quote:

President Obama said Sunday he's not concerned with the politics of shaking hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and is more interested in expanding a policy he described during his presidential campaign of extending an open hand to nations hostile to the U.S. Obama received a book from the Venezuelan president on Saturday after greeting him on Friday evening during the weekend Summit of the Americas. Chavez told the Obama administration that he would like to send an ambassador to the U.S. in exchange for an ambassador in Venezuela. The U.S. suspended diplomatic ties last September. U.S. officials responded that they need to see more from Chavez before moving forward but were pleased by the sentiment. Obama did not make note that the book offered by Chavez, "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano, blames foreign interests like the United States for exploiting Latin America for centuries. "It was a nice gesture to give me a book. I am a reader," Obama said during a solo press conference at the end of a the summit held in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...demands-follow/

What do you think: nice gesture or subtle blow to America's face? Do you think we should deal with Chavez, with all he's done to set himself up both as a long term leader of Venezuela and as an open hostile leader to America, or do you think we should continue on the path of not dealing with them.

quote:

Originally posted by AsparTAME http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...demands-follow/ What do you think: nice gesture or subtle blow to America's face? Do you think we should deal with Chavez, with all he's done to set himself up both as a long term leader of Venezuela and as an open hostile leader to America, or do you think we should continue on the path of not dealing with them.

unlike the Cuban situation, the US needs Venezuela. As the 4th or 5th largest exporter of oil to the US, it is in our economic interest of the US to maintain some sort of relationship. furthermore, cutting ties with countries because of their leaders seems to increase the leaders power within the country (e.g., castro, North Korea, Sadam prior to death). When the US decides to turn its back on countries and further degregate the situation in those countries, it is easy for the leader to place the blame on the US and insulate the leader from more internal pressures. My personal opinion is that the US maintain relationships with these hostile leaders (who are hostile, to a large extent, because of how we treat them), and to the extent possible, we should create goodwill with the population by conducting humanitarian efforts within those countries (easier said than done, i know).

quote:

Originally posted by AsparTAME What do you think: nice gesture or subtle blow to America's face? Do you think we should deal with Chavez, with all he's done to set himself up both as a long term leader of Venezuela and as an open hostile leader to America, or do you think we should continue on the path of not dealing with them.

I think Chavez was giving a subliminal 'gift'- but that's just my opinion.. Idk why he would give him a book about foreign interests exploiting Latin America lol
BUT, if I'm right, I still agree with jerZ07002 on how we should maintain a good relationship with the country regardless..

The book is a manifesto of "the rape of the South American continent" in the last 300 years or whatever, and puts most of the blame squarely on America. He probably assumed Obama would love to read such a book.

As for needing Venezuela, unfortunately that's pretty true... but it shouldn't be because we should be allowed to get our own goddamn resources so we wouldn't have to depend on loony dictators. But, you know, we gotta make sure the caribu aren't being encroached upon.

Meh, it's no different than most of the literature put out by African nationalists in the sixties and seventies... and it makes sense given that Dependency Theory was founded in Latin America.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by AsparTAME What do you think: nice gesture or subtle blow to America's face? Do you think we should deal with Chavez, with all he's done to set himself up both as a long term leader of Venezuela and as an open hostile leader to America, or do you think we should continue on the path of not dealing with them.

I find myself reminded of one of my favorite passages from Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

quote:

I walk among this people and I keep my eyes open; they do not forgive me that I do not envy their virtues. They bite at me because I say to them: small people need small virtues--and because I find it hard to accept that small people are needed. I am still like the rooster in a strange yard, where the hens also bite at him; but I am not angry with the hens on that account. I am polite to them as to all small annoyances; to be prickly to what is small strikes me as wisdom for hedgehogs.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss As for needing Venezuela, unfortunately that's pretty true... but it shouldn't be because we should be allowed to get our own goddamn resources so we wouldn't have to depend on loony dictators. But, you know, we gotta make sure the caribu aren't being encroached upon.

i wish there was a smile icon for frustration.

I don't get why republicans don't understand the fundamental flaw in their "Drill more" philosophy. Producing more domestic oil actually makes americans dependent on foreign countries for a longer period of time. As long as we expect to rely on oil, and as long as foreign countries produce more oil than we do, we will need to rely on foreign countries for our energy. since we don't have a vast supply of oil, producing more domestically will mainly result in lowering the price of global oil supply, for a certain period of time, by enough so that americans don't change their behaviors with respect to oil consumption. During that time, we will still rely heavily on foreign producers, and will be delaying the process of fully developing methods that will power us in the future. We need to entirely move away from our current model so that we don't rely on oil to any great extent because as long as we rely on oil we rely on these dictatorships to produce enough oil to satisfy our need for energy.

I understand the importance of oil in the meantime, but sometimes the greatest facilitator of change is a great shock, i.e., a large price shock. When oil reached 4 a gallon, americans decidedly changed their behaviors. Now that it is back down below 2 dollars, the talk about (and perhaps actions with respect to) energy consumption behaviors has faded (certainly the economy has played a role in this also). We need high energy prices for a sustained period so that it has an expected long term impact if modifications to behavior are not made.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 As long as we expect to rely on oil, and as long as foreign countries produce more oil than we do, we will need to rely on foreign countries for our energy. since we don't have a vast supply of oil, producing more domestically will mainly result in lowering the price of global oil supply, for a certain period of time, by enough so that americans don't change their behaviors with respect to oil consumption. During that time, we will still rely heavily on foreign producers, and will be delaying the process of fully developing methods that will power us in the future. We need to entirely move away from our current model so that we don't rely on oil to any great extent because as long as we rely on oil we rely on these dictatorships to produce enough oil to satisfy our need for energy.

It is completely wrong to say that we don't have a vast supply of oil. We do... off the coasts, in the newly discovered oil rich Dakotas, in Montana/Wyoming/Alaska, and in the rediculous amounts of oil shale we have in Colorado. There was a provision buried deep inside the Stimulus bill that closed off another section of land in Wyoming and Montana that had vast oil reserves for some stupid reason I can't remember (I linked to the article on here a month ago or so). Estimates are that the Colorado shale alone could power us for over 200 years.

I'm not suggesting we forget about alternative and future methods by going after our own resources... why can't we do both? I'm all for researching and developing for the future while we get and use what we have now, and not just because it would stimulate the hell out of the workforce. For 30 years politicians have been saying "it will take 5-7 years to pull out of the ground." Our technology is better now anyway, and where would we be know if we pulled it out when say, Clinton was president? Would we be so dependant on the Saudi's and on Hugo?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It is completely wrong to say that we don't have a vast supply of oil. We do... off the coasts, in the newly discovered oil rich Dakotas, in Montana/Wyoming/Alaska, and in the rediculous amounts of oil shale we have in Colorado.

The energy department estimates that our proven oil reserves amount to about 21 billion barrels (onshore and offshore - as of the beginning of 2008). That's less than 3 years of supply at our current pace of over 7 billion barrels a year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ent/pdf/ch3.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e...oil-consumption


shale is not oil (more specifically, i meant crude oil (petroleum), which i figured we all understand the word "oil" to be interchangeable with petroleum - i should have been more specific). Producing usable oil products with shale requires open pit mining in some of the most expansive untouched wilderness of the US. Producing more usable oil in exchange for destroying (open pit mining is the worst type of natural resource extraction) one of our greatest wilderness areas is not worth the trade-off.

The reserves you're taking about in ND and MT is only about 3B barrels. For sake of argument, let's assume that none of that 3B was included in the 21 billion barrel estimate. That's still not a vast supply - 24 Billion barrels. At 7 billion barrels of oil consummed a year, our domestic supply, if it fully supplied our demand, would last for less than 4 years. That is far from vast.

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

I hope Obama does read the book. The Monroe Doctrine has had a lot of unintended consequences in South America. Such as the violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty to fight "communists". The economic rape of Cuba during the Batista regime. The subjigation of Guatemala to keep a "banana republic". The support of the dictator Pinochet. To ignore these travesties to be completely blind to reality. I'm glad Chavez gave him the book.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I hope Obama does read the book. The Monroe Doctrine has had a lot of unintended consequences in South America. Such as the violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty to fight "communists". The economic rape of Cuba during the Batista regime. The subjigation of Guatemala to keep a "banana republic". The support of the dictator Pinochet. To ignore these travesties to be completely blind to reality. I'm glad Chavez gave him the book.

I'd like to hear you expound more on the negative side effects of the Monroe Doctrine.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 The energy department estimates that our proven oil reserves amount to about 21 billion barrels (onshore and offshore - as of the beginning of 2008). That's less than 3 years of supply at our current pace of over 7 billion barrels a year. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ent/pdf/ch3.pdf http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e...oil-consumption shale is not oil (more specifically, i meant crude oil (petroleum), which i figured we all understand the word "oil" to be interchangeable with petroleum - i should have been more specific). Producing usable oil products with shale requires open pit mining in some of the most expansive untouched wilderness of the US. Producing more usable oil in exchange for destroying (open pit mining is the worst type of natural resource extraction) one of our greatest wilderness areas is not worth the trade-off. The reserves you're taking about in ND and MT is only about 3B barrels. For sake of argument, let's assume that none of that 3B was included in the 21 billion barrel estimate. That's still not a vast supply - 24 Billion barrels. At 7 billion barrels of oil consummed a year, our domestic supply, if it fully supplied our demand, would last for less than 4 years. That is far from vast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

From the Shale, approximately 800 billion barrles of crude can be extracted.

quote:

Earlier this year, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 Utah oil and gas leases that had gone through seven years of studies, negotiations and land-use planning. They were rejected because temporary drilling operations might be "visible" from several national parks more than a mile away: -Some of these parcels are in or near the Green River Formation, an oil-rich region in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming that's been called the "Persia of the West." -This formation has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of crude. -The Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory indicates 800 billion of these barrels are recoverable with current technology. Paul Spitler of the Wilderness Society told CNSNews this is just dandy. "There are some landscapes that are simply more important for their scenic, natural, recreational and ecological values than they are for oil and gas development," he said. Most of the locked-up lands are in Western states where there's enough oil shale to satisfy America's needs for the next 200 years. Modern technology can extract these vast resources from the earth with a minimal footprint. Technology for shale-oil extraction is certainly further along than getting energy from switch grass or producing cellulosic ethanol. If we're going to stimulate anything, let's stimulate shale-oil production.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArt...323305469830589