Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterlaughable. so invading a banana republic on the off chance there might be things that go big boom there makes you manly men.
Picked a fight? After Cuba, we learned our lesson about toying with dictators. If the U.S. attempted a coup or did anything to Venezuela, it would give this ignoramous legitimacy and that's the last thing he needs.
Regarding you're partisan statement: There's nothing more "anti-American" than the damage your clown President has done to the go ...[text shortened]... hich isn't a very nice place), then we'd be as weak and effete as the nations in Europe.
not finding anything there makes you what, jackasses? still staying in the country and making no progress in "soothing" the region makes you what? optimistic?
"we invaded iraq so that the iraqis can enjoy some of our fine democracy and exquisite american cuisine(mcdonalds)" Well, ignoring the fact that a lot of iraqis got croaked by your freedom bringing booms and rifles, and that the democratically elected president is as credible as the Vichy government, why don't you invade Robert Mugabe's private country? Why don't you invade North Koreea? or the african countries where they do genocide as a morning exercise. Probably because there is no oil there and in the case of north koreea, china will smack you in the balls.
if you measure strength not by the influence you have in the world but rather by doing what you please when you please then Amerika is indeed the numero uno.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour ignorance regarding Russian warships is rather sad but I don't share it as regards the developments in antimissile technology. They've been attempting to develop some type of reliable ground based defense against ICBMs for about 50 years without success.
your unlikely can be applied to the warships as well. i say it is unlikely those warships could travel more than 1 km before they get hit by an iceberg and sink.
and since i have about as much data and facts on which to base my theory as you have regarding the anti missile shield thingie, i say we must be both correct.
Originally posted by spruce112358He's won two elections which is far more than many of our sheik, king and general allies have done. The idea that Chavez is anything approaching a dictator is just propaganda for the extremely gullible.
No, we've long since moved on from the Monroe Doctrine and the Cold War. Didn't you get the memo?
Chevez can buddy with anybody he wants -- that doesn't make his semi-proto-subthreshold-dictatorship legitimate and so doesn't change the main grounds for disapproval of him.
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe they are your allies, but kings, sheiks, and generals are none of mine.
He's won two elections which is far more than many of our sheik, king and general allies have done. The idea that Chavez is anything approaching a dictator is just propaganda for the extremely gullible.
Do you know what a virus is? A virus invades a cell and takes over the cell's machinery to produce more viruses. It is uses the existing system in a way it was not intended.
Chavez has done an analagous thing to Venezuelan society. He took over foreign oil companies and businesses and distributed the wealth to the masses in order to stay in power.
That is a direct subversion of how democracy is designed to work. Buying votes is just demagogy. It is the reason the electoral college exists in the US and was a source of great worry to the Founding Fathers when they set up "the experiment".
Originally posted by no1maraudersuccess? what do you know about their success? you expect the military to share their results with you peasant?
Your ignorance regarding Russian warships is rather sad but I don't share it as regards the developments in antimissile technology. They've been attempting to develop some type of reliable ground based defense against ICBMs for about 50 years without success.
there is a certain protocol in debating. make a claim and offer an argument. you said the american anti missile shield is a bust. but you didn't offer any argument, a link, an expert opinion, anything.
so i did the same. i made a claim and offered no argument.
Originally posted by no1marauderyes, bush won two elections as well. it doesn't mean he is an admirable person, only that the ones that elected him were willing to buy his high quality crap four more years.
He's won two elections which is far more than many of our sheik, king and general allies have done. The idea that Chavez is anything approaching a dictator is just propaganda for the extremely gullible.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe claim that the poster made was that Chavez was a "
yes, bush won two elections as well. it doesn't mean he is an admirable person, only that the ones that elected him were willing to buy his high quality crap four more years.
dictator". That doesn't go well with winning free elections with opposition parties. Bush is a moron, but he's not a dictator.
Originally posted by spruce112358Yes, the leader of a country shouldn't help his people because that subverts democracy.
Maybe they are your allies, but kings, sheiks, and generals are none of mine.
Do you know what a virus is? A virus invades a cell and takes over the cell's machinery to produce more viruses. It is uses the existing system in a way it was not intended.
Chavez has done an analagous thing to Venezuelan society. He took over foreign oil companies and ...[text shortened]... US and was a source of great worry to the Founding Fathers when they set up "the experiment".
What Framer wrote that again?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDemocracy is not just a majority vote. Yes, a leader shouldn't violate the rights of a few to temporarily satisfy a throng -- because once rights are stomped on for one group, they disappear for another group, and another. And once the throng has a taste for "bread and circuses" -- that's the end -- you never get them working again.
Yes, the leader of a country shouldn't help his people because that subverts democracy.
What Framer wrote that again?
But then that's the worker's paradise, isn't it? A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and you sit all day in the sun in front of your hut.
Until it all collapses around you.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358What rights has Chavez violated? The "right" of rich foreigners to control his country's economy?
Democracy is not just a majority vote. Yes, a leader shouldn't violate the rights of a few to temporarily satisfy a throng -- because once rights are stomped on for one group, they disappear for another group, and another. And once the throng has a taste for "bread and circuses" -- that's the end -- you never get them working again.
But then that's t nd you sit all day in the sun in front of your hut.
Until it all collapses around you.
The whole idea of the American Revolution was to break the control a small elite had over the people. There's nothing inconsistent with that in Chavez's approach.
Originally posted by no1marauderthats what they all say, that lame excuse about ''greedy businessmen''.
What rights has Chavez violated? The "right" of rich foreigners to control his country's economy?
The whole idea of the American Revolution was to break the control a small elite had over the people. There's nothing inconsistent with that in Chavez's approach.
communists are all the same...
Lenin, Castro, they all said the same thing, but when the revolution came, did the country get better?
Cuba is to this day a dictatorship, and the same seems to be happening to Venezuela, Bolivia,and Ecuador, countries which are under the control of socialist caudillos.
Originally posted by generalissimoShow some evidence that Venzuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are becoming dictatorships. All have had very recent, free elections.
thats what they all say, that lame excuse about ''greedy businessmen''.
communists are all the same...
Lenin, Castro, they all said the same thing, but when the revolution came, did the country get better?
Cuba is to this day a dictatorship, and the same seems to be happening to Venezuela, Bolivia,and Ecuador, countries which are under the control of socialist caudillos.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoFreedom of revolution I say. Live and let live. The US was revolutionary in its incarnation. It decided on a format of government that it thought would outlast tyranny. The tyranny of Empire and old world corruption, that it wanted to be free of.
communists are all the same...
YOu would think that the US might understand the offensiveness a different revolution in a different age might have, in being lectured and dictated to, in terms of the appropriateness of the format, chosen by this latter revolution.
Originally posted by no1marauderwho would invest in that country now? should america nationalize all the japanese companies on it's territory because they control their economy?
What rights has Chavez violated? The "right" of rich foreigners to control his country's economy?
The whole idea of the American Revolution was to break the control a small elite had over the people. There's nothing inconsistent with that in Chavez's approach.
the foreign money was good when they arrived to create infrastructure. now it is evil.
chavez is a dumbass.