Venezuela and Iran...really two wonderful places if you live in the US.

[Wagner]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

----

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- fiery anti-American leaders whose moves to extend their influence have alarmed Washington -- said Saturday they would help finance investment projects in other countries seeking to thwart U.S. domination.

The two countries had previously revealed plans for a joint $2 billion fund to finance investments in Venezuela and Iran, but the leaders said Saturday the money would also be used for projects in friendly countries throughout the developing world.

"It will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the [U.S.] imperialist yoke," Chavez said.

"This fund, my brother," the Venezuelan president said, referring affectionately to Ahmadinejad, "will become a mechanism for liberation."

"Death to U.S. imperialism!" Chavez said.

Ahmadinejad, who is starting a tour of left-leaning countries in the region, called it a "very important" decision that would help promote "joint cooperation in third countries," especially in Latin America and Africa.

Iran and Venezuela are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Chavez said Saturday that they had agreed to back a further oil production cut in the cartel to stem a recent fall in crude prices.

"We know today there is too much crude in the market," Chavez said. "We have agreed to join our forces within OPEC ... to support a production cut and save the price of oil."

OPEC reduced output by 1.2 million barrels a day in November, then announced an additional cut of 500,000 barrels a day, due to begin on February 1. Dow Jones Newswires reported Friday that OPEC is discussing holding an emergency meeting later this month to reduce output by another 500,000 barrels a day. Venezuela and Iran have been leading price hawks within OPEC.

Ahmadinejad's visit Saturday -- his second to Venezuela in less than four months -- comes as he seeks to break international isolation over his country's nuclear program and possibly line up new allies in Latin America. He is also expected to visit Nicaragua and Ecuador, which both recently elected leftist governments.
Increasingly united

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been increasingly united by their deep-seated antagonism toward the Bush administration. Chavez has become a leading defender of Iran's nuclear ambitions, accusing the Washington of using the issue as a pretext to attack Tehran.

Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, has called Chavez "the champion of the struggle against imperialism."

U.S. officials have accused Chavez -- a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro -- of authoritarian tendencies, and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said recently in an annual review of global threats that Venezuela's democracy was at risk.

The U.S. also believes Iran is seeking to use its nuclear program to develop an atomic bomb. Tehran says its program is peaceful and geared toward the production of energy.

The increasingly close relationship between Chavez and Ahmadinejad has alarmed some Chavez critics, who accuse him of pursuing an alliance that does not serve Venezuela's interests and jeopardizes its ties with the United States, the country's top oil buyer. Venezuela is among the top five suppliers of crude to the U.S. market.

In a speech earlier Saturday, Chavez called for the U.S. government to accept "the new realities of Latin America," as he brushed aside restrictions that limit presidents to two consecutive terms. He vowed to stay in office beyond 2013, when his term expires, saying he would revise the constitution to get rid of presidential term limits.

But Chavez also said in his state of the nation address to government officials and legislators that he had personally expressed hope to a high-ranking U.S. official for better relations between their two countries.

Chavez said he spoke with Thomas Shannon, head of the U.S. State Department's Western Hemisphere affairs bureau, on the sidelines of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's inauguration earlier this week.

"We shook hands and I told him: 'I hope that everything improves,"' Chavez said. "I'm not anyone's enemy."

Chavez prompted a crash in Venezuelan share prices this past week when he announced he would seek special powers from the legislature to push through "revolutionary" reforms, including a string of nationalizations and unspecified changes to business laws and the commerce code.

He also announced plans for the state to take control of the country's largest telecommunications company, its electricity and natural gas sectors and four heavy crude upgrading projects now controlled by some of the world's top oil companies.

He said Saturday, however, that private companies would be allowed to own minority stakes in the lucrative Orinoco River basin oil projects.

The government has already taken majority ownership of all other oil-producing operations in the country through joint ventures controlled by the state oil company. Most companies have shown a willingness to continue investing despite the tightening terms, which have also included tax and royalty increases.

[Eric5273]

Unfortunately, if you are a leader of a third world country today, you can either do what is good for your own country, or you can do what is good for foreign businesses (usually American) who own investments in your country. But 99% of the time, these 2 paths do not overlap.

Neither Iran or Venezuela are enemies of the US. Neither one would ever attack us, just as there was no chance of Iraq attacking us prior to 2003. In Venezuela, the people re-elected Chavez by a landslide victory, and that means they approve of what he has been doing, and it is his responsibility to continue to do what he promised when running for office as that is why he was elected.

Read the last sentence of your article that you posted:

Most companies have shown a willingness to continue investing despite the tightening terms, which have also included tax and royalty increases.

Even with all his nationalization policies, Venezuela's economy has grown by 16.3% in 2004 (#1 in the world), and 9.3% in 2005. So obviously what he is doing is working. Wages have increased, poverty has declined, and all citizens are now being provided free health care and education -- something that never existed before.

I wish we had a leader who was willing to take on the corporations and do what was good for the masses. The last such leader we had was Teddy Roosevelt -- over 100 years ago. Since then every president, perhaps with the exception of JFK, has been a puppet of big industry.

[rebound]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

In Venezuela, the people re-elected Chavez by a landslide victory, and that means they approve of what he has been doing, and it is his responsibility to continue to do what he promised when running for office as that is why he was elected.

Well, it turns out that the Left may have just stolen an election in Venezuela. The media has tuned out on this story, after proudly reporting that Hugo Chavez won a resounding victory, once former President Carter blessed the results as fair. The big story in the mainstream media was the rebuke to President Bush, since Chavez was Fidel Castro's best friend in the hemisphere, and had trounced his opponents in the recall election.

In the days following the recall election, stories began to surface that the election results were inconsistent with polling results conducted before the election, and with exit polls conducted on election day. Interestingly, Krugman argued in his alarmist column that exit polls should be used as a check on the honesty of the results on election day, to see whether the fix was in. If for instance, an exit poll showed Kerry ahead on Election Day in Florida, but Bush won the state in the actual tally on November 2nd, then we would know, Krugman told us, that the results were suspect.

Linky

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Even with all his nationalization policies, Venezuela's economy has grown by 16.3% in 2004 (#1 in the world), and 9.3% in 2005. So obviously what he is doing is working. Wages have increased, poverty has declined, and all citizens are now being provided free health care and education -- something that never existed before.

Venezuela's economy grew at least 10 percent for a third year in 2006 as President Hugo Chavez used record oil income to boost government spending and subsidies, sparking a jump in consumer demand.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country's production of goods and services, expanded 10.3 percent this year, Central Bank President Gaston Parra said in a statement, without giving the fourth-quarter figure. The economy grew 10.2 percent in the third quarter, 10.2 percent in the second and 10.1 percent in the first.

``The expansion of internal aggregate demand was, for a third consecutive year, the main reason for economic growth,'' Parra said. ``Expanding supply capacity in the medium term will determine the sustainability of economic growth and control of prices.''

A 51 percent increase in government spending in the first nine months of the year helped boost sales of cars, mobile phones and food. The economy has grown at least 10 percent for six quarters and 10 of the last 11 quarters.

Linky

So, Chavez takes advantage of *gasp* high oil prices to spend more, triggering an increase in demand in the country, and that's to his credit? If an American company did that, you'd be calling for their heads for inflationary oil pricing. Get your f-ing story straight.

You do realize that oil companies spend billions, right? Why don't you criticize them for helping the economy the same way that Chavez does?

You bang the drum for a socialist, but stick your tongue out at capitalists. Stalin and Lenin must be applauding down in Hell.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by rebound

Well, it turns out that the Left may have just stolen an election in Venezuela. The media has tuned out on this story, after proudly reporting that Hugo Chavez won a resounding victory, once former President Carter blessed the results as fair. The big story in the mainstream media was the rebuke to President Bush, since Chavez was Fidel Castro's best friend in the hemisphere, and had trounced his opponents in the recall election.

In the days following the recall election, stories began to surface that the election results were inconsistent with polling results conducted before the election, and with exit polls conducted on election day. Interestingly, Krugman argued in his alarmist column that exit polls should be used as a check on the honesty of the results on election day, to see whether the fix was in. If for instance, an exit poll showed Kerry ahead on Election Day in Florida, but Bush won the state in the actual tally on November 2nd, then we would know, Krugman told us, that the results were suspect.

Linky

This is the first time I have read this sort of thing. Very interesting. Carter's organization was not the only ones monitoring the elections. There were a dozen or so organizations, and all said the elections were fair. But I'd still be curious to read more about this if you have any other links.

I just do find it interesting that your article also points out how the 2004 elections had the same inconsistancies. And they are right about exit polling being a pretty exact science. If their exit polling numbers are indeed as lobsided as they say, then I would agree that this is evidence that the election was stolen.

But I was not even talking about the recall election. I was talking about the election last month in Venezuela. Even Chavez's opponents admitted that he won that election by a landslide. There was no dispute at all.

Chavez wins 6 more years as Venezuela's president
Landslide victory bolsters leftist leadership in Latin America -- international observers report no serious problems with election

Originally Posted by rebound

Venezuela's economy grew at least 10 percent for a third year in 2006 as President Hugo Chavez used record oil income to boost government spending and subsidies, sparking a jump in consumer demand.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country's production of goods and services, expanded 10.3 percent this year, Central Bank President Gaston Parra said in a statement, without giving the fourth-quarter figure. The economy grew 10.2 percent in the third quarter, 10.2 percent in the second and 10.1 percent in the first.

``The expansion of internal aggregate demand was, for a third consecutive year, the main reason for economic growth,'' Parra said. ``Expanding supply capacity in the medium term will determine the sustainability of economic growth and control of prices.''

A 51 percent increase in government spending in the first nine months of the year helped boost sales of cars, mobile phones and food. The economy has grown at least 10 percent for six quarters and 10 of the last 11 quarters.

Linky

So, Chavez takes advantage of *gasp* high oil prices to spend more, triggering an increase in demand in the country, and that's to his credit? If an American company did that, you'd be calling for their heads for inflationary oil pricing. Get your f-ing story straight.

You do realize that oil companies spend billions, right? Why don't you criticize them for helping the economy the same way that Chavez does?

You bang the drum for a socialist, but stick your tongue out at capitalists. Stalin and Lenin must be applauding down in Hell.

If the oil companies used their profits to pay for health care, education, and other social spending that would help the American people, then I would indeed praise them.

Growing the economy only helps the people if the extra money is going to benefit them. Spending itself as an idea does not benefit anyone. It depends on what the money is being spent on.

In the case of the oil companies, very little of their spending is even domestic. Their largest domestic spending is probably on lobbyists and campaign contributions in Washington.

[ifly]

****WARNING****Popcorn defense mechanism engaged****

[rebound]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

This is the first time I have read this sort of thing. Very interesting. Carter's organization was not the only ones monitoring the elections. There were a dozen or so organizations, and all said the elections were fair. But I'd still be curious to read more about this if you have any other links.

Seriously? This is the first time? Wow. Very old news.

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I just do find it interesting that your article also points out how the 2004 elections had the same inconsistancies. And they are right about exit polling being a pretty exact science. If their exit polling numbers are indeed as lobsided as they say, then I would agree that this is evidence that the election was stolen.

But I was not even talking about the recall election. I was talking about the election last month in Venezuela. Even Chavez's opponents admitted that he won that election by a landslide. There was no dispute at all.

Chavez wins 6 more years as Venezuela's president
Landslide victory bolsters leftist leadership in Latin America -- international observers report no serious problems with election

Not exactly that you were talking about, but interesting none the less:

Linky

Would you feel the same about President Bush amending the Constitution to allow a third term?

Linky

Would you feel the same if President Bush shut down CNN for opposing him in an election (especially if it wasn't true)?

Linky

So, Venezuelans don't trust their electronic voting machines, but we should allow a Venezuelan-owned company run our electronic voting machines?

Originally Posted by Eric5273

If the oil companies used their profits to pay for health care, education, and other social spending that would help the American people, then I would indeed praise them.

Growing the economy only helps the people if the extra money is going to benefit them. Spending itself as an idea does not benefit anyone. It depends on what the money is being spent on.

In the case of the oil companies, very little of their spending is even domestic. Their largest domestic spending is probably on lobbyists and campaign contributions in Washington.

"Probably?" Gotcha.

So you don't believe that when a corporation spends money, it helps the whole economy. Fits with your other beliefs. Let's just say here's one more point of disagreement between us. I don't think the government should be in the business of saving people from themselves, i.e. welfare. That's all Chavez is doing. That, and he's only doing it for the publicity. He could give two shizzles otherwise.



For ifly:

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by rebound

So you don't believe that when a corporation spends money, it helps the whole economy.

As a general statement, no I don't believe that.

They could be spending money on becomming more automated so that they can lay off 10,000 workers next month.

It depends what they are spending their money on.

Yes, if they hire more employees, then that does indeed help the economy.

If they spend money on purchasing goods that are made in the United States, then that helps the economy.

Originally Posted by rebound

Fits with your other beliefs. Let's just say here's one more point of disagreement between us. I don't think the government should be in the business of saving people from themselves, i.e. welfare.

Yes, you think the government should instead spend the money on jailing these children when they grow up to be criminals.

Instead, I think the government should do what needs to be done to ensure that these children grow up to be productive members of society.

Either one of those alternatives would be better than the current system, where the government spends not-enough money in a half-assed attempt to help their lives that doesn't work, and then later still pays for the jailing of them when they grow up to become criminals.

Indeed, we have a disagreement.

Originally Posted by rebound

That's all Chavez is doing. That, and he's only doing it for the publicity. He could give two shizzles otherwise.

You have no proof of that at all. They said the same thing about Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella, and the Chinese government says the same thing about the Dali Lama. They are all just big self promoters.

Nobody could possibly do something good because they are just a good person. But I'm sure once he is dead, then they will say he was a good person. Liberals are only good once they are dead. When they are alive, they are called self-promoters. When they are dead, they are fallen heros.

Go find a positive article in the mainstream press about Martin Luther King Jr. that was written before he was killed. You will not find one. They all criticized him as a self-promoter, as a communist, and they called him every name in the book. He was even accused of being a racist.

Same thing with Ghandi. He was called a terrorist, and an instigator of violence.

Che Guevera. When he was alive, he was one of the worst people in the world. Now that he's dead, he was voted one of the greatest people of the 20th Century by Time Magazine. But go read their articles about him when he was alive.

It comes back to that basic idea. It is apparently very difficult for Americans to believe that someone could possibly be good without any alterior motive or personal gain to be had. Everything in our culture is about greed and money and selfishness. When someone does something good, there must be an angle of some sort.

When Chavez comes to the US and offers to give heating oil to poor Americans at cost, he is just being a self promoter. Obviously his great effort at self promotion has not helped his reputation in the United States. But just perhaps, he really is doing these things to help the people that are indeed being helped by what he does. Just perhaps....

[bjo]

Eric, living in Houston, I see the direct results of oil companies spending. Companies who support and provide oil services, maintenance, manufacturing,etc are very busy since Big Oil has cash. Years ago, when oil prices were low, it was difficult for many of these companies to even survive.

[rebound]

Well, Chavez is well on his way to dictator for life:

BBC Link

"President Hugo Chavez says he wants "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.

He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.

The bill allowing him to enact laws by decree is expected to win final approval easily in the assembly on its second reading on Tuesday."


Looks like all he needs is a Reichstag Fire Decree or Enabling Act - oh wait, they've already had Enabling "Laws." Check in that box.

So much for everyone being for Chavez:

"It's a mistake to imagine that all the poor in Venezuela are with Chavez.

"At the beginning, there may have been a horizontal divide - but not any more. You'll find rich and poor on both sides. "

"The electoral authorities say electronic fingerprinting is necessary to avoid fraud.

The opposition says this will allow the government to see how each person votes and could stop people voting against Mr Chavez for fear of reprisals."

BBC Link

[SuaveX5]