bush, but really we had the arms to enforce our own sphere of influence, so it was just lip service as I recall to give our people some justification to push back against the Soviets. It is ridiculous to seriously imagine an 1812 concept to have any validity in the post WW II world except as homegrown propaganda.

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 1:45:01 PM)
Maybe if we search through both our couch cushions we can come up with enough for some small agreement somewhere. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It must be your sheer brilliance Ron, because I can't quite keep up with your logic. For this thread, our financial woes are due to our long slow march to socialism, beforetimes it was due to our lack of fiscal conservatism. Raise taxes if necessary, cut spending, starting with military, find and destroy inefficiencies in our spending and what we spend on.... socialism and fiscal conservation are not at all mutually exclusive. Hell, even the chinese have a few bucks. The Russkies, maybe others.

AnimusRex -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 1:54:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity ...through the wonders of capitalism propelled ourselves to wealth and total self sufficiency. Yes. Capitalism. Well, capitalism plus the European ethos of communal obligation that gave rise to volunteer fire departments, that created a public post office, that allowed the colonists to set rules and regulations and taxes for themselves to ensure a civic order and shared sense of responsibility. But dog-eat-dog every man for himself capitalism was the key to our prosperity. Well...capitalism, plus trade unionization, public works projects like the Panama Canal, Erie Canal, St. Lawrence Seaway, Hoover Dam, The Rural Electrification program, the Tennesee Valley Authority, the Federal Interstate Highway system, banking stablization of the FDIC, Agricultural programs like price supports, wind breaks, soil erosion prevention programs, public/ private partnerships like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, public colleges and vocational schools, workplace safety regulations, food and drug safety and purity regulations, publicly financed and constructed rail lines, federally run air traffic controls, public airports and harbors..... But yeah, capitalism did its part also. Well, it didn't hurt that we were given an entire continent brimming with natural resources, and we were not burdened by by moral qualms about taking them from the people like the Nez Pierce by brute force, doing whatever slaughter and pillaging it took to wrest control of the natural resources. But still, capitalism did help. Well ok, it also helped that we had a few million people enslaved to pick the fucking cotton and harvest the crops, of course- paying them would have been a real drag on the economy. But yeah, capitalism. Well, ok, ok, the Monroe Doctrine and the lack of European competition for the resources of Latin and South America allowed our corporations to help themselves to the bounty of the region without paying fair market prices for it. But thats it- aside from the European ethos of shared responsibility, aside from the free labor of slavery, aside from the free land and resources stolen from the Native Americans, aside from the free resources lifted from Central and South America, and aside from the government programs that boosted the middle class and built the most prosperous society the world has ever seen.... capitalism was the thing that did it.

AnimusRex -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 1:59:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Whose side were we on in the Falklands Islands war? You weren't involved at all. My point exactly. Apparently the Doctrine is flexible enough to not cause an inconvenience when applied.

NorthernGent -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 2:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex capitalism was the thing that did it. Assuming Capitalism is/was a form of economic self-expression then it certainly played a fair old role. Together with Protestantism and Humanism these ideas of self-expression enabled people to do a bit for themselves rather than look to the catholic church (dark ages). Mind you - if Capitalism was originally conceived as a grab for self-expression then there's been some sort of perversion of that ideal - buying and selling any old rubbish isn't necessarily self-expression.

rockspider -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 2:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Not at all though Ron - it was a civil war; the same people fighting one another over a disagreement as to government. Either that or it was them damnable Virginia farmers didnt want to repay what they owed to the Scottish tobacco merchants. Heaven knows what the outstanding will be on that lot by now after near on 250 years of interest and so on. Just wait till Scotland gets independence.... E You limeys better behave now or we get out our longboats and come and invade you again. Don't forget we have done it before[sm=club.gif]

luckydawg -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 3:17:33 PM)
Vincent, we are indeed not reading the same history books, Simon Bolivar welcomed the proclamation and was a supporter. Monroe proclaimed the doctrine in 1823, long after the war of 1812. It was never shelved as you assert. It has been a bedrock principe, invoked practically every decade since it was announced. In reality at first it was rather impotoent, backed up mainly by Britians desire to go along. Over Time we began enforcing it our selves. Animus, if you bothered to read the Monroe Doctrine, you would have the answer to your question. " The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Western Hemisphere was not to be further colonized by European countries, and that the United States quote: would not interfere with existing European colonies nor in the internal concerns of European countries. So it is quite clear that the Falklands war would not qualify under the Monroe Doctrine

Silence8 -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 3:28:33 PM)
I wish the free market would apply to the government that doesn't listen to me, so then I wouldn't have to listen to it, and South America could become a great big socialist fiesta with cash-poor D.C. douche tards unable to send in the C.I.A. A side note, I think there's a lot psychologically to be said in the right's incessant references to socialism, in many ways a sublime recognition or fear that competition isn't a proper conceptual model upon which to base a society. Just as the act of crossing something out -- or censorship generally -- tends only to highlight whatever it is that's being crossed out. Chavez brought a lot of people into the political process that historically have been excluded -- historically, it's fairly unprecedented. Everything else you can say about him is trash in comparison to the importance of this action politically.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 5:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Vincent, we are indeed not reading the same history books, Simon Bolivar welcomed the proclamation and was a supporter. Monroe proclaimed the doctrine in 1823, long after the war of 1812. It was never shelved as you assert. It has been a bedrock principle, invoked practically every decade since it was announced. In reality at first it was rather impotoent, backed up mainly by Britians desire to go along. Over Time we began enforcing it our selves. Dawg, I was wrong and I was right. Here is the Wiki artticle that gives a history of the Monroe. Basically, what I read here is that it was toothless at first as I thought. Afterwards, it was dragged out and reinterpreted to suit the needs of whatever President was justifying some intervention or other. Cripes, even to our taking Hawaii. If you wish to call this a "bedrock doctrine" of our policy you certainly have a basis and I cannot argue the point except to say it has been an unfolding and chameleon artifact upon which any President could hang his hat for whatever purpose. To mix metaphors, the bedrock keeps shifting with the tides. The claim is made at the end of the article that the Monroe is regarded somewhat contemptuously by Latin America today. To me, clearly the true driving turbines for our national policy have been Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. They are what took us to the moon in 1969 and continue to keep us involved in these little bush wars on terrorism. (pun intended as an after thought... hee, hee) Our main international policy is our Armed Force. We are just beginning to realise the limit of that muscle as well, and we will rue the day if we do not change our strategy and become a much less belligerent people.

DarlingSavage -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 5:58:13 PM)
quote: But since the real point of this thread is lessons learned for the US, it makes me think of this- in most of South and Central America, there is and never was any such thing as a "free market"; what existed was an oligarchy of a few powerful coporations, usually connected by family ties to the government. This sort of corruption and abuse of power is what led to the election of Chavez in Venezuela, and Morales in Bolivia. Morales fought in both the water wars and the gas wars in Bolivia. This is just a ludicrous accusation. How do you back this statement up? Morales is indigenous to the area, he was also very poor. It was unconscionable what Bechtel tried to do to those people. They wanted to pass legislation to make it illegal for people to collect their own rain water, meanwhile, they were charging them upwards of 1/3 of people's incomes for water in a 3rd world nation where everyone is destitute. It came down to people having to choose between eating that day or having water. I really don't think for one second that Morales has corporate ties. I highly doubt the same of Chavez. These people are trying to fight what US corporations are trying to do in those countries, which boils down to shameless exploitation and imperialism.

DarlingSavage -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 6:00:36 PM)
Never mind, I was having a dyslexic moment and totally read what you said backwards. Sorry.

AnimusRex -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 6:26:41 PM)
Darling- I am very glad you put some context behind the story. Too few people are aware of the rapacious effect government corruption mixed with private sector greed are having in the 3rd World. Illegal to collect your own fucking rainwater. Lets see the glibertarians who jerk off to Atlas Shrugged chew on that little turd of a fact.

Arpig -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 6:47:48 PM)
quote: The most reliable means to go from a democracy (or a republic) to a dictatorship is through the promise of socialism. I really don't have time to waste looking up the statistics, but I very much doubt the people of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay & Paraguay, not to mention pretty much all of Central America will agree with you

DarlingSavage -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 6:56:46 PM)
quote: Lets see the glibertarians who jerk off to Atlas Shrugged chew on that little turd of a fact. The invisible hand is deaf, dumb, and blind. Have you seen The Corporation?

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 7:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 A side note, I think there's a lot psychologically to be said in the right's incessant references to socialism, in many ways a sublime recognition or fear that competition isn't a proper conceptual model upon which to base a society. Just as the act of crossing something out -- or censorship generally -- tends only to highlight whatever it is that's being crossed out. Chavez brought a lot of people into the political process that historically have been excluded -- historically, it's fairly unprecedented. Everything else you can say about him is trash in comparison to the importance of this action politically. Really quite an interesting thesis, Silence. I expect you mean sublimated. Sublime would give them too much credit.

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 7:59:48 PM)
Thats ridiculous. Socialism is a descriptive word, it describes a political system and nothing more and nothing less. That would be like like me trying to claim that any leftists using the words "the right" or "right wingers" are all welfare recipients who fear having to fend for themselves. Its just nonsense.

vincentML -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/10/2010 8:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Thats ridiculous. Socialism is a descriptive word, it describes a political system and nothing more and nothing less. That would be like like me trying to claim that any leftists using the words "the right" or "right wingers" are all welfare recipients who fear having to fend for themselves. Its just nonsense. Hmmm. I thought it described an economic system rather than political. You can have democratic socialism as well as democratic capitalism, or Italian fascism which was Benito's attempt to combine both in the best of all possible worlds by bringing labor, management and capital all to the table with government. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Some other events got in the way, I think. Just rambling here. Good night.

Sanity -> RE: Hugo Chavez & Venezuela (1/11/2010 5:25:59 AM)
Its not an economic system, its a system of buying votes at the expense of the economy. The temptation to use it that way is far too strong, and our electorate and our politicians are too weak.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875