Lupper Posted February 6, 2005 Report Posted February 6, 2005 nah, there's nothing wrong with socialism<{POST_SNAPBACK}>socialism is the best
Dav Posted February 6, 2005 Report Posted February 6, 2005 indeed, a nation where all people have equil oppertunities, seems fair to me. Problem is human nature, people wish to become better then others pulls things down which is why "true communism" doesnt exist but nations like china seems to be doing ok at the moment.
Aileron Posted February 6, 2005 Report Posted February 6, 2005 (I'm returning to this forum because of the recent modvote proposals) I'll have to admit, if there is a place for communism in the world, it would be latin america. The cultural difference between North and South America stemmed from the colonization. When the Spanish came to colonize, they liked the fuedal system, just didn't like their place on it. Thus, Latin America was settled in a way where peasents from Europe would become the lords of latin america. There is a VERY heavy need of social reform even today. Also, highly stratified social classes promote laziness too. If you are a peasent, and no amount of work will make you a don, then there is little impetus to work. Thus, I would generally encourage social reform in latin america at this time. Still, Chavez is dangerous. Enacting legislation that tilts the tables in the little man's favor is one thing, using military might to play robin hood is another. For one thing, this policy can easily scare off international business, and if drastic enough those with money will leave too. And if Chavez has the resources to station troops on somebody's land, he should have enough money to buy the land with eminent domain (I don't know if Venezuela has this, but it has to be more legal than stationing troops) Generally though, I can understand Chavez. I can't understand the socialist ninnies in Europe, but I can understand Chavez. Venezuala has of yet to really leave fuedalism behind. If violence is what it takes to remove it, so be it. As for his purchases of military hardware, that's purely Venezuela's business.
MonteZuma Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Is anyone suggesting that Venezuala is a real and serious threat to US national security or the stability of the free world? The US government should lobby the UN (ie the whole world) to do something about it and otherwise butt out. Perhaps the US government is more worried about self interest, and in particular the price of oil? Yet another oil war in the offing?
Dr Brain Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Just a side note: Robin hood didn't steal from the rich. He stole from the government. His enemy was not the wealthy, it was the tax collectors. Just thought I'd clear that up, because no one seemed to know.
Aileron Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 A) In fuedal times there was no difference No, according to my high school literature teacher, he stole from the Norman occupation...if you are going to straighten things out, get your information right. Monte...wake up. If you insist on pursuing mad conspiracy theories, Bush was one the few who DIDN'T want oil...those people desiring "peace" (if that's what you call the enforcement of the no-fly zone) wanted to stay out of Iraq because Saddam put oil vouchers in their pockets.
MonteZuma Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Typical of you to assume that.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Cute attempt at wit. I !@#$%^&*umed nothing. What I did was proffer a theory that might explain why the US seems so interested in Venezuala. Here is my !@#$%^&*umption: The US government's main interest in the affairs of Venezuala is related to the US's economic interests in that country. In other words, the US is concerned about what impact a Venezualan government that is unfriendly to the US would have on the US economy. I challenge you and Aileron to demostrate that it isn't. Why else would the US give a !@#$%^&* about the socialist ambitions of a democratically elected government in Venezuala? Sheesh.
Sass Posted February 7, 2005 Author Report Posted February 7, 2005 I will answer that, but I need to get some sleep. Tomorrow my friend, tomorrow.
Yupa Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Anybody that tries to deny the oil interest when the President and Vice President of our country _both_ ran separate oil industry companies [as well as the VP's getting a !@#$%^&*load of business thrown its way via Operation Iraqi Liberation (...oops, they changed it to Freedom, didn't they? )] needs to get some brain-cleaning Q-Tips.
Aileron Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Wow...Akai made up an acronym that spells oil! I can't argue with that "logic"! Wake up Akai, and follow the Oil-for-food scandel. Those people who claim that Bush went in for oil probably concocted the notion to hide the fact that they themselves had their pockets lined with oil vouchers from Hussein. Hussein paid the international media to portray Bush in the most negative light possible, and now stories of the media making things up about Bush are beginning to surface. Bush left the oil business. If he had any desire to make profits from oil, he wouldn't have left the industry. If he wanted to make money off of oil he would have stayed in the oil industry. For whatever reason, he decided to leave and go into politics. Whatever his motives for this, his desires lie outside of aquiring and selling oil. Besides, I trust Bush more than I trust Saddam Hussein...and if you don't do as well, you have to be screwed up. Bush has been accountable to the 52% of Americans that voted for him, whereas Hussein only was accountable to the 20% of sunnis that he robbed the rest of the country to suuport. I will admit that there is a big US oil interest in Venezuela and that the US does a lot to keep the pipelines flowing. However, the US really hasn't done anything about this as of yet. We are talking hypothetical action here. Keep in mind that Operation Venezuelan Freedom only exists in your mind. Besides, we still probably can do without another group of communists on our doorstep.
Yupa Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 iirc it truly was originally to be called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation) the rest: don't be stupid
MonteZuma Posted February 7, 2005 Report Posted February 7, 2005 Those people who claim that Bush went in for oil probably concocted the notion to hide the fact that they themselves had their pockets lined with oil vouchers from Hussein.Whacky conspiracy theory. Hussein paid the international media to portray Bush in the most negative light possibleWhacky conspiracy theory. I will admit that there is a big US oil interest in Venezuela and that the US does a lot to keep the pipelines flowing. However, the US really hasn't done anything about this as of yet. We are talking hypothetical action here. Keep in mind that Operation Venezuelan Freedom only exists in your mind.Fair point. I just hope it doesn't exist in GWB's mind. Besides, we still probably can do without another group of communists on our doorstep.Would it really make that much difference? I doubt that Venezuala will turn into the next USSR.
Aileron Posted February 8, 2005 Report Posted February 8, 2005 Really, it sounds like a conspiracy theory but it isn't. The UN doing an investigation in the oil for food scandel, and many members of the international media were involved. Besides, saying that the international media is oil hungry really isn't any worse than saying the President is.
Recommended Posts