Votes Defeat Chavez

I made no judgment claims about our international power and influence. I just realize that it exists. I also realize that Chavez lives to oppose us in every way.

I honestly believe that Chavez with push his weight through the system and transform the nation into a socialist one, similar to Cuba. I also believe that Chavez is interested in moving his power beyond the border of Venezuela.

Chavez is a small man who operates foreign policy with personal vendetta's. A simple slight is blown wildly out of proportion.

Recent Examples: President Uribe of Columbia makes a decision that is his to make after Chavez breaks an agreement. What happens? Chavez removes diplomats and severs ties with Columbia.

Pime Minister Zapaterro and King Juan Carlos of Spain attend a summit and Chavez gets insulted by the King after going on a diatribe against Aznar. In spite of the fact that Spain under Zapaterro has been closely tied to Venezuela's arms accumulation, what happens? Chavez severs ties and withdraws diplomats.

He severs ties and recalls diplomats on a regular basis for personal rather than national reasons. He is an egomaniac.

I love that people defend him and prove that they are ok with authoritarian powers, as long as they agree with them. That's a new concept...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.

---

:laugh4:

Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I honestly believe that Chavez with push his weight through the system and transform the nation into a socialist one, similar to Cuba. I also believe that Chavez is interested in moving his power beyond the border of Venezuela.

---

Are you that insecure with our current system that this has you worried, or is it the example we set presently for him? Seems to me he's right in line with the neocons/republican party substitute "socialist" with "federal capitalist".

Chav

Quote:

---

ez is a small man who operates foreign policy with personal vendetta's. A simple slight is blown wildly out of proportion.

---

And whats he done? Bent your ear on a 20 second sound bite on the evening news?

Quote:

---

Recent Examples: President Uribe of Columbia makes a decision that is his to make after Chavez breaks an agreement. What happens? Chavez removes diplomats and severs ties with Columbia. Pime Minister Zapaterro and King Juan Carlos of Spain attend a summit and Chavez gets insulted by the King after going on a diatribe against Aznar. In spite of the fact that Spain under Zapaterro has been closely tied to Venezuela's arms accumulation, what happens? Chavez severs ties and withdraws diplomats.

---

Sounds like an issue between Columbia and Venezula both of which have democraticlly elected governments, shouldnt they be allowed to conduct thier diplomacy via the peoples will?

And a monarch spouting off at an international forum carries little weight with me. For that matter it should carry little weight with you if you are a true proponent of the U.S. federal system (designed partly to not have to listen to monarchs)

Quote:

---

I love that people defend him and prove that they are ok with authoritarian powers, as long as they agree with them. That's a new concept...

---

Time to step back here Tuff in regards to me. I dont defend nor condem chavez, I support and will argue at nuseum the principles of the founding fathers desire not to be involved in international political affiars.

There is a political system in Venezula (not to different from our own) there able to sort out thier own issues without our guiding hand.

I said "people", not "Odin".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I said "people", not "Odin".

---

It was in reply to my post Tuff, and given the exchanges we have had over the last few days I thank you for the clarification of what you meant.

I enjoy out tit for tats, no anamosity on this end.

:medievalcheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.

---

.
Go nuke him! I heard he has WMD. :gossip:
.

Quote:

---

Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.

---

Given the content of the rant it isn't worth much effort , quoting one of dem thar south of the Rio Grandeeeee subjects of the USA world dominion club would be sufficient......

Quote:

---

I cannot believe people really believe that crap..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

"counterbalance" to what exactly? Our international influence? We were never meant to have this much prowess in world affairs Tuff. Since the spanish american war we have made a mockery of the founding fathers principles of international relations.

We need to pull back and invest in the republic, South america, cuba chavez they can take care of themselves now dont you think?

---

As globalization moves forward at an ever increasing pace that sounds like.... well, it sounds like something. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Given the content of the rant it isn't worth much effort , quoting one of dem thar south of the Rio Grandeeeee subjects of the USA world dominion club would be sufficient......

---

For christ sake i just laid a slam dunk at your lap. I was hoping for something far more biting then that, either your slipping or the pub calls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.

---

:laugh4:

Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.

---

The man speaks the truth. :yes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The man being Chavez spouting about imperialist US that is :laugh4: .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Disclaimer: Only if rvg's attitude being prevalent of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The man speaks the truth. :yes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The man being Chavez spouting about imperialist US that is :laugh4: .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Disclaimer: Only if rvg's attitude being prevalent of course

---

What happened to the good old days when any U.S. poster proclaimed affection to Imperialism one of the EU boys would rip him a new A hole.

Surely you dont expect me to do it? :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

What happened to the good old days when any U.S. poster proclaimed affection to Imperialism one of the EU boys would rip him a new A hole.

Surely you dont expect me to do it? :thumbsdown:

---

You are welcome to try...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You are welcome to try...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that

---

Considering this was the starting point of your premise I assumed you were joking and was hopeful one of the EU boys would take it and run.

If you were serious then my appologies, I didnt take you seriously. Nor do I now.

Odin! You are the best debater I've ever seen in my life!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Odin! You are the best debater I've ever seen in my life!

---

:spammer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I support and will argue at nuseum the principles of the founding fathers desire not to be involved in international political affiars.

---

You've been saying this a lot lately. What are you basing it on? The FFs didn't intend us to be isolationists.

Quote:

---

The FFs didn't intend us to be isolationists.

---

It was my understanding that they didn't indeed. But also that both the tradition of interventionalism and of isolationism can be traced back all the way to the Founding Fathers?

Walter Russell Mead made a distinction between four historical impetuses in American foreign policy. Review here.
It's great. Mead subdivides the crude isolationism/interventionism into four traditions. Two each for both. 'Isolationism into a conservative, or at least muscular, form (Jacksonianism) and a liberal form (Jeffersonianism), one more concerned with domestic social policies. Interventionism into a mostly pro-business form (Hamiltonianism) and a more philanthropic form (Wilsonianism).

I would say Odin's a Jeffersonian. I prefer a Wilsonian policy. The 'rvg corollary to the Monroe Doctrine' strikes me as Hamiltonian.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Mr. Mead makes the case that there are four basic schools of foreign policy thought in the United States, each of long duration, and that the rough and tumble of representative democracy has served us well by elevating the different schools as they are needed and shunting them to the side when the policies they advocate seem inappropriate. He believes, and offers some evidence for the notion, that this flexibility has made America far more successful in its foreign policy than anyone realizes. In this compelling, and perhaps overly flattering, scenario America is not a mere beneficiary of special providence but is guided instead by the wisdom of her people and the genius of her uniquely responsive political system.

Several years ago, Walter McDougall wrote a terrific book, Promised Land, Crusader State, in which he identified two main impulses that influenced American foreign policy. The first was relatively isolationist, emphasizing America's privileged position as a "promised land", which could serve as an example to all mankind, a "shining city on a hill", but would only be contaminated if it were to have too much contact with the rest of the world. Over against this was set an interventionist belief in America as a force for bettering the world, a "crusader state", with a mission to bring democracy, freedom, and human rights to less fortunate nations. Mr. Mead more or less subdivides these two impulses :

Americans through the centuries seem to have had four basic ways of looking at foreign policy, which have reflected contrasting and sometimes complementary ways of looking at domestic policy as well. Hamiltonians regard a strong alliance between the national government and big business as the key both to domestic stability and to effective action abroad, and they have long focused on the nation's need to be integrated into the global economy on favorable terms. Wilsonians believe that the United States has both a moral obligation and an important national interest in spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world, creating a peaceful international community that accepts the rule of law. Jeffersonians hold that American foreign policy should be less concerned about spreading democracy abroad than about safeguarding it at home; they have historically been skeptical about Hamiltonian and Wilsonian policies that involve the United States with unsavory allies abroad or that increase the risks of war. Finally, a large populist school I call Jacksonian believes
that the most important goal of the U.S. government in both foreign and domestic should be the physical security and the economic well-being
of the American people.

These classifications effectively split isolationism into a conservative, or at least muscular, form (Jacksonianism) and a liberal form (Jeffersonianism), one more concerned with domestic social policies. They also separate interventionism or internationalism into a mostly pro-business form (Hamiltonianism) and a more philanthropic form (Wilsonianism). This seems a useful way of viewing our politics, as it provides outlets for internationalists and isolationists within each political party, with Jacksonians and Hamiltonians, broadly speaking, making up the Republicans and the Democrats consisting, again broadly, of Wilsonians and Jeffersonians (though as we'll see later, he stacks the deck in favor of Jeffersonians to such a degree that you'd have to say that many Republicans are Jeffersonian too).

Having established these four worldviews--he calls them a new paradigm for understanding American foreign policy--Mr. Mead contends that each is valuable in its own way and that their greatest value may come from how they play off of one another

---

The thing about the founding fathers is, when george washington was giving his farewell address europe was in a period where they were fighting eachother all the time. Any close alliance with one of them would have brought us into their wars, which bore very little relation to us. These days they don't fight eachother and there are many more things to tie us together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You've been saying this a lot lately. What are you basing it on? The FFs didn't intend us to be isolationists.

---

No they didnt, and to be honest my choice of description of myself as an Isolationist is extreme as I do desire trade, but there it ends. Some quotes to chew on that I feel support my claim that the founding fathers did not want us involved in internaitonal politics.

“We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.”

John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797

Iran, Iraq, Russia, a missle shield, NFTA, Chavez… Just to name a few international issues that have infected our election process by consuming time away from domestic issues.

“Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry.”

Benjamin Franklin, Positions to be Examined, April 4, 1769

Franklin clearly thinks that commerce and war are negatives each of which are topics that can be applied to foreign relations. While this might be a stretch given his aloof whit and apparent affection for agriculture I don’t think it would be a stretch today if Franklin found our military entanglements (UN, NATO) abroad less then appealing.

“Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.”

Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793

By “Grecian horse” he is inferring a Trojan horse in a metaphoric application. Essentially he didn’t desire foreign influence into our government. By engaging international politics “foreign influence” becomes a bi product. As an example we are currently entangled in foreign entities attempt to influence or CO2 emmissions, rather then taking care of the problem ourselves.

“The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.”

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 11, 1787

Its clear to me that Hamilton is making the case for a strong military to defend the U.S. ability to be neutral in international conflict, not be offensive, as is the case since the Spanish American war. (WWII and maybe Korea being notable exceptions to the thinking IMHO)

“He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”

Thomas Jefferson, deleted portion of a draft of the Declaration of Independence, June, 1776

To me this symbolizes Jefferson disdain for foreign rule. Key concept “Foreign” as its implied in the paragraph King George ruled a people that were not his (distant people) This seems to jive with the notion of his desire not to perpetuate an imperial system.

“I have been happy... in believing that... whatever follies we may be led into as to foreign nations, we shall never give up our Union, the last anchor of our hope, and that alone which is to prevent this heavenly country from becoming an arena of gladiators. “

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, May 13, 1797

I think it might be safe to say that Jefferson would have considered Iraq Vietnam and possibly WWI as “follies”

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

No Explination needed….

“'Tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. “

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Washington didn’t want us to be in a situation of debt to others or they being in debt to us.


While people can simply slap on the label that these were written at a different time I contend that at a minimum the founding fathers cited above would not approve of our current perceived position of atop the international food chain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I would say Odin's a Jeffersonian.

---

:thumbsup:

Sasaki's right: it was a speech made in the backdrop of the French Revolution, when France was fighting just about everybody else in Europe. There was a large part of Americans at the time who think that the USA should align itself with France against Great Britain (and others), both to return the aid given by France in the Revolutionary War and in the common cause of "liberty" that both revolutions share.

Even the ideologically isolationist Jefferson was a staunch supporter of this cause.

Washington, I think, foresaw that the USA simply didn't have the resources to go against Great Britain again so soon and God knows how much more by joining a European alliance, so he said what he said and was proven more-or-less correct when the USA got its capital sacked in the War of 1812.

Ideologies usually are born from the specifics of the time interpreted into the general whole anyway, though, so it's not like this viewpoint is "invalid." I just don't particularly enjoy the quasi-deification some give to the "Founding Fathers" and their viewpoints, as well as the Constitution of the United States...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

I just don't particularly enjoy the quasi-deification some give to the "Founding Fathers" and their viewpoints, as well as the Constitution of the United States...

---

This is a wonderful opportunity then for you to put me on your ignore list, unless your trying to be funny (which I dont). while your generous depiction of "some" and thier foundness for the constitution and forefathers is a bit insulting, I'll happily enjoy my new status as an entity you dont enjoy.

By all means, ignore away.

Any thoughts on chavez btw ? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This is a wonderful opportunity then for you to put me on your ignore list, unless your trying to be funny (which I dont). while your generous depiction of "some" and thier foundness for the constitution and forefathers is a bit insulting, I'll happily enjoy my new status as an entity you dont enjoy.

By all means, ignore away.

Any thoughts on chavez btw ? :rolleyes:

---

????

What's with the 6th grader hostility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

????

What's with the 6th grader hostility?

---

Internalized anger! :nurse:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This is a wonderful opportunity then for you to put me on your ignore list, unless your trying to be funny (which I dont). while your generous depiction of "some" and thier foundness for the constitution and forefathers is a bit insulting, I'll happily enjoy my new status as an entity you dont enjoy.

---

Just how did you get the impression that I insulted you is beyond me. :dizzy2:

And no, I don't "do" ignore lists. They feel petty to me.

Quote:

---

For christ sake i just laid a slam dunk at your lap. I was hoping for something far more biting then that

---

The rant spoke for itself , nothing more than repeating Soulforgeds' earlier reply to another of that posters comments was really needed .
Anyhow , Mouza in a rare foray into the backroom already did a classic .

“I think that you'll get your way soon enough. Then, Venezuela will become a mainland Cuba and Chavez can begin his subversion of neighbouring governments in order to establish a growing South American counterbalance to the U.S.” That is great! :2thumbsup:
What you are saying is Chavez WILL do what USA DID and still DOAES. So, can’t it be seen as a Defence Strategy more than aggression towards neighbours?

“Chavez is a small man who operates foreign policy with personal vendetta's”. Thing that a President of the USA will never do of cause (“this guy tried to kill my Dad”)…

“President Uribe of Columbia makes a decision that is his to make after Chavez breaks an agreement”. Err, in this mediation between the FARC and the Colombian Government about hostage resolution (Ingrid Betencour case) it was a pure insult in term of politic. You ask a guy to help you, then when he ask something to one of the key player in your side you just fire him. So, rightly, Chavez would be feeling insulted… Uribe break an agreement, not Chavez…

“He severs ties and recalls diplomats on a regular basis for personal rather than national reasons”. Never happened in the USA under Bush administration, or any administration, I can tell you…:laugh4:

“Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.” It is a joke… It has to be…:inquisitive:

“I love that people defend him and prove that they are ok with authoritarian powers, as long as they agree with them. That's a new concept...”:
Well, for what I know, Chavez was democratically elected twice, demonstrations against him are not forbidden. I went in few in France and the CRS did what the Venezuelan Police did in this kind of events.
He lost a referendum, but the so did the French Government few years ago… He will try again, or he will implement the Sarkozy’s solution pretending it is not the same text, so it doesn’t need a new referendum… I saw nobody accusing France and the New French President to be a Dictator in a new Conservative Dictatorship…:laugh4:
To lose a referendum and to accept it is more a proof a democracy than dictatorship…

“Considering this was the starting point of your premise I assumed you were joking and was hopeful one of the EU boys would take it and run.
If you were serious then my apologies, I didn’t take you seriously. Nor do I now.” Idem.

Isn't it funny that since this is in essence about an attempt to change the constitution to allow a politician to stand for re-election by overturning existing limits , that some people are mentioning Uribe without condemning the changes to the constitution that allowed him to stand for re-election in Columbia .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Isn't it funny that since this is in essence about an attempt to change the constitution to allow a politician to stand for re-election by overturning existing limits , that some people are mentioning Uribe without condemning the changes to the constitution that allowed him to stand for re-election in Columbia .

---

I think that for irony's sake it has to be said: people actually believe that Chavez is "El Diablo"...:laugh4: But yeah it's funny, what is not funny are rvg comments, rvg you better explain yourself to me and the latinamerican people, take it as a diplomatic meeting if you will, I'll not report you to the mods because it's not my style (though I suppose some moderator already read your words), but I want to hear an apology for what you just said, private message me if you want but I'll prefer it to be public...First days on the Backroom and already making so much enemies :no: .

Come on Soul , it doesn't require an explanation , just read the posts .
Between this and the Sharia topic the explanation is obvious .