Chavez Threatens US Oil Cutoff

[BoogyMan]

Poor Hugo, he just doesn't understand that you cannot steal billions of dollars of private infrastructure by nationalization and expect companies to roll over and take it.


Source: Link (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UNOD3G0&show_article=1)

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States in an "economic war" if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.
Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts as it challenges the nationalization of a multibillion dollar oil project by Chavez's government.

A British court has issued an injunction "freezing" as much as $12 billion in assets.

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

"I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States," Chavez said Sunday.

"The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us," Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Margaret Ross said the company had no comment. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Caracas did not return a call.

Venezuela accounted for about 12 percent of U.S. crude oil imports in November, the latest figures available from the U.S. Energy Department. The 1.23 million barrels a day from Venezuela makes that country the U.S.'s fourth-biggest oil importer behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has argued that court orders won by Exxon Mobil have "no effect" on the state oil company PDVSA and are merely "transitory measures" while Venezuela presents its case in courts in New York and London.

Exxon Mobil is also taking its claims to international arbitration, disputing the terms it was granted under Chavez's nationalization last year of four heavy oil projects in the Orinoco River basin, one of the world's richest oil deposits.

Other major oil companies including U.S.-based Chevron Corp., France's Total, Britain's BP PLC, and Norway's StatoilHydro ASA have negotiated deals with Venezuela to continue on as minority partners in the Orinoco oil project.

ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, however, balked at the tougher terms and have been in compensation talks with PDVSA.

[apdst]

Chavez Threatens US Oil Cutoff

God, I hope so!

[Keith Hamburger]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-19-02-2006.gif

Same applies to Venezuela selling to us. If they sell to someone else, then that will free oil that those others are buying for us to buy. Oil is oil. The only way to change the market is to find more supply, or actually disrupt the basic supply (for change in the other direction). Refusing to sell to someone, or to buy from someone, won't make a difference.

Keith

[el comandante]

The Empire should take note. They have been warned.

And it is the oil companies who are thieves, they been stealing from the Venezuelan people for years. The government are only taking back the people of the lands natural resource. The asset freeze is a farce, they have been offered compensation as other companies have accepted. And $12 billion is just ridiculous, when they estimated their own assets at $750 million.



As part of a drive to recover the nation's oil sovereignty the Venezuelan government nationalized Exxon's 41.7 percent stake in the Cerro Negro project in May last year with an offer for compensation. However, Exxon not satisfied, demanded arbitration. Although the U.S. oil giant has not specified how much it wants in compensation it said its investment in the project was valued at $750 million at the time the assets were expropriated.

In the context of soaring energy prices, the move by Exxon is a particularly aggressive challenge to governments around the world who are trying to recuperate soveriegnty over their natural resources.
"To me it sounds like a very aggressive tactic," said Stephen Zamora, professor of international law at the University of Houston Law Center.

"I can't really say that I'm aware this has been used in other investment disputes. They may be trying to get the government to settle."

Patrick Esteruelas, of the Eurasia Group in New York commented, "Although Exxon is within their rights to persue a temporary embargo of PDVSA assets they will probably have to prove that PDVSA has no intention of compensating them."

"However, PDVSA has been very careful to insist that they will still negotiate with Exxon to achieve an acceptable compromise," he added.

Ramirez said the media publicity was a result of Exxon trying to "scratch a figure into the negotiating table" to affect compensation talks and said the world's largest oil company's compensation demands were "ridiculous."

He also accused the US company of using the legal case to destabilize Venezuela, by creating panic over its finances, as the country's dollar denominated bonds experienced their sharpest drop in six months on fears the government could face a protracted legal battle with the oil giant.


http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3135

[Fishingriver]

The Empire should take note. They have been warned.

And it is the oil companies who are thieves, they been stealing from the Venezuelan people for years. The government are only taking back the people of the lands natural resource. The asset freeze is a farce, they have been offered compensation as other companies have accepted. And $12 billion is just ridiculous, when they estimated their own assets at $750 million.


Exxon already has us fighting a war for their future oil supply in Iraq. No surprise they would start another one in Venezuela. When is America going to wake up and realize that Exxon is a menace that has to be dealt with? They are bending Americans over at the pump, putting us into war, and destroying the planet.

[Easy90]

The Empire should take note. They have been warned. (some wannabe socialist)

OK then...
Maybe we'll just send a couple hundred marines down there and pick up that punk socialist moron, give him a room at Guantanamo... and "liberate" his country. :evil:

[apdst]

And it is the oil companies who are thieves, they been stealing from the Venezuelan people for years.

If it wasn't for the American oil companies, they wouldn't have any oil to sell.

The Iranians are doing their own offshore drilling. The Caspian Sea is pratically a dead zone because of the pollution.

[Fishingriver]

Exxon is demonstrating the kind of political power over other nations foreign policy that historically has been the exclusive domain of US government. They are leveraging an international seizure of Venezuela's money. If Chavez reacts to this by freezing oil bound for the US, Bush will likely threaten military intervention. In fact, I bet he does by tomorrow.
We have 140,000 troops trapped in Iraq while we wait for the mockery of a government we installed to give Exxon and a few buddies the lions share of their nations wealth. Watch what kind of priority Iraq having a "Democracy" is given once Big Oil gets their hands on the crude.
Chavez wanted the people who own the oil to benefit from it. The truth is that Chavez never would have been elected if it hadn't been for the usual business arrangement orchestrated by the CIA for Big Oil. Preferably, Big Oil would have
a tyrant in power who starved his own people and used the military to keep them from complaining. When a nation is that poor, eating is more important than lessor matters like the environment. But occasionally they rise up and demand what they know they have to have to survive. Chavez was Venezuela's answer to that. Big Oil has an answer for that. Another war for oil.

[Easy90]

It's interesting to watch American libs defending a socialist who's confiscating private property "for the good of the state"... Kinda gives insight as to how they would like to see things run in America.

All Exxon is doing is putting a legal claim on Venezuelan assets to recompense them for their property that was confiscated by Chavez... And our nutty lefties here applaud the seizures by Chavez...and condemn the legal moves by Exxon. Castro did the same thing...simply nationalized private property and kicked legal owners out...without even a kiss and pat on the ass. Democratics don't think that's wrong...No wonder the Cubans in S. Florida don't vote Democratic.

[Athena]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-19-02-2006.gif

Same applies to Venezuela selling to us. If they sell to someone else, then that will free oil that those others are buying for us to buy. Oil is oil. The only way to change the market is to find more supply, or actually disrupt the basic supply (for change in the other direction). Refusing to sell to someone, or to buy from someone, won't make a difference.

Keith


Are you over looking OPEC?

http://www.opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973) – suspended its membership from December 1992-December 2007; Angola (2007) and Gabon (1975–1994). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna, Austria, on September 1, 1965.............

OPEC rose to international prominence during this decade, as its Member Countries took control of their domestic petroleum industries and acquired a major say in the pricing of crude oil on world markets. There were two oil pricing crises, triggered by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, but fed by fundamental imbalances in the market; both resulted in oil prices rising steeply. The first Summit of OPEC Sovereigns and Heads of State was held in Algiers in March 1975. OPEC acquired its 11th and final current Member, Nigeria, in 1971.

This was the cause of the 1970 recession. Many people lost their homes and businesses. The unemployment rate in Oregon was so high for so long, it took 5 years "professional" shoe shining experience to get a referral from the employment office for the job. Dishwahsers had to fill out resumes, because the competition for jobs was so intense. People had to hide things like college degrees to get the few lowly jobs that were open. Unwed parents, divorces and crime greatly increased. It was ugly.

Using farm land to grow corn and turn it into fuel, isn't a good solution as this increases the price of farm products as farm land is used for fuel instead of food.

I think a few people might want to rethink their position on this. Using the CIA and our military to force oil producing nations to do as we want is not acceptable. We are spending the last of our wealth and going deeply into debt to secure oil, and call this a war on terror. The real terror is economic. Like a small blood clot can kill a big man, cutting off oil can kill any and all efforts to avert a recession, and this recession could become a depression and could mean the end of the US power, because it no longer has the resources that gave it wealth.
I think we seriously need to think about how we will survive a depression.

Exxon, Haliburton and Cheney are the same thing. They are exploiting other countries and are gouging US tax payers to pay for a national defense, that is being used as a private army, for oil interest.

[Easy90]

I think we seriously need to think about how we will survive a depression.

Electing a socialist isn't the best way to "think" about it.

[Truth Detector]

It's interesting to watch American libs defending a socialist who's confiscating private property "for the good of the state"... Kinda gives insight as to how they would like to see things run in America.

All Exxon is doing is putting a legal claim on Venezuelan assets to recompense them for their property that was confiscated by Chavez... And our nutty lefties here applaud the seizures by Chavez...and condemn the legal moves by Exxon. Castro did the same thing...simply nationalized private property and kicked legal owners out...without even a kiss and pat on the ass. Democratics don't think that's wrong...No wonder the Cubans in S. Florida don't vote Democratic.


It's also interesting when they use the same false rhetoric this Dictator wannabe uses:

"I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States," Chavez said Sunday.

"The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us," Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

Sign of mental instability: when one STEALS private property from those companies which spent billions developing the oil extraction and refining capacity of that country, and then calls their attempts through COURTS OF LAW to get back what was thiers stealing.

Sign of mental instability; when one claims that the US is an empire.

Now I can excuse Chavez for being a simpleton and having the intelligence of a lemming and misuse the term "empire". What doesn't make any sense is when people in THIS country do the same thing.

I guess the Left in this country are so PROFOUND in their genius that they don't comprehend the meaning of the words they banter about.

For the Chavez Leftist supporters in America, here's the definition of "EMPIRE" lest you continue waxing ignorant about it:

Main Entry: em·pire
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'em-"pīr
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority ; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire ; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

[el comandante]

To say the US is not an empire is more a sign of lacking mentally. The US military is based in 135 countries. When these countries select a leader the US doesnt like they have them overthrown or assasinated and install a friendly dictator or puppet president. So the world is de facto run from Washington. It only takes the slightest understanding to realise this.

[BoogyMan]

To say the US is not an empire is more a sign of lacking mentally. The US military is based in 135 countries. When these countries select a leader the US doesnt like they have them overthrown or assasinated and install a friendly dictator or puppet president. So the world is de facto run from Washington. It only takes the slightest understanding to realise this.


I am sure that in future posts you will refrain from the personal attacks and you will very quickly support your claims here with credible sources. Right?

[Truth Detector]

This was the cause of the 1970 recession. Many people lost their homes and businesses. The unemployment rate in Oregon was so high for so long, it took 5 years "professional" shoe shining experience to get a referral from the employment office for the job. Dishwahsers had to fill out resumes, because the competition for jobs was so intense. People had to hide things like college degrees to get the few lowly jobs that were open. Unwed parents, divorces and crime greatly increased. It was ugly.


What a simplistic version of the 1970's recession.

The recession actually was kicked into high gear in 1973 as the result of the illegal Arab assault on Israel known as the Yom Kippur War. The OPEC nations attempted to blackmail the West but the embargo only lasted seven months.

The Arab nations thought they could blackmail the West into not supporting Israel. I guess they forgot that their armies were so pathetic that even with limited support, Israel was successful in kicking their collective asses.

The lessons that SHOULD have been learned are still being learned today. That OIL is a very important resource and that we cannot rely on suspect nations to be our primary suppliers.

What should be happening is that we should be drilling for oil in Alaska, we should be drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and we should be developing nuclear power as a clean and sustaining source of power here in the USA.

Unfortunately, the Left in this country wants us to be a dependent nation and appear to be desirous for our economic well being to be destroyed in the inane belief that we "deserve" this.

As for the cause of the recession, there MANY other contributing factors that caused the recession. The oil embargo was just the tip of the iceberg that pushed us into it. Carter developed a policy to make it even worse and having the term "stagflation" coined during his utter failure as a President.

Here is a great summary of it:

"In a nutshell the 70’s began with a poor economy, high inflation, and the problem was made worse by war and Oil supply problems and compounded by wage and price controls."

Using farm land to grow corn and turn it into fuel, isn't a good solution as this increases the price of farm products as farm land is used for fuel instead of food.

We are in total agreement on this point. It is absurd to think that alternate fuel sources would EVER be efficient.

I like to use this simple problem to illustrate this fact:

How many acres of corn would it take to power a Boeing 747 on a flight from Los Angeles to Hong Kong? There are probably twenty of these flights a day from LA.

I think a few people might want to rethink their position on this. Using the CIA and our military to force oil producing nations to do as we want is not acceptable. We are spending the last of our wealth and going deeply into debt to secure oil, and call this a war on terror. The real terror is economic. Like a small blood clot can kill a big man, cutting off oil can kill any and all efforts to avert a recession, and this recession could become a depression and could mean the end of the US power, because it no longer has the resources that gave it wealth.


There are no facts to support this FALSE assertion. The notion that we are in Iraq to secure oil is bizarre in the extreme. We only import 9% of our oil from the Middle East.

The notion that we will get MORE oil in a global market by spending trillions to make Iraq a Democracy is absurd in the extreme. I suggest that you make note that Iraq was a threat to global stability by being a constant threat to their Middle East neighbors.

It was time to enforce the UN resolutions which he was in defiance of and expose the failure of the UN's "Oil for Food" program.

The irony of the Left is while they rant against the "perceived" corruption of America and the Bush Administration, they support the rampant corruption and failure of the UN. How profound does one have to be to be in denial that 9-11 was a wake-up call and not a political opportunity to impugn a President and his administration and make false assertions that by being in Iraq and Afghanistan, we somehow assure a constant oil source to the benefit of Bush, Cheney and companies like Exxon?

I guess in your economic ignorance, you didn’t know that oil in the Middle East was exploited by European nations through companies like DUTCH Shell Oil and BRITISH petroleum. US oil companies had very little to do with the original discovery of oil there.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199901/prelude.to.discovery.htm

I think we seriously need to think about how we will survive a depression.

This is an absurd statement with no FACTS to support it.


Exxon, Haliburton and Cheney are the same thing. They are exploiting other countries and are gouging US tax payers to pay for a national defense, that is being used as a private army, for oil interest.

What is evident by this statement is that is but another typical paranoid rant with no facts to support these inane conclusions.

One thing is certain when dealing with the Left, reality, facts and honest debate are not part of their repertoire.

Lies, denial and distortions become the norm for people like you because you have no collective historic memories, you have no comprehension of the historic facts and you continue to not learn from the historic record.

[Fishingriver]

Truth Detector wrote- For the Chavez Leftist supporters in America, here's the definition of "EMPIRE" lest you continue waxing ignorant about it:

and then ...

BoogyMan wrote- "I am sure that in future posts you will refrain from the personal attacks and you will very quickly support your claims here with credible sources. Right?"

Makes me wonder to whom the guidelines apply...

Anyway....

Athena wrote- "Exxon, Haliburton and Cheney are the same thing. They are exploiting other countries and are gouging US tax payers to pay for a national defense, that is being used as a private army, for oil interest."

Exxon could become the third political party in America. They have assumed the mantle of determining American feoreign policy. First by the war in Iraq to secure the future of their archaic product, and now by leveraging the freeze on another nations assets.
Can't you see it? We would have senators with a (D) by their name, an (R) by their name, and a (E) by their name. Actually, that wouldn't really be necessary because the (R) party is already subservient to the (E) party platform. That would be an oil platform with the US military right behind it.
The real story here isn't that Chavez is threatening to cut off US oil. The threat is that we have the largest profiting corporation in the world determining US foreign policy. Chavez and his threat are a product of that truly threatening turn of events. Now read carefully while the right wing defends Exxon.

If we figured in what the Iraq War is costing Americans, I wonder what the price per gallon would really be?

[Truth Detector]

To say the US is not an empire is more a sign of lacking mentally. The US military is based in 135 countries. When these countries select a leader the US doesnt like they have them overthrown or assasinated and install a friendly dictator or puppet president. So the world is de facto run from Washington. It only takes the slightest understanding to realise this.


To suggest that America is an Empire when given a clear definition is a sign of mental instability and illustrates a complete lack of even the most basic historic facts.

I know you want it to be what you SAY it is to support your weak political philosophy, but words do have meaning and the historic record is fairly accurate and can be obtained by even someone with modest mental facilities.

You are welcome to argue the FACTS with me if you want, but making the FALSE assertion that America is an Empire based on your distorted views and opinions hardly makes it so.

Main Entry: em·pire
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'em-"pīr
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority ; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire ; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion[hr] Exxon could become the third political party in America. They have assumed the mantle of determining American feoreign policy. First by the war in Iraq to secure the future of their archaic product, and now by leveraging the freeze on another nations assets.
Can't you see it? We would have senators with a (D) by their name, an (R) by their name, and a (E) by their name. Actually, that wouldn't really be necessary because the (R) party is already subservient to the (E) party platform. That would be an oil platform with the US military right behind it.
The real story here isn't that Chavez is threatening to cut off US oil. The threat is that we have the largest profiting corporation in the world determining US foreign policy. Chavez and his threat are a product of that truly threatening turn of events. Now read carefully while the right wing defends Exxon.

If we figured in what the Iraq War is costing Americans, I wonder what the price per gallon would really be?


The only thing needing protection from your absurd commentary is the TRUTH.

I look forward to seeing with a modicum of credibility proof that Exxon dictates the Middle East policy for America. It should be quite humorous to see you twist and spin the FACTS and historic record to fit such a narrow uninformed and myopic point of view. This point of view can only be expressed as a result of the weak political points of view you have about "policy" and what is "good" for the American people.

Here's something to get your loony attempts to explain your uninformed position off to a quick jump start "1972 Jersey Standard changed its name to Exxon Corporation":

http://www.cah.utexas.edu/collections/exxonmobil_timeline.php

Carry on! FACTS are obviously NOT your forte'. :madlaugh:

[el comandante]

To say the US is not an empire is more a sign of lacking mentally. The US military is based in 135 countries. When these countries select a leader the US doesnt like they have them overthrown or assasinated and install a friendly dictator or puppet president. So the world is de facto run from Washington. It only takes the slightest understanding to realise this.


I am sure that in future posts you will refrain from the personal attacks and you will very quickly support your claims here with credible sources. Right?


It was me who was personally attacked first, i responded by giving the same insult right back. In future i will rise above it. but i do plead for consistency.


As for credible sources. I didnt think sourtces were needed for common knowledge, but perhaps what is common knowledge in the rest of the world is not so well known within the empire.

So here goes - the US has its military in 135 countries

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

They intervene against governments they deem opposed to US economic interests.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Imperialism today is under the guise of neocolonialism and that is undoubtedly what we see from the US

[BoogyMan]

As for credible sources. I didnt think sourtces were needed for common knowledge, but perhaps what is common knowledge in the rest of the world is not so well known within the empire.

So here goes - the US has its military in 135 countries

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

They intervene against governments they deem opposed to US economic interests.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Imperialism today is under the guise of neocolonialism and that is undoubtedly what we see from the US


Credible sources are required for your specious allegation that the US is an empire. The US has military installations all over the world, that is true, and we are looked at to aid our allies from those facilities.

You have not at all proven the claim that the US has colonized any country el commandante. You have posted material that tries to claim that since the US has intervened in conflicts all over the world that we are an imperialist nation. Tell me how many of those governments the US is in control of and how many of those interventions resulted in a military force remaining to maintain the US hold of those new supposed US states?

[MrHappy]

Maybe we should just open up more domestic drilling.

Just sayin'

[BoogyMan]

Maybe we should just open up more domestic drilling.

Just sayin'


That would be a great idea MrHappy. I don't think it will ever happen though as much of our coastal area that contains oil is under drilling prohibition.

[el comandante]

Maybe we should just open up more domestic drilling.

Just sayin'


That would be a great idea MrHappy. I don't think it will ever happen though as much of our coastal area that contains oil is under drilling prohibition.


And it costs more to pay an American worker than a Venezuelan. It would cost you more money to produce your own oil than to import it IMO.

[MrHappy]

And it costs more to pay an American worker than a Venezuelan. It would cost you more money to produce your own oil than to import it IMO.

Perhaps, but better than no oil at all.

[el comandante]

As for credible sources. I didnt think sourtces were needed for common knowledge, but perhaps what is common knowledge in the rest of the world is not so well known within the empire.

So here goes - the US has its military in 135 countries

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

They intervene against governments they deem opposed to US economic interests.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Imperialism today is under the guise of neocolonialism and that is undoubtedly what we see from the US


Credible sources are required for your specious allegation that the US is an empire. The US has military installations all over the world, that is true, and we are looked at to aid our allies from those facilities.

You have not at all proven the claim that the US has colonized any country el commandante. You have posted material that tries to claim that since the US has intervened in conflicts all over the world that we are an imperialist nation. Tell me how many of those governments the US is in control of and how many of those interventions resulted in a military force remaining to maintain the US hold of those new supposed US states?


The thing with neocolonialism is you often dont really need your army to do old fashioned occupying. There is usually a friendly dictator or puppet government waiting in the wings. We saw this with Pinochet, we saw it when Mossadegh was overthrown, it happened when Arbenz was overthrown, it was the case with the failed Washington coordinated coup on Chavez.

On other occasions the military has remained - they remain guarding the oil pipeline in Afghanistan, and obviously in Iraq. The UN kept its troops in the congo when they murdered Lumumba

I will ask you, to watch John Pilger's The War on Democracy. It is quite long, but if you get the chance to even see half of it you will get the idea.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148

If you are unable to watch some of this and you do not believe any particulars, i will certainly look to post more linked evidence. It's just to me these are all widely known huge events that individual links are not really needed for.

[Go Fish]

Maybe we should just open up more domestic drilling.

Just sayin'


That would be a great idea MrHappy. I don't think it will ever happen though as much of our coastal area that contains oil is under drilling prohibition.


And it costs more to pay an American worker than a Venezuelan. It would cost you more money to produce your own oil than to import it IMO.


Noted. Nazis weren't socialists and we shouldn't be self-sufficient. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[BoogyMan]

The thing with neocolonialism is you often dont really need your army to do old fashioned occupying. There is usually a friendly dictator or puppet government waiting in the wings. We saw this with Pinochet, we saw it when Mossadegh was overthrown, it happened when Arbenz was overthrown, it was the case with the failed Washington coordinated coup on Chavez.

On other occasions the military has remained - they remain guarding the oil pipeline in Afghanistan, and obviously in Iraq. The UN kept its troops in the congo when they murdered Lumumba

I will ask you, to watch John Pilger's The War on Democracy. It is quite long, but if you get the chance to even see half of it you will get the idea.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148

If you are unable to watch some of this and you do not believe any particulars, i will certainly look to post more linked evidence. It's just to me these are all widely known huge events that individual links are not really needed for.


I will watch the video later tonight, but you have not proven the imperialist/colonialist charge that started this whole discussion. You may not like us and look at us that way, but you are twisting definitions to arrive at the imperialist label.

[SouthernLadyGA]

We should refuse to buy anymore oil from SA.

[Elrathin]

We should refuse to buy anymore oil from SA.


Yep its so much better to buy oil that supports terrorists in the ME. So much better.

[SouthernLadyGA]

We buy the bulk of our oil from Canada and Mexico...only about 25% from Venezuela.

Of course....we could build new refineries and drill for oil in Anwar. Or ride the bus.

[Tharagor]

The Empire should take note. They have been warned. (some wannabe socialist)

OK then...
Maybe we'll just send a couple hundred marines down there and pick up that punk socialist moron, give him a room at Guantanamo... and "liberate" his country. :evil:


Well, the CIA backed coup (http://warondemocracy.net/) wasn't terribly successful.

[Elrathin]

Or ride the bus.


I would love to, too bad there are none where I am at, nor is there a good public transportation city in most towns.

[Go Fish]

We should refuse to buy anymore oil from SA.


We should cease all foreign subsidies for 3 days. Yes, "subsidies". Considering the deals that our "neighbors" are getting thanks to a litany of misguided trade agreements, I figure it would take about 72 hours to get some of these countries to renegotiate.

[December]

God bless Hugo Chavez!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20060727/capt.sge.umv31.270706161406.photo00.photo.default-512x393.jpg

Chavez in Russia for arms deals

25 July 2006
Mr Chavez is beefing up his armed forces with Russian help
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is visiting Russia, where he is expected to sign deals to buy new fighter jets and helicopters.
He will visit Volgograd - formerly Stalingrad - on Tuesday, and later the Urals town of Izhevsk, where Kalashnikov assault rifles are made.

The US has tried to persuade Russia not to supply weapons to Venezuela.
Mr Chavez is visiting several countries, lobbying for a Venezuelan seat on the UN Security Council.
On Monday he signed a series of co-operation agreements with President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, covering topics such as technology, energy and agriculture.

READ MORE - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5213334.stm

[Go Fish]

Hey! Putin looks amazingly like Cindy Sheehan in that pic!

Did I ever tell you about the time I was a counter-protester at a Cindy Sheehan rally?

[BoogyMan]

Hey! Putin looks amazingly like Cindy Sheehan in that pic!

Did I ever tell you about the time I was a counter-protester at a Cindy Sheehan rally?


I wondered why poor little Hugo was grinning like that, he thought his woman was back! LOL

[Fishingriver]

[font=Tahoma][size=medium][color=#008000]The only thing needing protection from your absurd commentary is the TRUTH.

Oh my....quite an impact your making with the capital letters.

I look forward to seeing with a modicum of credibility proof that Exxon dictates the Middle East policy for America. It should be quite humorous to see you twist and spin the FACTS and historic record to fit such a narrow uninformed and myopic point of view. This point of view can only be expressed as a result of the weak political points of view you have about "policy" and what is "good" for the American people.

First Exxon managed to freeze some of Venezuela;s assets, then they moved to
freeze billions in Venezuelan assets. As a result of this, Hugo threatened to stop
shipments of oil. So if the US threatens military action against Venezuela, our foreign policy there would have been decided by Exxon. I supose Bush could decide to do something different, but I don't think he will. I guess we'll see.

Here's something to get your loony attempts ...

GFY .. :ecstatic:

[brien]

SO what Chavez has done is similar to this scenario:

You, the reader of this post, invest a substantial portion of your wealth in Venezuela in let's say, raising, feeding, propagating and harvesting fish for people to eat. You have a lucrative business, you pay taxes to the government in both Venezuela and the US.

Now, along comes Chavez and confisgates your entire operation, lock, stock, and barrel. Your operation is worth ten million in assets alone, never mind future profits, and he writes you a check for one million and tells you to go home because you no longer own this operation, the state is the new owner.:shock:

And you wouldn't be pissed off? You wouldn't cry foul? You wouldn't be economically harmed by this action? Yeah, right.:unreal:

Chavez is an a-hole and deserves to be deposed asap. :fight:

I challenge anyone who agrees with Chavez to take a substantial amount of their own money, set up a business, get it profitable, and simply hand it over to all of your neighbors to run and share in the profits. Until you do this, and you agree with Chavez, you have no dog in this fight.[hr]Anyone who seriously thinks GWB will invade Venezuela over this issue isn't thinking clearly.

[Fishingriver]

Exxon was banking on the government allowing them the same fat deal forever. It was foolish at best. If you go to the crap tables and win for five years and then the casino changes the rules, you can either stay in (like Chevron did) or you can get out. Exxon was offered the same deal and balked. They decided to go for it all by orchestrating a situation that could lead to military intervention. War at the US peoples expense.
Even in consideration of the loss, they posted another global profit record. Which broke their own record. Which broke their own record. I don't feel any sympathy for Exxon what so ever.

[Truth Detector]

As for credible sources. I didnt think sourtces were needed for common knowledge, but perhaps what is common knowledge in the rest of the world is not so well known within the empire.

So here goes - the US has its military in 135 countries

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

They intervene against governments they deem opposed to US economic interests.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Imperialism today is under the guise of neocolonialism and that is undoubtedly what we see from the US


Credible sources are required for your specious allegation that the US is an empire. The US has military installations all over the world, that is true, and we are looked at to aid our allies from those facilities.

You have not at all proven the claim that the US has colonized any country el commandante. You have posted material that tries to claim that since the US has intervened in conflicts all over the world that we are an imperialist nation. Tell me how many of those governments the US is in control of and how many of those interventions resulted in a military force remaining to maintain the US hold of those new supposed US states?


When one like El Commandante gets their information from sources like "Third World", do you really think that you can have a coherent intellectual debate with them?

It's obvious that this individual's political philosophy is Communist. One has to be living in denial and fantasy land to think that Communism is anything BUT a failure and criminal in it's human rights record.

I have found that one cannot help those who live in denial until they realize they are living a lie and seek help.

Here’s a list of the examples of this hypothetical “empire” from his source. It doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s loony at best, naïve in the extreme. Here are my favorites:

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.

Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.

Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why a lemming follows its leader off of a cliff. All one needs do is see where they get their information.

[brien]

Exxon was banking on the government allowing them the same fat deal forever.

This is perhaps the folly of Exxon in thinking a Socialist wouldn't try to undermine their investments. In this respect, I agree. On the other hand, they should be justly compensated for the fair market value of their investment. To do anything less, is mere thuggery and larceny on behalf of the nation of Venezuela. Typical act of Chavez, though.

Even in consideration of the loss, they posted another global profit record.

The two aren't even remotely related because their profits have nothing whatsoever to do with the theft of their assets.

I don't feel any sympathy for Exxon what so ever.

Emotions have noting to do with this at all.

[Truth Detector]

[quote=Truth Detector]
I look forward to seeing with a modicum of credibility proof that Exxon dictates the Middle East policy for America. It should be quite humorous to see you twist and spin the FACTS and historic record to fit such a narrow uninformed and myopic point of view. This point of view can only be expressed as a result of the weak political points of view you have about "policy" and what is "good" for the American people.

First Exxon managed to freeze some of Venezuela;s assets, then they moved to
freeze billions in Venezuelan assets. As a result of this, Hugo threatened to stop
shipments of oil. So if the US threatens military action against Venezuela, our foreign policy there would have been decided by Exxon. I supose Bush could decide to do something different, but I don't think he will. I guess we'll see.

Once more you run off into a tangent and away from the original false assertion that "that Exxon dictates the Middle East policy for America." Then when shown how specious your case is, you now argue the same for Venezuela.

Once more I ask you, what credible proof do you have that Exxon dictates the Middle East policy for America?

As for Venezuela, what American policy have we implemented that suggests an invasion of Venezuela? I have seen no such policy statement or suggestion of such. Do you have a shred of credible evidence where Bush, or anyone from this Administration, has hinted at an invasion of Venezuela to protect Exxon's profits?

As I stated earlier, it is quite humorous to see you twist and spin the FACTS and historic record to fit such a narrow uninformed and myopic point of view. [hr]
Exxon was banking on the government allowing them the same fat deal forever. It was foolish at best. If you go to the crap tables and win for five years and then the casino changes the rules, you can either stay in (like Chevron did) or you can get out. Exxon was offered the same deal and balked. They decided to go for it all by orchestrating a situation that could lead to military intervention. War at the US peoples expense. Even in consideration of the loss, they posted another global profit record. Which broke their own record. Which broke their own record. I don't feel any sympathy for Exxon what so ever.


What war? You keep making the same specious argument but have nothing to support such lunatic claims that the US is going to war with Venezuela.

The ONLY one’s talking about WAR are those who are obviously leftists with a political agenda. No one in this Administration is suggesting doing anything other than watching Chavez shove his huge foot in his mouth and make a complete fool of himself.

The US policy is correct in that we just have to watch and wait to see this tin pot despot dictator wannabe fail. It is only a matter of time for the people of this nation to realize the empty political rhetoric and come to the realization that this moron only cares about his own power and wants to become their dictator for life.

The only thing that props up his failed policies is his confiscation of foreign company assets and oil sales. But using oil to promote a political philosophy is destined to fail the people of Venezuela. What they need is REAL economic opportunity not Government largess that makes them dependent on Chavez’s whims.

I find it fascinating when people who are presumed intellectuals and educated think that political rhetoric is somehow an excuse for dictators and policies that deny people of their civil liberties and property rights.

[Elrathin]

I find it fascinating when people who are presumed intellectuals and educated think that political rhetoric is somehow an excuse for dictators and policies that deny people of their civil liberties and property rights. [/color][/size][/font]


Why? Republicans have found that to be an appealing practice in regards to Saudi Arabia. You guys seem to love working with dictators when it suits your needs. So spare us the sanctimonious self righteousness of the right.

[Trish]

I find it fascinating when people who are presumed intellectuals and educated think that political rhetoric is somehow an excuse for dictators and policies that deny people of their civil liberties and property rights. [/color][/size][/font]


Why? Republicans have found that to be an appealing practice in regards to Saudi Arabia. You guys seem to love working with dictators when it suits your needs. So spare us the sanctimonious self righteousness of the right.


I think you'll find that "working with dictators when it suits your needs" is not solely a Republican undertaking. It's politics - and it's played by every political party. Do you honestly think that Democrats haven't, don't, or won't work with dictators if it's deemed necessary in the interests of the US? FDR was a Democrat - and yet one of our allies in WWII was Stalin. Certainly Stalin was a damn near perfect blueprint of a dictator. However, it was in the interest of the US (not to mention the rest of our allies) to work with Stalin against Hitler. Remember the old adage - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Well, that particular adage holds true in the world of international politics. Sometimes you lay down with dogs to keep the wolf from the door. You may get up with fleas, but with any luck you don't end up in the wolf's belly. If Clinton or Obama win the election this November, they'll be in the same position as FDR and Bush and every other president - they'll have to deal with the cards they are dealt - and those cards may well dictate that they lay down with a few dogs. They'll scratch, get a flea bath, and then move on.

[Elrathin]

I think you'll find that "working with dictators when it suits your needs" is not solely a Republican undertaking. It's politics - and it's played by every political party. Do you honestly think that Democrats haven't, don't, or won't work with dictators if it's deemed necessary in the interests of the US? FDR was a Democrat - and yet one of our allies in WWII was Stalin. Certainly Stalin was a damn near perfect blueprint of a dictator. However, it was in the interest of the US (not to mention the rest of our allies) to work with Stalin against Hitler. Remember the old adage - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Well, that particular adage holds true in the world of international politics. Sometimes you lay down with dogs to keep the wolf from the door. You may get up with fleas, but with any luck you don't end up in the wolf's belly. If Clinton or Obama win the election this November, they'll be in the same position as FDR and Bush and every other president - they'll have to deal with the cards they are dealt - and those cards may well dictate that they lay down with a few dogs. They'll scratch, get a flea bath, and then move on.


Trish I don't doubt, that, but when TD starts talking about how it is bad to work with dictators, don't you find that a little sanctimonious considering the history of the U.S. and its supporters of dictators?

All I'm saying is it is hypocritical to denounce working or supporting for one dictator while supporting other dictators.

It's no wonder a lot of the world hates us, we are one of the most hypocritical nations in regards to our foreign policies. I love America and the laws we have to protect our citizens, but the way we deal with other countries (Especially dictators) is idiotic and hypocritical to say the least.

[Trish]

I think you'll find that "working with dictators when it suits your needs" is not solely a Republican undertaking. It's politics - and it's played by every political party. Do you honestly think that Democrats haven't, don't, or won't work with dictators if it's deemed necessary in the interests of the US? FDR was a Democrat - and yet one of our allies in WWII was Stalin. Certainly Stalin was a damn near perfect blueprint of a dictator. However, it was in the interest of the US (not to mention the rest of our allies) to work with Stalin against Hitler. Remember the old adage - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Well, that particular adage holds true in the world of international politics. Sometimes you lay down with dogs to keep the wolf from the door. You may get up with fleas, but with any luck you don't end up in the wolf's belly. If Clinton or Obama win the election this November, they'll be in the same position as FDR and Bush and every other president - they'll have to deal with the cards they are dealt - and those cards may well dictate that they lay down with a few dogs. They'll scratch, get a flea bath, and then move on.


Trish I don't doubt, that, but when TD starts talking about how it is bad to work with dictators, don't you find that a little sanctimonious considering the history of the U.S. and its supporters of dictators?

All I'm saying is it is hypocritical to denounce working or supporting for one dictator while supporting other dictators.

It's no wonder a lot of the world hates us, we are one of the most hypocritical nations in regards to our foreign policies. I love America and the laws we have to protect our citizens, but the way we deal with other countries (Especially dictators) is idiotic and hypocritical to say the least.



I don't find it hypocritical to work with dictators if it's in the best interests of the country to do so. I think it's hypocritical to pretend that we don't at times make deals with the devil we know to prevent having to deal with the devil we don't know. It's not anything new, and it's not like we're the only country doing just that. Why do you think Russia and France were so gung-ho to prevent the US from getting UN approval for the Iraq war? Do you honestly think it had anything to do with the Iraqi people or being anti-American? Nope....it had to do with them having their dicks in a wringer. They were in bed with Saddam with the oil-for-food clusterfuck and wanted to protect THEIR interests first and foremost. THEIR interests trumped everyone elses. That's the way it is in international politics - heck that's the way it is in politics period. It's the world's oldest form of lube.

[apdst]

You guys seem to love working with dictators when it suits your needs. So spare us the sanctimonious self righteousness of the right.

Slow down, cowboy, there have been Democrats that have done the same thing, so it's exclusively a, "rightie", thing.

[Elrathin]

They were in bed with Saddam with the oil-for-food clusterfuck and wanted to protect THEIR interests first and foremost. THEIR interests trumped everyone elses. That's the way it is in international politics - heck that's the way it is in politics period. It's the world's oldest form of lube.


Ah but then there are those that said that was wrong. So if it is wrong, why is it ok for us to? That is the hypocrisy I am talking about. We condemn other countries for working with dictators yet we do the same.

[apdst]

Ya know, Hugo is another one that should read a few history books. OPEC tried this oil embargo thing, once already and it blew up in their faces. Hugo's oil production is a mere smidgin, by comparison. Why does he believe he's going to fucking anyone besides himself?

[Trish]

They were in bed with Saddam with the oil-for-food clusterfuck and wanted to protect THEIR interests first and foremost. THEIR interests trumped everyone elses. That's the way it is in international politics - heck that's the way it is in politics period. It's the world's oldest form of lube.


Ah but then there are those that said that was wrong. So if it is wrong, why is it ok for us to? That is the hypocrisy I am talking about. We condemn other countries for working with dictators yet we do the same.


Being "okay" for anyone to do is not one of the criteria from what I have observed. As with any other country OUR interests are most important to us. That's not hypocrisy - it's just the way it is.

[Elrathin]

As with any other country OUR interests are most important to us. That's not hypocrisy - it's just the way it is.


It is hypocrisy when we tell other nations they cannot do something because its wrong, yet we do the same thing we are telling others is wrong to do.

[Trish]

As with any other country OUR interests are most important to us. That's not hypocrisy - it's just the way it is.


It is hypocrisy when we tell other nations they cannot do something because its wrong, yet we do the same thing we are telling others is wrong to do.


There is only criticism or objection to other countries doing this when their actions are in direct opposition to what is perceived to be in the best interests of the US. If what another country does actually promotes the interests of the US - the situation is summarily ignored. Once again, it's a matter of whose interests are considered paramount.