Redstate

You have GOT to be kidding me.

What Chavez is doing is EXACTLY the same thing that the Russians did when they forced all media to be state-run.

He's just as bad as Castro, maybe worse. If you can't see that by his actions, then you are even more far gone off the deep end than your party.

I am completely indifferent Chavez. But I can see a smear job when it's this obvious.

Castro was a straight up dictator. He killed his opponents. He never had free elections. He controlled all communications.

Chavez is a populist who says a lot of things that we don't like to hear. He still respects the electoral system. There has been no credible evidence of Chavez killing his opponents.

So tell me what ACTIONS he has done to equate him to Fidel Castro.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

--
Run like Reagan!

Yes, Chavez says a lot of things I for one do not like to hear. I don't like to hear about these media restrictions, which follow on a crackdown on internet freedom last year. I don't like to hear him threaten political opponents with legal prosecution. I don't like to hear him propose sweeping nationalization of Venezuealan industry, which is slowly strangling the nation's economy. I do not like to hear him express solidarity with the FARC guerillas who are creating violent havoc in southern Colombia. I do not like him claim the mantle of Fidel Castro's successor, something he has done on his own without Pejman's assistance. And most of all, I don't like to hear him propose re-writing the Venezuelan constitution so that he can be dictator--I'm sorry--president for the next 20 years without those pesky elections.

Perhaps you consider these statements admirable examples of Mr. Chavez speaking truth to the power of the US. I consider them dangerous signs of a nascent dictatorship. It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

the foreign invaders - crusaders - from the West, Iraq was a democracy too. They had elections.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I guess a Saddam comparison was really just a matter of time.

The Venezuelan elections were certified as fair. Iraq's "election" weren't even monitored. They were the epitome of rigged.

But other than that the comparison seems spot on.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I missed the part where Pej is "full-court pressing" to "label" Chavez a "latter-day" Castro. Pej is describing, not labelling; Castro ain't dead yet; Castro's name appears nowhere in the quoted story or in Pej's gloss; and you're obviously being amazed by something that's not in this piece, so why even bring it up here?

Are you objecting to the fact that Pej uses the word "dictator"? Do you consider it impossible for someone to be a dictator if people have voted for him in a reasonably fair and free election? (Not that I'm conceding the recent election was free and fair, especially given that it was certified as such by so-called impartial observers, but that's a side point so don't threadjack.)

You don't necessarily accept that suppressing freedom of the press constitutes dictatorship. Is this because you don't think suppressing freedom of the press is a particularly bad thing, under the circumstances? Or again are you simply arguing to hold the word "dictatorship" to some more pure definition?

Oh and finally, since he hasn't done what he threatens to do, I guess he didn't really mean it, right? So the leadership of the television organization whose license he has said will end in March should just have a good laugh and ignore him?

Well I was responding to the general comments about Chavez that you see here. If you really want to make it simply about JUST THIS THREAD then we can certainly do that.

Show me an example of a dictator that was ever RE-ElECTED in anything resembling legitimate elections. I would be curious to know of such a beast.

You don't necessarily accept that suppressing freedom of the press constitutes dictatorship.

Was the United States a dictatorship with it passed the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798? How bout the Sedition Act of 1918? Were Adams and Wilson dictators?

So the leadership of the television organization whose license he has said will end in March should just have a good laugh and ignore him?

Of course not. But even if he DOES repeal their license that doesn't make him a dictator. If he manages to change the Constitution or if he manages to void future elections THEN we can talk about whether he is a dictator. At most the only thing you can describe as is an ASPIRING dictator.

And the reality is that if Venezuela didn't have oil he would go completely ignored by our "Left Wing" media.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Whether or not Chavez is a dictator today (and I think he's not yet there), everyone I know who studies the situation thinks that's exactly what he wants to be - President for Life. (I may be biased by knowing some people recently back from long term assignments in Venezuela, no ideologues, and perhaps bluer than you, who nonetheless are pretty horrified at what Chavez is trying to achieve.)

What's the point in waiting until discussing the situation is moot to begin pointing out where he wants to go? Isn't exactly the time to call attention to his dictatorial tendencies NOW, while there is still a chance that public opinion can play a role?

Let's lose the discussion about terminology. You've made it very clear that you care primarily about the proper usage of the term "dictator," but as usual your metrics for proper usage are arbitrary at best. I find this discussion academic and distracting anyway. (The only really good reason I can think of for requiring at most one election in order for someone to be considered a dictator is so you don't have to deal with comparisons to Hitler, which are known to inspire you to apoplectic fits, Hitler apparently being one of the few bad guys that the Left hates without qualification.)

So let's not call Chavez by the freighted and controversial term "dictator." Let's use neutral terminology instead.

I propose that in future, we use the word banana to characterize Chavez in discussions with you.

Hugo Chavez is a banana.

Now let's try to make progress. I think Chavez, in his capacity as a banana, is committing reprehensible behavior that is inimical to the best interests of the Venezuelan people, their Latin American neighbors, and the world. And if it were up to me, I'd peel and squish him.

Now you see the fundamental difference between your rhetorical approach to the problem, and that of other people. As a generally applicable rule, your arguments on almost any subject are designed to find reasons not to act.

The only really good reason I can think of for requiring at most one election in order for someone to be considered a dictator is so you don't have to deal with comparisons to Hitler, which are known to inspire you to apoplectic fits, Hitler apparently being one of the few bad guys that the Left hates without qualification.

Lots of dictators rise to power through ostensible elecitons only to eliminate the eletoral system once they get into power, as Hitler did, as Lenin did. Then again Hitler never was actually elected to anything. He was appointed chancellor after the Nazis gained enough votes to create a problem in the Reichstag.

You are absolutely 100% right that my comments are often supportive of a NOT ACTING policy. You know why? Because I fail to see how the United States has any right whatsoever to tell Venezuela how their government should operate. And the only reason that this is getting any sort of play is because he nationalized their oil reserves and we really don't like that sort of thing, especially when it happens in our Monrovian backyard.

You feel that the Venezuelan people are not entitled to determine their own government. This is reminiscent of the 80s when Conservatives said that the Nicaraguans shouldn't be allowed to determine their own form of government. And I recall all sorts of handwringing over how Daniel Ortega was a dictator. Yet when he lost the next election he and the rest of the Sandinistas left office.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Chavez is shutting down opposition media. There is a big, long excerpt saying so. Stop wasting time asking questions with obvious answers.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

But there are lots of people that are far worse in this regard. If shutting down some oppo media equates to dictator then Vlad Putin is a supreme dictator. His penchant for jailing and sending them off to prison camps also certainly is indicative of being a dictator.

Yet I hear nothing hear very little regarding Mr. Puting from the Right. A occasional handwringing and that's about it. However Chavez is a constant target of the Right. They create accusations when none are materially true.

I ask again, what makes him so bad in relation to the numerous other political leaders that are far more violent and autocratic?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Putin is a dictator. Worse than that, he's an evil man. And he controls more oil than Chavez, which he is simply taking back from the oil companies who paid to develop it.

I don't know where you got the idea Putin isn't subject to regular criticism from the right, but let me be the first to help dispel the notion that Putin gets a free pass.

Take a look at the diaries here. Look for diaries about Chavez and look for diaries about Putin.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

that it's so obvious that Putin is a dictator. There are a lot of dictators who don't get diary time, but I don't think that translates into an assertion that people here think they aren't dictators or wannabe dictators.

we are being influenced to worry about Chavez over any number of other unpalatable people. Personally I think this guy or this guy or this guy or even this guy make Chavez look like a school child yet we almost never of any of these guys in the MSM.

Heck he isn't even in the same zip code as these guys and yet we are led to believe that Chavez is the really evil guy, not because of anything that he's actually done, but rather because of things he MIGHT do.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Our awareness of Chavez could have something to do with principally a) he's in our back yard; and secondarily b) we get a not inconsequential amount of our energy supply from Venezuela. The others you identify, while certainly bad actors, are not on the other side of the Caribbean.

I am not making value judgments about one dictator being as bad, not as bad, worse than, another dictator, just closer to hand.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

We don't like the Chavez regime and we don't like that we are dependent on a belligerent regime for energy.

But let's call a spade a spade then. It has nothing to do with whether Chavez is a dictator. If he were to play ball with the US government and clamp down on freedoms domestically we wouldn't hear a peep about this guy in the MSM.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

We might not hear much about him in the MSM, but I submit that the Chavez-as-dictator folks here would be just as opposed to him. RedState is a bit more principle oriented than the MSM or the State Department.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

Personally I don't think it is a matter of principles per se. I think we are influenced by the MSM and our foreign policy apparatus.

I am not trying to call out RS contributors. More to the point I am trying to highlight how we are affected by subtle influences from institutional sources.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

But if you're arguing that we're misreading subtle bias in media reports for the willful suppression by Chavez of domestic opposition, then all I can say is: I know how to read.

This reminds me of how an inexperienced negotiator operates. Always chewing over the peripheral issues, never getting to a decision about the main point.

I'm arguing that we are led to have more concern over Chavez than countless other autocrats because of our national interests.

I have read numerous reports about Chavez and they all seem to have a similar theme. Allegations of what Chavez is GOING to do and innuendos about what Chavez has done, with no supporting evidence.

And the reason why I bristle at claims that he is a dictator is because I think it is the first step towards justifying actions against him.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Chavez sells us oil. Putin doesn't.

Chavez is near us, and is in position to influence our immediate neighbors. Putin isn't.

Chavez attacks us at every opportunity. Putin doesn't.

Putin is a sometimes ally in the War on Terror. Chavez isn't.

Run like Reagan!

Am I missing something with this point? Gazprom may be a private company but it is about as in bed with its parent nation as a private company can be and still be called private.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You might try Hooked on Phonics, too.

Run like Reagan!

Well According to the DOE Russia is 9th in petroleum imports to us.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Venezuela is much higher on that list, and sells us over 3x the oil that Russia does. Russia is on par with the Virgin Islands on that list!

So that, combined with the other reasons I gave above, is plenty of rationale for paying FAR more attention to Chavez than to Putin.

Run like Reagan!

And then you condescendingly told me to re-read what you said.

Regardless I under the geopolitical rationale for focusing on Venezuela. I just don't care much for couching in terms of freedom and liberty.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Relatively speaking no, he doens't sell us any oil. When you're that far down the list, you're in no way comparable to a major producer of our oil like Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are.

And I find it interesting that you refuse to acknowledge any interest in promoting liberty expressed by those around you. I think it says a lot about you, more than it does about us.

Run like Reagan!

I am all for promoting liberty. I think we should do everything we can, short of military intervention, to promote and foster liberty.

I do NOT support using liberty to further national interests.

If we are truly interested in promoting liberty then we should focus on the countries in dire need of some liberty.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

The fact is that American foreign policy has long been characterized by the uneasy tension between our perceived interests and our perceived ideals. When those interests coalesce, the choice is usually an easy one. Allow me recourse to a tangential analogy; opting to intervene in Bosnia while refusing to intervene in Rwanda does not render the former act im/amoral, even if the latter omission might be. Intervening in Iraq for at least partially moral (better stated as morally defensible) reasons when ostensibly more repugnant acts are taking place elsewhere does not make the intervention immoral, nor does the fact that we had perceived economic and security interests at stake. Determining appropriate policy through an evaluation of moral considerations alone (Cyrus Vance probably came the closest of any modern American statesman to this ideal) is likely to a. sacrifice interests and b. be received as immoral anyway (eg Carter's interactions with the Shah).

Good post.

But I think that is the problem I have with what's going with Venezuela. I DON'T see the moral imperative in Venezuelan.

Certainly the presumed closing of the oppo TV station concerns me. But, in itself, that isn't enough for me to consider their government a non-Democratic government. And certainly is nowhere close to a reasonable justification for American intervention in the country.

And I fully accept that pragmatism and our national interests are what drive our actions, as with every other country in the world. But that doesn't mean I need to accept that these actions are always proper.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

When it applies to Venezuela, I tend to agree that while some of what Chavez has done could, if conducted on a larger scale, approach a casus belli (specifically his interference, sometimes not merely verbal, in elections across the continent and his funding of guerrillas in Colombia) I would not want to be the one to try to sell that war to the American people. Chavez's problem is that he's a demagogue, prone to the sort of petulance that characterizes most rabble-rousers. Bush's policy of remaining, by and large, above Chavez's stupid name-calling and provocation undercuts this, as it reminds lucid thinkers across the hemisphere why one is the most powerful man in the world and why the other is but a curiosity, irrelevant and self-destructive but for the accident of high oil prices.

I don't see Chavez as being that much of a threat, relatively speaking. I do think that we should try and get some closer ties with Bolivia and other countries Chavez is trying to cozy up to, I don't see him being a threat that needs to be addressed.

Chavez is looking for attention. Because everytime he can give the appearance of upsetting the United States he gains political capital in the region and domestically. He is similar to Iran in that way.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

1-Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; and
2-Just beacuse we can't do everything doesnt mean we shouldn't do anything

in defense of Bosnia and Kosovo and his liaison with Monica...

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.

is way way way more dangerous than Chavez. Putin has a stranglehold on natural gas exports to Western Europe. He is using gas as a weapon against former Soviet Republics. Also, he has a few more ICBM's than Chavez.

Chavez will be overthrown when his little game get's old. You can set a clock by Latin America coups. Putin is consolidating power by the day, the chance of a coup in Russia is close to nil.

Got it? And by the way, I have written about Putin's dictatorial tendencies many a time on this site and on my own blog so try doing some research before writing that comment of yours.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

I am not trying to crucify you, Pejman. I was speaking about the overall content of RS.

And you still haven't shown how Chavez IS a dictator.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Read the post. Chavez is censoring oppo media. If George Bush did this, the fact that he won a free and fair election would not excuse him. Good God, I cannot believe we are actually having this argument.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

It amazes me how often the "Are you dense/stupid" line of invective is used against me here.

The United States is a fully developed Democracy. As a matter of fact it is the longest existing Democracy EVER. And yet we have, at least twice, passed laws that were designed to SPECIFICALLY to censor media eventhough our Constitution expressly forbids it.

And we are the most extreme case of free speech protection of just about any Democracy. European Democracies are far less tolerant of speech, either personal or the press.

George Bush and Hugo Chavez are graded on wildly differing scales. And they should be. Why you think that this is a valid comparison is beyond my understanding. Every single Democracy in South America would compare unfavorably to the United States. That doesn't make them dictatorships.

You are painting with a very broad brush here. Why?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

That Castro is a dictator. He is the wildly popular benevolent ruler of Cuba, which has the best health care system in the world. Any reports to the contrary are just American propaganda.

The fact that someone was elected or not does not determine whether they are a dictator or not. The Queen of England is an unelected head of state, but I don't think anyone would call her a dictator. And of course Iraq did have elections, even if they weren't fair, as have other dictatorships.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Is simply absurd since I have never said anything approaching any of those comments.

The 2nd part of your post is a logical fallacy. Unelected people aren't necessarily dictators. The British Monarchy has had to answer, in varying degrees, to Parliment since King John.

But I am unaware of any dictator who was ever fairly won re-election. The closest I can think of was Pinochet.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

If fair is punishing and silencing your political enemies, I'm glad we don't have "fair" elections here. A UN or Carter stamp of approval on an election doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Obviously it means everything to you.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Never mind. Happy New Year.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

you start the New Year!

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Are you suggesting Chavez is not a dictator and anyone here at RS that says otherwise is just being stoopid?

Come on-what point are you trying to make, exactly? I've watched this for a while, and I have watched you say things that contradict things you have said in other threads over the months and years...what are you after here, exactly?

And if Chavez is not a dictator, and is not in the same parallel as Saddam or Arafat or Castro or Il or any of the others we could mention here...what exactly do you maintain he is?

Really-inquiring minds want to know how you reconcile holding this clown out as less the bad guy than some of the others he has been compared to...surely you have more than the point that he was "democratically elected"...please-let us hear it...

What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius

Where have I said anything that suggests I think anyone is stupid?

And if Chavez is not a dictator, and is not in the same parallel as Saddam or Arafat or Castro or Il or any of the others we could mention here...what exactly do you maintain he is?

I maintain that he is a populist demogogue who is trying to increase his own personal power. Other than his posturing with regards to the US and the fact that he is enjoying success primarily because of high oil prices, he isn't much different than the other leaders in Latin America.

I have yet to see anything that suggests otherwise.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

And he looks to be seeking to recreate a new Soviet Union. The difference is that Russia has nuclear weapons and is thousands of miles from our borders, which greatly limits our possible interventions.

This of course raises the point that we don't want a Chavez armed with nuclear weapons (via his alliance with Iran), though this is still some time in the future.

Flyerhawk, what I see (and think others here are seeing) is that Chavez in his rhetoric and actions is traveling down a well-worn path that 20th century history repeatedly demonstrates is a path to dictatorship (whether of the left or of the right).

Has he reached that point? Strictly speaking, no. On the other hand, the boundary between dictatorship and pending dictatorship is not a precisely marked border. And again, history tells us that the farther along a country travels toward dictatorship, the harder it is to reestablish democratic institutions, not simply because the leader has control of the army, but because the creeping towards dicatatorship destroys civic institutions and corrupts leaders who face the moral test of compromise, yield, and accomodating dictatorship (versus imprisonment or worse) that traps them, because once they become stained with complicity, they fear the consequence from their betrayed countrymen should they have to give up power.

In brief, the path to dictatorship is a downward exponentially intensifying spiral, and the sooner one can avert that path, the better.

What makes Chavez particularly dangerous is he is not merely subverting his own country's institutions, but also that by rhetoric and actions (particularly his use of oil and his military), he is subverting (and/or threatening to subvert) lawful governments in neighboring countries. There are also serious allegations that besides his public embrace of Iran, he is haboring (and training) terrorists, some of whom may be assigned to undercover actions against his neighbors. He has also engaged in theatrics (such as distributing oil to the Kennedy's) that are less serious, but which again indicate an interest in interfering beyond his borders.

So given the proven potential for his causing serious trouble in other countries, Mr. Chavez bears close watching, and we need to keep intervention on the table should he go too far.

What makes Chavez particularly dangerous is he is not merely subverting his own country's institutions, but also that by rhetoric and actions (particularly his use of oil and his military), he is subverting (and/or threatening to subvert) lawful governments in neighboring countries. There are also serious allegations that besides his public embrace of Iran, he is haboring (and training) terrorists, some of whom may be assigned to undercover actions against his neighbors. He has also engaged in theatrics (such as distributing oil to the Kennedy's) that are less serious, but which again indicate an interest in interfering beyond his borders.

Where is the evidence that he is harboring terrorists?

Where is the evidence that he is subverting other governments? There were ALLEGATIONS of him getting involved with Bolivia's elections but little evidence other than the fact that he made some speeches about who he liked which upset people(apparently stating public preference for specific regimes is only acceptable if you a 1st world politician.

And let me say, once again, I have no love for the guy. I think that when oil prices come down again he will be unceremoniously dumped on his petard. His decision to nationalize his oil reserves will come back to haunt him and the country. But that doesn't mean that I accept, what appears to me, the clear negative PR campaign going on against him.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You ask, where is the evidence that Hugo the Banana (I'm giving you your due and not calling him a dictator) is harboring terrorists?

I say, what difference does it make? Even if you were presented such evidence, you'd question its provenance, its veracity, and finally its relevance. If the evidence was uncontestable, you'd ask: where is the evidence that harboring terrorists betokens an intention to actually behave badly? If presented with incontrovertible evidence that Chavez-sponsored terrorists actually did some bad things, you'd tell us they weren't as bad as (fill in the blank) and that the US sponsored much worse terrorism in the past so we have no right to say anything about it.

You see how useless this is? At the end of the day, there's no bad behavior you'd ever be willing to confront. Wait, don't tell me, let me guess: "blackhedd, who are you to define "bad" behavior? In the first place, that's a matter of opinion, and in the second, conservatives do it too."

Ok, so you don't love Chavez. But you're arguing vigorously against what you consider an unjustified PR campaign against him. Where's your dog in this fight? I have to tell you, Hugo is a banana with the full resources of a decent-sized state at his personal disposal, and he doesn't need any help from you. So it really sounds like you're protesting too much.

Oh and finally: Oil prices are down. Castro doesn't have any oil and we conservatives get pretty worked up about him too. Why? Same reason. He's a murderous, freedom-denying thug.

Is my concern that we will eventually justify military action against Chavez primarily because he doesn't play ball with us. And I personally believe that we cannot continue to act as the world's bully indefinitely.

I guess you find it unreasonable to actually demand evidence for claims. There certainly is bad behavior that I object to. And there are times when military action is acceptable. But there are times when military action is counter-productive, something that you and your fellow travelers on this matter wish to ignore.

You can keep telling me he's a dictator, or banana if you wish to remain smug, until you're blue in the face.

Here is the definition of the word dictator....

a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Do you think that Hugo Chavez has absolute and unrestricted control of his government?

A quick search of the CIA World Factbook has Venezuela listed as a Federal Republic. As a point of comparison Uzbeksitan , Turkmenistan, and North Korea are all listed as either dictatorships or autocratic governments with power residing solely with the executive.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.

And I personally believe that we cannot continue to act as the world's bully indefinitely.

Spoken like a true liberal.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

I'm fine with that assertion. I think that unilateral military action in order to further our national interests is nothing more than being a bully. It will create resentment across the globe and eventually damage us.

If that is some crazed Liberal notion in your book, so be it.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

to go after The Taliban (harbored terrorists like Saddam) and al Qaida, then our actions there would be damaging resentment creating bullying, and so not justified?

So the justice, righteousness, and justification for our actions is dependant on whether we act unilaterally, not on the facts that precipitate the action, or the likely result of inaction?

Thank God for Australia then, eh?

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.

has nothing to do with whether we act alone or in concert. The problem is that we act at all. If we act alone we are bullies; if we act in concert we bullied our partners into acting as a cover for our bullying. The problems of the world are created by the United States.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

Your concern, alpha and omega, is that the US not engage in confrontational behavior on the world stage. Fine, let's leave it there. I think we understand you now.

The reason I'm calling Chavez a banana is precisely to avoid engaging your silly argumentation over terminology. What we call him doesn't matter. What he does matters. So don't be reading the dictionary to me.

I demand a reasonable amount of evidence for any claim, in order to make reasonably supportable decisions. You demand an unending stream of evidence which you never accept, in order to avoid making decisions, especially ones involving moral choices.

Drop this line, Flyerhawk. You're not adding any value.

terrorists in violation of the Bush Doctrine. Agreed?

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.

I wanna be just like you...heh
well done!

What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius

You won't care, they will be plenty.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Is wondering why the piece is not what he wanted, rather than discussing what it is.

Food for thought.

On the last pieces worth noting:

The present Venezuelan government has already been accused, without substantiation, of being soft on drug traffic, aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, of harboring AQ operatives, of intervention in neighboring countries' politics.

Google is your friend.

Is this being done in preparation of US and international public opinion for a future armed or covert intervention?

We can only hope.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.