Wow. That took all of a second:

This manipulation of market forces by powerful actors constitutes a form of financial and economic warfare. No need to recolonise lost territory or send in invading armies. In the late twentieth century, the outright "conquest of nations" meaning the control over productive assets, labour, natural resources and institutions can be carried out in an impersonal fashion from the corporate boardroom: commands are dispatched from a computer terminal, or a cell phone. The relevant data are instantly relayed to major financial markets -- often resulting in immediate disruptions in the functioning of national economies. "Financial warfare" also applies complex speculative instruments including the gamut of derivative trade, forward foreign exchange transactions, currency options, hedge funds, index funds, etc. Speculative instruments have been used with the ultimate purpose of capturing financial wealth and acquiring control over productive assets. In the words of Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad: "This deliberate devaluation of the currency of a country by currency traders purely for profit is a serious denial of the rights of independent nations".

Link

Tons of links - it's called Google; perhaps you've heard of it?

It's not fine for a leader (and if you try to say it wasn't Chavez, you'll have even less credibility, if possible) to shut down stations that oppose him.

Again, if it were ok, then CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc would be broadcasting VOA, not whatever content they chose.

I agree. Political opposition is no reason to shut down a station. Political opposition is necessary to have an open democracy.

HOWEVER....

I think it could be acceptable for a leader to shut down stations that encourage and actively support the violent overthrow of his democratically elected government.

If there was an attempted coup against President Bush, and CNN, MSNBC or CBS were to go on the air and ecourage people to support the coup, do you think those stations would then be shut down? I think so. I think such would be the case in any country.

Chavez did not even shut them down after the coup. They have been on the air 5 years since the coup took place. He simply waited for their license to expire and is not renewing their license. I'm pretty sure if that happened here in the United States, the FBI would raid the TV station within hours and shut them down.

90% of the media in Venezuela is anti-Chavez. But only a few television stations actively supported the coup. And it is my guess that those few will all be shut down eventually.

Do I agree with that? No. If it were me, I would leave the stations on the air. Instead I would arrest those who made the policy decisions at the station and put them on trial for treason. That would surely make more sense.

What do you think should be the punishment for supporting violent overthrow of your government? (another question in this thread surely to not be answered due to your "double standards")

Leadership should not be for sale. If it is, then it is a very weak country with a lousy political system.



Care to explain how this financial warfare can take place in a socialist/communist country?

Answer: It cannot happen in a socialist/communist country because the economy and resources are not for sale there.

So being that the "financial warfare" option is not on the table in those countries, our government resorts to the military and covert warfare in those places.

Solution: If you don't want foreignors to buy into your economy, then pass laws regulating such things. But it is only "warfare" if they do something illegal. Otherwise, they are just playing by the rules of our economy.

Does our economy allow for financian warfare? Yes, that is what capitalism is -- a game of financial warfare between everyone.

Also, I love that you use Michel Chossudovsky and his book "The Globalisation of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms" as your source. Good guy and an excellent book! (I'm serious!). Perhaps you can use him as your source when you argue about foreign policy and 9/11. Here is his website:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/


And here is his page on 9/11:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...eme&themeId=18

I've been reading his stuff for years.

Eric, what about China and the old Soviet Union? Seems like they like capitalism

Again you're in some sort of search for Utopia where nobody cheats and everything is fair, it doesn't exist. :tsk:

Please, tell me what country you aspire for the US to be?

The Soviet Union no longer exists. Some of the former republics are still communist. Others are now capitalist. This is the result for some of those that turned capitalist:

http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publ...images/GDP.jpg



As for China, they are still communist. They have allowed some foreign companies to invest in their communist economy, but they still control all parts of the economy. There is no private enterprise on a large. Only private investment in public companies. They do allow very small companies to be privately owned and operated, but even they are subject to strict regulations and price controls.

Commi's are cool and so is Socialism.....

NE way, back to the topic, Spain is a jack@ss for thinking it can now claim the 500M because "hey...that may have been in our water".

:rofl: