The Devil Came.. and it still smells of sulphur..

duncan_m

duncan_m

I really dont know much about Hugo Chavez (the president of Venezuela).. but he made a speech to the UN yesterday.. and it carried some scathing, scathing messages about George W Bush and the USA..

I really warmed to Hugo's speech.. I did a quick google and couldnt find the skeletons in his closet.. does the guy have a downside or is he truly what he seems?

The full transcript of his speech to the UN can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214977,00.html

What a guy..
 
Yep, I like the guy also. :)

If The US invade them, it will only prove his point.

The problem lies with the people generally not being terribly perceptive about what is really going on, so will fall on deaf or brainwashed, apathetic ears. Shame. :(
 
Merovingian said:
Yep, I like the guy also. :)

If The US invade them, it will only prove his point.

The problem lies with the people generally not being terribly perceptive about what is really going on, so will fall on deaf or brainwashed, apathetic ears. Shame. :(
Click to expand...

So Mero, what is really going on?
 
From www.gregpalast.com

CHAVEZ' COMMENTS: STRATEGY OR RAVINGS OF MADMAN?


September, 21, 2006
"I've known Hugo Chavez for years, let me tell you that man knows a diablo when he sees one." -- Greg Palast

Watch my recent exclusive BBC interview with President Chavez

Read the article here

Also watch my LinkTV Chavez Special "Finding Bolivar's Heir"

"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Large File)

"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Small File)

*****

>From The Progressive
By Greg Palast

You'd think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chavez's behind. Not only has Chavez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chavez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, "not too high, a fair price," he said -- a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.

But our President has basically told Chavez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chavez has the power to pull it off -- and the method in the seeming madness of his "take-my-oil-please!" deal.

Venezuela, Chavez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis' reserves. However, most of Venezuela's mega-horde of crude is in the More...form of "extra-heavy" oil -- liquid asphalt -- which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil's price -- and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago -- would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chavez's offer: Drop the price to $50 -- and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela's investment in heavy oil.

But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn't like that one bit. It comes down to "petro-dollars." When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn't because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.

The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush's $2 trillion rise in the nation's debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.

Chavez would put an end to all that. He'll sell us oil relatively cheaply -- but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chavez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.

Chavez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a "tropical IMF." And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an "International Humanitarian Fund," an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chavez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel's reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.

Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution," a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity -- makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries' old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.

Chavez's government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chavez several times over charges brought against Sumate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chavez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican [Party] Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.

Bush's reaction to Chavez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, "In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region."

So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chavez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. "If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him," Robertson said, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chavez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chavez's crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.

Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?

Hugo Chavez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they're short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.

Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?

Chavez: It's not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It's up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can't allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.

Q: How do you respond to Bush's charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?

Chavez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people's affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d'etat in Argentina thirty years ago.

Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?

Chavez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d'etat, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.

Q: You don't interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?

Chavez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what's going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales [of Bolivia], for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula [of Brazil], which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner [of Argentina], which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What’s happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus -- a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.

Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation's oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?

Chavez: We are brothers and sisters. That's one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.

Q: And the Bronx?

Chavez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it's not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.

Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?

Chavez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn't matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.

Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as "Daddy Big Bucks"?

Chavez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.

Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?

Chavez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.

Q: Milk for oil.

Chavez: That's right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It's a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I'm not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.

Q: Speaking of the free market, you've demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?

Chavez: No, we don't want them to go, and I don't think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It's simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn’t pay taxes. They didn't pay royalties. They didn't give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn't comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn't pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.

Q: You've said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?

Chavez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it's not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.

Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the
Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chavez simply collapse because there's no money to pay for the big free ride?

Chavez: I don't think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won't have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.

Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there's another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?

Chavez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.
 
I think there's enough evidence in that article alone to prove that Peak Oil is a complete farce. For a more indepth exploration of the theory that Peak Oil is a lie read Palast's 'Armed Madhouse'.

Note: the original Peak Oil study was financed by... wait for it... Shell.

Mark
 
Thanks for those 2 articles, Dunc and Mark.

That's a real interesting read. Sort of scary in some ways but good on him for making a stand.

The world as we know it is changing, that's for sure.
 
Wikipedia Hero's

Actually we can all largely get to the bottom of such things these days with google and wikipedia. And appear very world wise in the process.

I must admit I don't know much about Chavez at all, his running of the local oil industry gets a pasting from Jim Puplava just from an efficiency standpoint. Hating George Bush and America doesn't actually mean you aren't a nutter or have anything worthwile to contribute to the world yourself however. In the 70's the commodity boom helped prop up some interesting tinpots and similar things could be happening in the world today, it's a very easy thing to stay in power when oil money is paying for your votes.

Peak oil a farce? Actually the way I understand it peak oil is simply a theory about how oil fields deplete and issues relating to this, all of which has been very accurately modelled, predicted and played out in real fields.

I love a good contrarian theme and am open to learn why peak oil could be not be a serious threat to the planet, yet to see anything that backs this up though. I think it's a very real and very serious threat to our Big Mac lifestyles.

I remember the Iranian president giving a very eloquent speech at the UN paying out on Dubya, at the time I thought this guy is pretty cool. I have since changed my opinion of him drastically.
 
A lot of failed states and dictators have externalized their ignorance and apathy by demonizing the USA. I don't recall one that was morally superior. Nevertheless, I don't think the USA is saintly. And accept successive US govts have made stupid mistakes....but to blame them or Israel for Islamic radicalism or third world poverty is errant.

To me, Islamic extremism arises within Muslims who want the material success of western nations, but feel excluded from attaining it.

And third world poverty has more to do with lack of education and their good men doing nothing......or running away to Canada, the US, or Australia. And letting bullies and tyrants take the reins...

In a free market global economy, countries are free to compete to provide goods and services to the world. Ireland, Finland, Sth Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan are all stirling examples of countries that have accepted that blaming the USA doesn't fix their problems. And the latest example is China.



Personally, from the state of Venezuelan public health, Chavez shouldn't be casting stones....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela#Public_health
Public health

Infant mortality in Venezuela stands at over 22 deaths per 1000 births, a rate that places Venezuela behind Mexico, Panama, Colombia and many other countries of its region; for comparision the infant death rate is about eight times as high as Sweden. Child malnutrition (for children under age five) stands at about 17 percent of the population classified as stunted or wasted, which are the official United Nations categories for malnutrition. Areas more affected by the stunting and wasting include some of the poorest areas: Amacuro Delta (30%) and Amazonas (24%).[6]
According to the United Nations, the fraction of population without adequate sanitation is 32 percent, with a majority of people in many rural areas lacking in this basic commodity.[7] Travellers to Venezuela are advised to obtain vaccinations for a variety of diseases including typhoid, yellow fever, cholera, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and hepatitis D.[8] In a cholera epidemic of contemporary times in the Orinoco Delta, Venezuela's political leaders were accused of racial profiling of their own indigeneous people to deflect blame from the country's institutions, thereby aggravating the epicemic.[9] Visitors to Venezuela are advised to drink only bottled water, due to the prevalence of cross contamination of drinking water with untreated sewage. There are approximately 5,000,000 people in Venezuela living without access to safe drinking water, resulting in a percentage of population ranking of Venezuela among the poorest in South America.[10] As of the year 1999 there were an estimated 110,000 people in Venezuela living with HIV.[11] [12]
 
thefirstbruce,

Thing is Chavez is trying to do something about it. The money that was leaving Venezuela and heading for the pockets of rich folks is now being used to help the poor in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. When the World Bank screwed the Argentian dollar Chavez gave the Govt there billions in aid, also other Latin American countries.

He spends money on social reform - actual social reform like education, health and housing for the poor. You can't turn a country around in only a few years - it takes a very long time. But I can see your point - he's been in power for a full six years! I can't believe he hasn't been able to magically make things better in that time either!

I think you'll find that Chavez is actually genuinely wanting to help his people rather than line his own (and his friends' pockets). With 60% of the popular vote in 2000, that speaks volumes for what the people of Venezuela think. Let's not also forget that while the US is the richest nation on eath, it's infant mortality rate is also the highest of any first world country. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate!

Mark
 
Mark Laszczuk said:
He spends money on social reform - actual social reform like education, health and housing for the poor. You can't turn a country around in only a few years - it takes a very long time. But I can see your point - he's been in power for a full six years! I can't believe he hasn't been able to magically make things better in that time either
Click to expand...


Thanks.. you nailed my thoughts on the health issues.. I'd prefer to see the trends rather than the single snapshot..
 
I've been watching Venezuelan oil production and their actions for some time.

The President is maximising the political capital his oil will buy in his country and in the region. He's investing in his country in order to both increase it's wealth in today's dollars (worth more than future dollars) and future proof the economy for when the country's oil revenues start a long-term decline (and alternate energy supplies are a must).

It's similarly interesting to watch where the Saudis are investing their money at the moment....

What a shame in Australia the broader community hasn't yet grasped the value in investing back into our own energy supplies for the future - and the government is doing very little to encourage increased exploration or alternative energy research beyond lip service.

Here's some comments from Chavez well worth reading: http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/672

"The world will have to get used to a barrel price, I think, of above $50, and energy will have to be saved", he told reporters as leaders from Spanish-and Portuguese-speaking countries met in this central Spanish town.

After soaring in August, crude oil prices have been between $60 and $70 a barrel for more than a month. "We're at the doorway of major energy crisis worldwide", Chavez said.

"We'll have to develop other resources such as wind, solar and nuclear energy - naturally for peaceful purposes". He said Venezuela was in talks with Argentina and Brazil regarding nuclear power.

"Prices will continue to rise but oil is running out", he said.

Chavez said a "lack of imagination in the United States and the war in Iraq, which has destabilized the market in the Middle East, has also driven up prices". Increased demand from countries such as China and India is making the problem worse, he said.

"The whole world right now is producing petroleum at their maximum capacity", he said. "In Venezuela, for example, we can't produce a single barrel more". Venezuela, a member of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the US market. Venezuela's state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, says it pumps 3.2 million barrels of crude oil a day. But industry analysts put the figure lower, saying the country has never fully restored output since an extended strike in 2003 that sought to force Chavez's resignation.

Increased production would not solve the price problem, Chavez said.
Click to expand...


Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Well I can't remember Alexander himself being accused anytime recently of having any class... but I kind of agree with his statements on this particular matter.

Chavez lacks class.........

Mr Downer said he was not surprised Mr Chavez received some laughs and cheers at the General Assembly following his comments.
"I've seen it before with Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, and Dr Mahathir the former prime minister of Malaysia," Mr Downer said.
"A lot of these people who get up there and denounce the free world and denounce the United States, they get a bit of applause. They get applause from like-minded people.
Click to expand...

Source: SMH article

What would be cool would not be knocking Dubya and the US but a leader with a coherent vision, a la Kennedy and his man on the moon speech, except with energy or diplomacy. I don't think Chavez qualifies on these grounds.

What also would be cool would be if the USA's friends (ie: Us and Honest J) actually provided a voice of reason instead of following them into every oil soaked battle field in the world.
 
And when Dubya gets applause when he decries Islamic fascists? Both sides have their supporters and partisans.

Balance of power in the world has shifted recently due to increasing oil prices. Unfortunately in our world it's all about the benjamins, as they say. Would Ahmadinejad and Chavez be able to defy the Americans like this if they didn't have that much oil? Would Russia be able to just run roughshod over the former Soviet nations?

Re Downer's quote, I'm sure it can just as easily be used by the other side as:
President Ahmadinejad said he was not surprised President Bush received some laughs and
cheers at the White House press conference following his comments.
"I've seen it before with Tony Blair, the prime minister of England, and John Howard the
prime minister of Australia," President Ahmadinejad said.
"A lot of these people who get up there and denounce the Islamic world and denounce
the Arab people, they get a bit of applause. They get applause from like-minded
people.

Not saying I support either side, but the West isn't exactly blameless.
Alex
 
Mark Laszczuk said:
I think there's enough evidence in that article alone to prove that Peak Oil is a complete farce. For a more indepth exploration of the theory that Peak Oil is a lie read Palast's 'Armed Madhouse'.

Note: the original Peak Oil study was financed by... wait for it... Shell.
Click to expand...

Chavez is himself a proponent of Peak Oil (probably because of the two Venezualan funded studies into the area and the current status of Venezuelan production - in decline). The 'evidence' in that media article is spin (just like a lot of property numbers in the press).

It only takes a few minutes with Google to assay what the world's scientific community believes about Peak Oil.

Peak oil is nothing more than the decline curve around any limited natural resource. Accepting that oil supplies are limited is a necessary first step to accepting that humans have an energy problem we need to solve. Then we can move to the next step and commit the resources to start solving it (which has now occurred thank goodness - world leaders no longer share a view that natural resources are unlimited).

Here's a good place for you to start researching the facts and views of leading scientists and the vast number of studies into Peak Oil - which was first raised by Hubbert (not financed by Shell). Lots of links to further research (and a very well-balanced approach to the topic - including peak info on other resources).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

BTW: Shell has financed several studies, as have Chevron and Exxon and other global and national oil companies - because it was important to them in order to chart their future. Just like how Telstra, Optus and Vodafone finance studies into the future of telecommunications in Australia.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Last edited:
In a perfect world I might pay more attention to what this guy says.
But anyone who talks about someone as the devil and smell of sulphur imo is not of a balanced mind and not terribly intelligent either.
Bush is far from a perfect president but sometimes your damned if you do and damned if you don`t.
The US is no more or less evil than any other country imo.
But Bush certainly falls way short of someone capable to do the job.
 
Mark,

Wise politicians talk to their audience.

No matter how smart they are, if they don't connect with their audience (who may not be the people in the physical audience), they don't stay in power.

Surely a politician who is able to talk to his or her audience is much smarter than one who is intelligent, but does not engage.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Aceyducey said:
Surely a politician who is able to talk to his or her audience is much smarter than one who is intelligent, but does not engage.

Aceyducey
Click to expand...


And there we have the age old ambiguity of the elites trying to exercise their will in a democracy..........either the elites have to temper ego and and self interest, and truly understand the state of the proletariat.........or they have to ensure education lifts the collective consciousness so high that it makes an informed choice during an election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top