Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Chavez: P.O.S.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
Chavez: P.O.S.  Reply with quote  

I'd bump one of the old thread from 2006 (when people still talked politics on here) but they're all archived... Just wanted to say that Chavez has indeed proven himself to be a piece of shit. He's not just giving Assad public support, he's also supplied him with shipments of crude.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jn7py5KtHaXZ_4M6DqsmbvpIOJ-g?docId=CNG.aab2747c2eba806d37f34bb43cd7722a.951

Quote:

CARACAS ó President Hugo Chavez vowed Tuesday to keep supporting Bashar al-Assad, calling him Syria's legitimate president and blaming the United States for the war that has raged on for nearly 19 months.
"How can I not support the government of Bashar al-Assad if it is the legitimate government of Syria?" asked Chavez, who was re-elected Sunday to a third term.
He called the rebels fighting to oust Assad terrorists.
"Who am I going to back, the terrorists... who run around killing people right and left?" Chavez asked.
The firebrand leftist leader regularly angers the United States with his close ties to Washington's top foes Cuba, Iran and Syria.
Chavez said Syria is enduring a "planned crisis" similar to the war that led to the overthrow of Moamer Kadhafi in Libya.
"The government of the United States is one of the parties most to blame for this disaster" in Syria, he added. "Now, Mr Obama, if you are re-elected, sit back and reflect, and the governments of Europe should do the same."
He praised Russia and China for blocking three UN Security Council resolutions that threatened the Assad regime with sanctions if it did not halt the scourge of violence that activists say has already killed more than 32,000 people.
Turning to domestic policy, Chavez urged the opposition to open up a "sincere" debate with him, recognize his achievements and stop trashing his government.
"Of course, there are things we have to change. But the opposition has a doomsday vision of the country. They deny almost everything that the government does," said Chavez.
Post Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

It was still worth a shot.

Also, give em shit. Make em shitty.
Post Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
b. dolan
FBI agent


Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 5698
 Reply with quote  

You came back to note that you won an argument that happened 6 years ago.

That is very Italian. Whether or not you're Italian. Respect.
Post Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6381
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

Maybe Chavez had bad intel?
Post Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1793
Location: Snagglepussy.
Re: Chavez: P.O.S.  Reply with quote  

crash wrote:

Chavez said Syria is enduring a "planned crisis" similar to the war that led to the overthrow of Moamer Kadhafi in Libya.
"The government of the United States is one of the parties most to blame for this disaster" in Syria, he added.


Damn it feels good to be a bankster.
Post Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

He didn't win any argument. Chavez is the man.
Post Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

b. dolan wrote:
You came back to note that you won an argument that happened 6 years ago.

That is very Italian. Whether or not you're Italian. Respect.

yeah pretty much.

i never was a fan of the idea that you had to be a bit autocratic to achieve social justice. the lack of criticism from the left regarding chavez's power grabs and other less than savory policies bugged me as much as the undo criticism he got from the mainstream media. i came here to say as much and was told that you had to break some eggs, ya know?

so i came back to say fuck that. if only dan shay were still around. le sigh.
Post Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

Wait, so all the gains made for the working class under Chavez against the Venezuelan oil-rich ruling class is worthy of your criticism? Come down from that moral highground, friend.

Power grabs? I don't think you have a clear or concise understanding of the class dynamic in Venezuela especially relating to all of Chavez' "power grabs". There is no repression of any oppressed peoples in the country, and in fact, the worker's have seen their conditions rise since Chavez took power. And, hey, the Venezuelan ruling class (with the help of our CIA's logistical support) tried a coups of Chavez, and not long after the working class of the country marched on the capitol, and reinstated Chavez.

And, so what if he is helping Assad? Do you not understand the class dynamic of Syria, either? Do you not understand the United States' imperialistic role in the region, and the agitation of reactionary extreme right-wing strata of the population by economic sanctions on the country? Do you not know that NATO and the West has funded, aided, and given logistical support to the minority rebellion? Do you know that the rebellion in Syria is mostly comprised of foreign mercenaries, some of the same ones that fought in the overthrow of the Gaddafi government? Do you know that Hilary Clinton is and has been calling for a new opposition force in Syria, and now the U.S. is considering leading it altogether?

You should put down the NYTimes, crash.
Post Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:21 am
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

haha dan shay is still around! he just changed his name.

tell me, where should i be getting my news from?
Post Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

Actually, doesn't matter where you get your news from, as long as you know how to interpret correctly and in a class-perspective. If you are against Assad in Syria, you probably were against Gaddafi in Libya, and that means you, like most Leftists, do not understand the Imperialistic role of the United States (and other Western European powers).
Post Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

this is bullshit. I understand and oppose the "Imperialistic role of the United States." I don't want the US to intervene in Syria (unless Assad begins using chemical weapons), and I opposed US intervention in Libya.

But Assad is still a worthless, piece of shit dictator, and if you can't recognize that... you probably shouldn't consider yourself a "Leftist." Just because a leader is opposed by the US does not make him a Force For Good by default.
Post Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8501
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Like Morrissey said, it's the bomb that will bring us together.
Post Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

MCGF wrote:
this is bullshit. I understand and oppose the "Imperialistic role of the United States." I don't want the US to intervene in Syria (unless Assad begins using chemical weapons), and I opposed US intervention in Libya.

But Assad is still a worthless, piece of shit dictator, and if you can't recognize that... you probably shouldn't consider yourself a "Leftist." Just because a leader is opposed by the US does not make him a Force For Good by default.


It isn't bullshit. Assad isn't going to use chemical weapons. And, hey, the U.S. still uses chemical weapons. Ask the people of Fallujah about how they feel about depleted uranium bombs. Ask the people of the former Yugoslavia how they feel about cluster bombs (which the pellets are painted multi-colored so that they look like toy balls) and depleted uranium. Ask the people of Vietnam and also our own veterans (who are still alive and effected by it) how the feel about agent orange. Please, come down from your moral highground, as if our own country is actually interested in liberation and not resources and plunder.

How dare you think the U.S. has any right to intervene in a country that it has imposed economic sanctions on, even if they do happen to use chemical weapons. We have absolutely no right, and are in fact, in a position of conflict of interest because of our past.

Assad is not a dictator, and he is revered by most of the population of Syria. Perhaps you missed the massive pro-Assad demonstrations while Turkey was sheltering and coordinating the so-called opposition?

I am not merely a Leftist. Leftists believe in humanitarianism despite the fact that U.S. interests have no room for such a thing, despite the veil they put on their actions. I am a Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist, and I stand against Capital interests, which perpetrate Imperialistic policies in the hunt for profit, resources, and cheap labor exploitation.

I also do not claim Assad is a force for good, and would propose that we drop the abstract moralistic view of geo-politics. However, I stand with Assad in opposition to U.S. and Western European Imperialism. And the fact that you don't question the U.S.' role in any of this, and agree that we should intervene in the case that chemical weapons are used, shows that you are hardly a Leftist. You are the type of person that stands complicit and mum while the most powerful Capitalist nation in the world uses its clout and capital to convince its population that they are the good guys, even when you acknowledge that the U.S. has done awful things in the past. It's a weird double-think. And yet, you're going to come in here with a position of moral highground, and think I'm on some bullshit? Okay.

I wish Assad was a Communist or revolutionary. I don't like the fact that, as a person who stands in defiance against U.S. Imperialism, my only allies are Islamists, Mafia Capitalists (the Russian government, which stands opposed to Western imperialism), and Chinese middle-roaders (the Chinese government stands in the middle of Revolutionary Socialism and the full-revival of Capitalism). But this is reality, and too, the effect that U.S. imperialism has had on the world since World War 2 and beyond. U.S. Imperialism destroys worker's movements and popular liberation fronts (see the coups d'etat by Pinochet in Chile funded and coordinated by our CIA). It would be quite easy to turn my back because I disagree with my allies' ideology, but how smug would I be in that case? How very arrogant of me to condemn them for their ideologies which are only the result of my home country's foreign policies! Which is why I refuse to condemn them, and why you should not condemn them either. You live in the belly of the beast of Imperialism, yet you have unnecessary blinders on, and think that since you would never wish to blow up someone and all you are subjected to is Liberal political philosophy growing up which is diametrically opposed to wars (but stands complicit and mum when war happens), that our country does not use this to their advantage against people and nations that they can crush and destroy with the press of a button.
Post Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

Dr Sagacious wrote:
It isn't bullshit. Assad isn't going to use chemical weapons.


Well, I hope you're right. He's prepping that shit (reportedly. obviously, that's based off of secret "intelligence" and could be a lie). But if he does use chemical weapons, I think the world, and America, would be right to help depose him. Some things are unconscionable. Like using chemical weapons.

Dr Sagacious wrote:
And, hey, the U.S. still uses chemical weapons. Ask the people of Fallujah about how they feel about depleted uranium bombs. Ask the people of the former Yugoslavia how they feel about cluster bombs (which the pellets are painted multi-colored so that they look like toy balls) and depleted uranium. Ask the people of Vietnam and also our own veterans (who are still alive and effected by it) how the feel about agent orange. Please, come down from your moral highground, as if our own country is actually interested in liberation and not resources and plunder.


Oh, so because America has used chemical weapons in the past... that means using chemical weapons is acceptable? Is that really what you're saying?

Dr Sagacious wrote:
How dare you think the U.S. has any right to intervene in a country that it has imposed economic sanctions on, even if they do happen to use chemical weapons. We have absolutely no right, and are in fact, in a position of conflict of interest because of our past.


What do sanctions have to do with the legality or morality of intervention? Please, explain. I don't understand this paragraph.

Dr Sagacious wrote:
Assad is not a dictator, and he is revered by most of the population of Syria. Perhaps you missed the massive pro-Assad demonstrations while Turkey was sheltering and coordinating the so-called opposition?


Was there a Syrian election I missed? Assad is not a dictator? Really? I think one could argue that a majority of Syrians don't support the rebels... but to say a majority of Syrians "revere" Assad is a lie.

Dr Sagacious wrote:
I am not merely a Leftist. Leftists believe in humanitarianism despite the fact that U.S. interests have no room for such a thing, despite the veil they put on their actions. I am a Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist, and I stand against Capital interests, which perpetrate Imperialistic policies in the hunt for profit, resources, and cheap labor exploitation.


You're in the wrong decade, man. This shit makes you sound silly.

Dr Sagacious wrote:
I also do not claim Assad is a force for good, and would propose that we drop the abstract moralistic view of geo-politics.


As opposed to your totally fact-based view of geo-politics? The one in which Assad is not a dictator?

Dr Sagacious wrote:
However, I stand with Assad in opposition to U.S. and Western European Imperialism. And the fact that you don't question the U.S.' role in any of this, and agree that we should intervene in the case that chemical weapons are used, shows that you are hardly a Leftist. You are the type of person that stands complicit and mum while the most powerful Capitalist nation in the world uses its clout and capital to convince its population that they are the good guys, even when you acknowledge that the U.S. has done awful things in the past. It's a weird double-think. And yet, you're going to come in here with a position of moral highground, and think I'm on some bullshit? Okay.


Uh, yeah, compared to Assad I think I have the moral high ground. I opposed, or was not old enough to oppose, most of the "awful things" the US has done in the past. Just because the US has done a lot of awful things does not incapacitate the country from doing something good with all those guns we have lying around. And I'm not the type of person to stand "complicit and mum" about anything. I don't think of the US as the "good guys"; but surely, thinking of the US as merely the "bad guys" is just as narrow minded and reprehensible. The world, and America with it, is a bit more complicated than that.

Dr Sagacious wrote:
It would be quite easy to turn my back because I disagree with my allies' ideology, but how smug would I be in that case? How very arrogant of me to condemn them for their ideologies which are only the result of my home country's foreign policies! Which is why I refuse to condemn them, and why you should not condemn them either.


So... is there any action Assad could take that you would find shitty enough to condemn? If Assad decided to kill every Sunni Muslim in Syria, would that merit your condemnation or your unqualified support? Any evil that Assad commits is automatically the result of American foreign policy? You really believe that shit?

Dr Sagacious wrote:
You live in the belly of the beast of Imperialism, yet you have unnecessary blinders on, and think that since you would never wish to blow up someone and all you are subjected to is Liberal political philosophy growing up which is diametrically opposed to wars (but stands complicit and mum when war happens), that our country does not use this to their advantage against people and nations that they can crush and destroy with the press of a button.


You're accusing ME of having blinders on? I read an essay recently that I think you should take a gander at:

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Post Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

I took a bit off the top of my finger while cooking this weekend, so I donít feel like typing a whole lot. Iíll leave you with this:

http://qunfuz.com/2012/07/16/blanket-thinkers/

Quote:

The problem with blanket thinkers is that they are unable to adapt to a rapidly shifting reality. Instead of evidence, principles and analytical tools, they are armed only with ideological blinkers. Many of the current crop became politicised by Palestine and the invasion of Iraq, two cases in which the imperialist baddy is very obviously American. As a result, they read every other situation through the US-imperialist lens.

Itís worth reading the whole thing.

Also, Syria is using cluster munitions. You might not hear about this on RT or Press TV thoughÖ
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/27/syria-evidence-shows-cluster-bombs-killed-children-0

Can we see some citations for your claim that a majority of Syrians support Assad? And no, you can't use SANA as a source.


Quote:

How very arrogant of me to condemn them for their ideologies which are only the result of my home country's foreign policies!


Itís always funny to me how similar the far left and far right are in their assessment of American power. The left seems to think that every tragedy of the last 100 years is the fault of American Imperialism Ė we created al-Qaida, Islamism, etc. Meanwhile the right sees American actions of the seed of everything noble in the world - the Neocons claiming that the liberation of Iraq inspired the Arab Spring (this claim of course was more fashionable before Egypt and Tunisia elected Islamist governments). Both these outlooks are an extreme simplification of complex events, but more significantly, they are fundamentally patronizing towards other peoples, extinguishing their agency and reducing them to simple pawns that can be moved as needed.

If you think that Islamism only exists because of US policies then you need to read up on your history. Saudi Arabia (the prototypical Islamist state) was founded in 1932, when American isolationist sentiment was at its height.
Post Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:27 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon