|
Chavez threat to seize food shops (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The people of Venezuela are getting EXACTLY what they deserve. Maybe a few years of increased starvation and poverty will be a wake up call to those stupid lefties. |
Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power.
Did anyone help then?
No.
If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you?
Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income.
But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time... |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power.
Did anyone help then?
No.
If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you?
Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income.
But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time... |
+1
So true and so sad.
I know a number of people from Venezuela and they are saying the same..... and to think so many of my people are going to suffer due to this, if this threat becomes a fact. :( |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The people of Venezuela are getting EXACTLY what they deserve. Maybe a few years of increased starvation and poverty will be a wake up call to those stupid lefties. |
ive met quite a few Venezualans in South America so far and i plan to visit the country after i spend a few months in Colombia, every Venezualan ive met HATES Chavez (these are the people who can afford to travel in south american countries outside of Venezuala) it just goes to show how polarised the country is, in the provinces and in the slums of Caracas im sure ill meet people who idolise the man. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power.
Did anyone help then?
No.
If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you?
Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income.
But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time... |
I see your point, but not all Americans are ignorant eigther you know. |
|
|
| Aquadyne |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, what? |
Theoretically, communism is the purest and most comprehensive form of democracy.
Magnetonium talks so much out of his ass that it's hard to tell which is which. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power.
Did anyone help then?
No.
If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you?
Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income.
But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time... |
Jesus ... before Chavez there was a "democratic" pro-American leader who suspended constitution, attacked protesters with military, failed to improve the economy and standards of living. And Americans supported it. Then these people were sick of that, and decided to try communism instead, and judging by the Chavez re-election, they like it!!! Only the people of Venezuela have themselves to blame for electing the coommunist dictator. They are all dictators, the past years - the only decent truly democratic one was in the 1960s. Its only a matter for Venezuelans to choose between the lesser of the evils, while both will oppress their people, as history shows. Take El Salvador, Nicaragua for example. Same thing. Both communists and pro-American dictators have hurt their people and broke many laws, rights, constitution - you name it. What bothers me a lot is when its pro-Americans, then its OK. When one will suck up to United States and no matter how terrible his rule is will be a good leader, but when there is a leader who's communist and does things no worse or better, he will be brandished as a threat to global security. Its all about sucking American government's ass, eh? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Jesus ... before Chavez there was a "democratic" pro-American leader who suspended constitution, attacked protesters with military, failed to improve the economy and standards of living. And Americans supported it. Then these people were sick of that, and decided to try communism instead, and judging by the Chavez re-election, they like it!!! Only the people of Venezuela have themselves to blame for electing the coommunist dictator. They are all dictators, the past years - the only decent truly democratic one was in the 1960s. Its only a matter for Venezuelans to choose between the lesser of the evils, while both will oppress their people, as history shows. Take El Salvador, Nicaragua for example. Same thing. Both communists and pro-American dictators have hurt their people and broke many laws, rights, constitution - you name it. What bothers me a lot is when its pro-Americans, then its OK. When one will suck up to United States and no matter how terrible his rule is will be a good leader, but when there is a leader who's communist and does things no worse or better, he will be brandished as a threat to global security. Its all about sucking American government's ass, eh? |
There may be some definite truth in the past that you bring up. There's also some definite truth in American funding of a coup to overthrow Chavez some years back before he went towards the more extreme, which of course didn't help his anti-Western views much.
The problem, as it seems, is going from one extreme to the next. It's understandable that any leader would want to take certain measures of change from a situation that was hurting his country. In the early years of 2000 Chavez was apparently doing some of these things by helping out his poor in various ways. But now, as you say, his true agenda is taking form, and unfortunately it's looking like he's moving it to the extreme. As history clearly shows time and again, anything moved to the extreme on either side usually ends up not so peachy. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
Theoretically, communism is the purest and most comprehensive form of democracy.
|
Jesus was the first communist. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
Theoretically, communism is the purest and most comprehensive form of democracy.
|
I sort of see that, and understand what you're saying. But I wouldn't call them the same. Theorectically, communism is very different from what's been called communism in the past. But you already know that. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
Jesus was the first communist. |
Jesus was my co-pilot....
But we crashed in the Andes and I ate him.
Sorry, too much coffee this morning...... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Jesus was my co-pilot....
But we crashed in the Andes and I ate him.
Sorry, too much coffee this morning...... |
He's also portrayed as a hippy in Western culture, kinda explains why he was your co-pilot :D. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
Magnetonium talks so much out of his ass that it's hard to tell which is which. |
Hahaha, a lot of this information comes from books, journals, Wikipedia, a book I have aboout the Cold War. So I guess you have more expertise in this than historians do!
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
There may be some definite truth in the past that you bring up. There's also some definite truth in American funding of a coup to overthrow Chavez some years back before he went towards the more extreme, which of course didn't help his anti-Western views much.
The problem, as it seems, is going from one extreme to the next. It's understandable that any leader would want to take certain measures of change from a situation that was hurting his country. In the early years of 2000 Chavez was apparently doing some of these things by helping out his poor in various ways. But now, as you say, his true agenda is taking form, and unfortunately it's looking like he's moving it to the extreme. As history clearly shows time and again, anything moved to the extreme on either side usually ends up not so peachy. |
The problems with South/Central American countries and their neverending cycle of dictatorships come from the Cold War era. Back then Soviets and Americans fought for swaying these lands to their respective sides, using money, troops, blackmail, wars, sabotage, agents, etc. The crimes committed by both pro-communism and pro-American fighters have been well documented. Both were bad. Today's problems in these lands have roots in Cold War, for sure. However, today, there is no longer Soviet Union. Russia does not fund resistance in these countries. But USA is still heavily involved. Why? Why dont they let these countries independently decide their ways - its pretty obvious that American attempts to coerse these nations is resulting in anti-American hatred. Of course democracy is only slowly coming in some of these countries, like Chile, Argentina but do you really think American involvement, overthrowal of leaders will do any goood? We all know full well what American involvement in overthrowing Mozadek in Iran did in 1950s. The new regime was oppressive. As a result, in 1979, the Islamic Revolution exploded, and many problems in Middle East today have roots in this revolution. If Americans didnt oppress Iranian people from 1953-1979, there would have never been a revolution. In 1953, Mozadek was democractically elected, western trained and educated. And the only reason he was overthrown is because he denied Americans and British monopolies in gas/oil sectors. |
|
|
|
|
