Hugo Chavez has ordered tanks to the Colombian border after the recent killing of a FARC leader by Colombian forces.
Printable View
Hugo Chavez has ordered tanks to the Colombian border after the recent killing of a FARC leader by Colombian forces.
HAHA i knew it. Watch and learn, peaceniks.
Maybe his Drug War will be slightly more successful :tongue:
According to what I heard he is sending tanks because military intrusion from the Contra-FARC units from Columbia...
An anti-terrorist intrusion into an unpopulated area of Ecuador. Another country entirely. Nobody else is a bit alarmed by Chavez? I, personally can't wait until he starts to attempt territorial annexation in South America. An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Geez. Jungles, then deserts, then jungles again. Can't we invade someplace nice, like Paris, or Copenhagen, or Montreal, once in awhile? Yanno, with running water, decent food, pretty girls?*
Having abrogated the Rio Treaty in favor of NATO in the Reagan years, the US has no treaty-triggered military obligations in the region. Chavez's rhetoric about 'dracula's fangs' notwithstanding, it's Columbia v Equador y Chavez-istan.
*j/k, o'course
All hail Chavez, dictator of South America.
I`ll meet you there. ~:smoking:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I know the best little Irish pub. Guinness on tap, dozens of scotches, and first rate Indian food, burgers, and fries. We`ll drink. We`ll eat. We`ll decide who to invade next.
As for Hugo being tankful... I dunno. I can`t imagine that what he`s doing with his tanks can be too much worse than what all the other people are doing with theirs. Hell, even we`ve got the tanks out. It`s like a big tank party and everyone`s welcome.
Now THAT's a summit to be proud of. When the next prez appoints me Ambassador to Canada, that's my first stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
errrrrr...its Columbia that attacked another country you know :idea2:Quote:
HAHA i knew it. Watch and learn, peaceniks.
When did you ever say that you knew Columbia would attack another country ?
Thats an act of aggression and a violation of soveriegnty isn't it , its not surprising that neighbouring countries are pissed at Columbia .Quote:
An anti-terrorist intrusion into an unpopulated area of Ecuador.
What was it the Equdorian president said about Uribe and his explanations ? ....errrr...He is either lying in his account of the incident or the Columbian military has lied to him .:yes:
Nope not in the slightest , why are you alarmed ?Quote:
Nobody else is a bit alarmed by Chavez?
Are you insane , or do you just like wars ? actually forget the second bit , its covered by the first .Quote:
An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.
Caius , what makes you think that Uribe is any better than Chavez ?Quote:
All hail Chavez, dictator of South America.
It's a textbook guerrilla campaign, this is.
Like the Vietcong in Cambodia, IRA in Ireland, Mujahdeen in Pakistan, UNITA in Angola. You never launch a guerrilla campaign in the country you wish to liberate, but retreat across the border at every opportunity.
It prevents retaliation, but ensures that you can continue strikes. It's a reflection on Ecuador that they would allow terrorists (insurgents according to Chavez) to use their border as a defense for kidnapping and killing.
I think Chavez is upping the ante and showing that he represents the 'Left Latin America' against the U.S. bloc. This is pure showmanship and nothing else.
Many excuses to invade Venezuela would be dangerous, since the Venezuelans, while not always happy with Chavez, would only be happy to fight the 'Imperialist invader'. We'd have to set up a insurgency group to fight Chavez, maybe have some bases in Colombia and run them off the drug trade.
I think that Uribe is more connected with reality than Chavez is, more practical. He's also free-market, Harvard educated, and doesn't simply bash the local superpower but tries to improve his country.
Right - he supports the FARC in their attempts to overthrow the Columbian government. He literally called for this to happen. I believe that he is angling for a conflict in order to exert control over the continent. Territorial ambition is written all over his actions.
Why is this so hard to see? Do you read the words that he uses? He sounds like a madman. Oh. I forgot, he dislikes the U.S., so everything that he says must be gospel.
I think that's the point. He's probably not strong enough for overt aggression, so talking tough is the only way he can get what he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
It frustrates me to no end that Chavez is itching for a fight. While on one hand I see his right to assert that Venezuela's borders should not be crossed as the Ecquadorian border was his defense and probably active support of FARC in Columbia is of course a giant problem for Columbia. Columbia has enough problems that they don't need or want to fight another war but I could see Chavez trying to liberate Columbians from themselves and perhaps create another Gran Columbia/Bolivia or something.
I just hope this is remains posturing and saber rattling, Columbia's army and airforce is not really equiped for conventional warfare and no doubt the US would get draw in and send a few carriers and probably some marines.
Actually he calls for a negotiated settlement to the long running civil war , but don't let that get in your way .Quote:
Right - he supports the FARC in their attempts to overthrow the Columbian government. He literally called for this to happen.
Thats because he is a madman , but he ain't stupid .Quote:
He sounds like a madman.
Don't you think your president sounds like a madman too ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
You see it. Tribesman doesn't. JAG doesn't.
What I see is that Chavez approach to foriegn relations and his crappy rhetoric is absolutely no different from that of Uribe or Bush .Quote:
You see it. Tribesman doesn't. JAG doesn't.
Dear God. Tuff, that would be one of the most ill advised things we could do. Reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
A) A large power vacuume would be created by the absence of Chavez if we destroyed his government.
B) Historically, whenever power vacuumes have been created, some kind of organization/group of people invariably rises to fill the void, sometimes worse than the previous one. Example A-Taliban in Afghanistan.
C) Unlike Iraq, Venezuela and the surrounding countries will have significant issues with Drug lords who will become immensely powerful by filling in bits of the vacuum created by the absence of Chavez. They will flock to Venezuela and the surrounding areas because they know they have all but free dominion.
D) Unlike Iraq, US troops would end up having to chase insurgents and guerillas into jungles, harsh terrain, and somewhat fluid borders which will end up becoming defined by the power of local drug lords.
The only good side, in comparison, would be the lack of religious fanaticism, but we've already seen from 'Nam that guerillas can kick some serious tail when defending their homeland, especially when the terrains suit them so well, from the 'Imperialist' invaders even when not motivated by religion. Not to mention we're already spread thinner than we'd like because of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention our other military committments all around the globe.
Now, I'm by no means vouching for Chaves; he's a tyrant and a dictator who'll probably end up making himself "El Presidente" for life before its all over. But military action against him is simply impossible right now, and probably won't be unless we either vastly expand our military numbers or else withdraw troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't see any of those things happening any time soon.
You think Bush wants to be the leader-for-life of Iraq? You think Uribe wants much more than to make Columbia a legitimate whole nation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
no
But I think Chavez wants much more power.
I think when we start having to say that someone's foreign policy skills/rhetoric are on par with Bush then perhaps we need to lessen our support of that person. Just because Bush did it does not make it right, Bush screwed up big time and on a tremendous scale. My support for the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are more out of a feeling of obligation to the Iraqi/Afghani people for screwing up their country more than anything else.
Violently spreading socialism is as stupid an idea as violently spreading democracy. It's wrong, it's stupid, and it will never work as intended. I hate the former US policy in Latin American and Africa where we supported violent dictators or funded anticommunists because it screwed up those regions big time but just because the US and the USSR used tactics lack that in the past does not condone the actions like that by other countries.
EDIT:
Additionally any US support of the Columbia army would probably be aerial as well as naval. Venzeuala's navy is small but so is Columbia's and I don't think the US would take kindly to any sort of naval war near the Panama Canal. Columbia does not have aircraft of the quality or quantity to combat the the much more modern though fairly small Venezuelan air force. The US already has advisors training the Columbian army and the only additional boots on the ground support that I could envision would be guys to coordinate US air assests with Columbian army elements (Special Forces) and possibly mechanized Marine elements if the Venezuelans somehow are able to threaten Panama (I don't think Chavez would be above siezing the canal if he could).
Oil Prices anyone?
“We'd have to set up a insurgency group to fight Chavez, maybe have some bases in Colombia and run them off the drug trade.” You mean, like for Nicaragua and the Contras? Didn’t work so good that plan… It's in the list of the lost and failed CIA operation, along side the Pigs Bay…:beam:
“He's also free-market, Harvard educated, and doesn't simply bash the local superpower but tries to improve his country.” And prolong one of the longest guerrillas on his territory. Even Peru succeeded to get rid of it own… And from when to be a Free-Market (the right to exploit people freely but with the police and military protection in case of a poorest riot) and Harvard education is a proof to be democratic? Improving what, exactly: Education, health, social services? Or huge incomes for the richest?
“he supports the FARC in their attempts to overthrow the Columbian government. He literally called for this to happen. I believe that he is angling for a conflict in order to exert control over the continent. Territorial ambition is written all over his actions.”
“I could see Chavez trying to liberate Columbians from themselves”
Do all these things remind me some country, which not so long time ago was calling for Political changes, financed guerrilla movements and provided military help to others if there were anti-communist? Was not this country helping Talibans and various dictators and killers like in Angola, Chile, Peru, Guatemala and others, invading some island? And even country as I recall now… Forget the name…:inquisitive:
“no doubt the US would get draw in and send a few carriers and probably some marines.” :laugh4: G. W. Bush is just dreaming of such opportunity… It the prefect Gulf of Tonkin incident… Again remind me something…:laugh4:
What the farc.
If they catch this dutchie
http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive...en_186511e.jpg
Tell her that I am not angry at her, some actually believe what they are tought at school socialist teachers can be very convincing.
Here's a newer article. I think it does a much better job of demonstrating what a twit Chavez is. He's really cruising for a bloodied nose. If he actually tries anything, I suspect he's going to see a lot of his expensive new toys all broken. :no:
A capital mistake alright :laugh4:
Where's JAG? He enlisted?
Funny isn't it , you could replace the word "Chavez" with "Bush" and it would be true .Quote:
I think it does a much better job of demonstrating what a twit Chavez is. He's really cruising for a bloodied nose. If he actually tries anything, I suspect he's going to see a lot of his expensive new toys all broken.
Did you notice the bit earlier where I said Chavez isn't stupid ? well Bush is , he did an action where his legacy will be getting the office trying to run Iraq for the forseeable future (or until the Iranians take the job on fully)Quote:
You think Bush wants to be the leader-for-life of Iraq?
Interesting , Uribe wants a lot more than that , (I notice you avoid term limits in his case ) .Quote:
You think Uribe wants much more than to make Columbia a legitimate whole nation?
We shall see what Uribe really wants and how badly he wants it when the allegations of links to murder , drug trafficing , extortion , terrorism and kidnapping are sorted (not to mention very big election fraud) .I wonder if he will again claim that such things are no reason to step down from the job .
Come to think of it doesn't Uribe seem like a new Noriega sometimes .
Oh dear. They're FARCk-ed now.
/obviousjoke
You're more than welcome to take northern, western or southern Norway off our hands, you know...Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
And nobody will care if you terrorize and pillage the locals!
BS - he doesn't seem like a totalitarian hate-monger at all. I think that you are either misrepresenting him on purpose or just ignoring the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Where are you getting this? That congressional modification was for re-election.
Uribe is not a bad guy at all. He enjoys broad popular support and seems to be interested in a more stable Columbia. I'm sure that he is prone to some level of corruption - like every politician in South America - but the idea that he needs to be overthrown and replaced with Chavez is insane.
***This just in - the U.S. can't support any center right leaders because people like Tribesman will claim that they it is as bad as supporting Saddam and the Taleban (which were egregious errors).
For a dictator or -- as in the case of Chavez -- quasi dictator, it is important to remind yourself of their own internal motivations.
Remember:
1. Flaming socialist or not, Chavez is not stupid.
2. Chavez does wish to continue in power and to do so with the support of (a workking majority of) the masses and not simply through a military/police state -- he's thinking Cuba not Belorus or PRK.
So:
Until his troops violate the border AND stay across the line for more than a short raid, he's not committed to the kind of overt aggression that the USA and others must oppose. The USA is neither in a position to, nor would be able to generate a lot of support for, a large-scale U.S. response to a 72-hour border raid. Send a CBG nearby to show the flag, but that's about it. Verdict: little to risk for Chavez.
His referendum on permanent power was rejected. His biggest name ally has resigned due to ill health. Some of his support must have eroded and the external threat of US imperialism is not credible enough to motivate -- so Colombian excess/threat/inability to control the border is a ready made problem he can seem "decisive" in solving -- when did a little "machismo" image harm a S.A. politico? Besides, you have to get the tracks muddy once in a while for training anyway. Verdict: a nice little external threat -- especially where you don't HAVE to actually attack -- is a useful tool for the political strongman.
The kerfluffle might knock up oil prices a notch. Since most of the revenue Chavez uses to buy domestic political support is funded by the nationalized oil revenues, any further increase in price is unlikely to make Chavez sad. Verdict: oil prices waxing means domestic opposition waning for Hugo.
Messing with Colombia won't bother Chavez a bit. An unstable Colombia actually makes him seem safe & secure by comparison and it is Colombia that has the cozier relationship to the USA. Verdict: a little political hay can be made at the expense of El Norte -- and done on the cheap.
Therefore:
Chavez is still playing the international community to promote the cause of Chavez. This is just another round in the game. We'll see how much he gains and whether he can use the gains to get his referendum through this time. Chavez seems VERY interested in institutionalizing himself and his regime and THAT, I suspect, is the real game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
As long as they pull out again and leave West Norway as a new nation. Suddenly a certain black substance will be ut of reach for Oslo. :clown:
It is perverted to dream about wars like they are a good thing. Lots of soldiers and civillians will have been slaughtered in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
right wing policy --> kill people after they are born, not before
You see killing Venezuelans as akin to celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Although I can't speak for either party, I'm fairly sure neither the Venezuelans nor Jesus would appreciate the sentiment.
bah, that substance is outin the north sea, not in western norway. Besides - bergen isn't part of Norway anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Weren't you dating someone from that fine 'burg?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Sorry, couldn't resist the pun! :devilish:
NowayQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Oh sorry , I thought that the way you are so pro-Uribe you actually might have some knowledge of Columbian politics , then again after a little thought ....since you are blindly pro Uribe it is a good indication that you are not very clued up on Columbian politics .Quote:
Where are you getting this?
Really , then what was the proposed and rejected modification for in Venezuela ? errrr...re-election wasn't it .:inquisitive:Quote:
That congressional modification was for re-election.
both countries tried the same abolition of term limits , one was rejected by the eloctorate .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: bollox .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Uribe is not a bad guy at all.
the same could be said of Chavez .Quote:
He enjoys broad popular support and seems to be interested in a more stable Columbia. I'm sure that he is prone to some level of corruption - like every politician in South America
talking of insanity , where do you get that idea from ? is it one of them companions you find on the way to OZ ?Quote:
but the idea that he needs to be overthrown and replaced with Chavez is insane.
***This just in -as very old news- blindly supporting one particular pillock and claiming that they are not a bad guy at all is a sign of blindly supporting a pillock , which is an error .Quote:
***This just in - the U.S. can't support any center right leaders because people like Tribesman will claim that they it is as bad as supporting Saddam and the Taleban (which were egregious errors).
Beirut how dare you bring religeon into this , its all about a fat bloke with venison on the hoof and a magic trick with a chimney .Quote:
You see killing Venezuelans as akin to celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ?
First heard this on television about 2 hours ago:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/am...bia/index.html
If this story is true, it will (hopefully) cost Chavez a lot of support internationally.Quote:
Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.
It's all machismo by Chavez, nothing more or less. I'd be surprised if Chavez actually declares war, because I doubt either country wants it. It's Chavez trying to legitimatize his rule and make FARC into some sort of patriotic movement, which it isn't. If it was, it wouldn't be experiencing the desertion rates that it has. If we really wanted to destroy Chavez, we could create an insurgency, but I doubt that we will. Also, Peru's internal troubles aren't entirely over. If Chavez was really committed to defeating the terrorists, he would've done so, but his demands and actions often seem to imply his association with the rebels. It won't result in anything, and if it does, it's going to be a screwed-up world.
Actually, Angola was Vietnam in reverse, where a popular democratic movement, supported by the United States and South Africa prevented Cubans and Russkies from taking over the oil and mineral rich region.
I must admit that I am not an expert on Columbian politics like you are. All I know about this particular situation I get from BBC and wikipedia. Uribe seems to be reasonably well liked by the majority and I havn't heard much about him in terms of serious criticism. Terrorism and kidnappings are down 50% since he came into office - he enjoys 70% approval by those included in the polls. His speeches aren't filled with anti-rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I also know that he allowed a leftist usurper enter his country and talk with the FARC - a dangerous game in a situation where the negotiator may as well be holding a gun to the hostages heads.
Do we all need to be experts to back the right horse in any conflict with Chavez? Uribe is no military despot, he is the democratically elected leader and seems to have a relatively cool head.
Tell me some of the things that he has done to warrant your contempt, since you seem to be the foremost authority on the topic. I don't have many friends from Columbia like you do.
Now isn't this news. Chavez supporting a terrorist group in Columbia. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 millionQuote:
If this story is true, it will (hopefully) cost Chavez a lot of support internationally.
Heres a thought Fenring , what happened recently that involves very large payments to kidnappers ?
Was it something that was done on behalf of other countries and businesses ?
Did it at the time have the approval and co-operation of the Columbian government (and military)?
HeyTuff ,there is lots of criticism of Uribe , thats why the judiciary are exploring 2 possible charges concerning his alledged links to the paramilitaries(terrorists) and druglords .
But since you mention his popular support and approval ratings ...isn't it funny that he has almost identical figures as Chavez on that score .
It looks exactly like what Nasser did in 1967. It's brinkmanship, a show of force. But, there's no Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike in this case.
I really think the US should avoid it completely, stop acting as world's police force.
Chavez is like a modern king, he does whatever he wants. But Chavez wont attack if he has an advisor with half a brain to tell 'em macho schemes rarely pays off for national respect.
@rythmic- If the US does anything like interfere with other nations its because we have interests in the region that could be threatened. Like Chavez raising our oil prices. We dont so much as police you for the good of everyone we just do what is good for us first, then maybe you later.
You do realize America has some of the cheapest gas prices in the western world, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
For example, right now, the provincial average for gas prices in Ontario (the lowest prices in Canada) is about $1.05 per litre. In America, the closer to mid-range example (Georgia) is an average of $3.14. With the dollars roughly equal, and as 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 litres, the gas prices in America are, on a rough average, about eighty cents cheaper than your next-door neighbours.
I really don't understand why you complain so much.
T3h fR1cK3n obvious that fell0w Europeans come with this argument all the time. Where I live is not europe, and I dont see how comparing our gas prices justify anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Americans really depend on cars because of the huge expanses of distance from my A to B. Cars is how we travel to everywhere. The only people that use bus are the ones that cant afford cars, and its not like bikes are going to make anything easier. Our cars are not fuel effecient, some people are stuck with gas guzzlers Hummers, spending all their money on that, now who's gonna buy a hummer or how can they get enough money to get a hybrid or some other fuel effecient car?
I mean, its over a mile and a half just to get groceries for me. Now imagine if a family poorer then me had to get food. Walking will take a hell of long time and gas just drains the hell out of our wallets, what with realestate prices in Florida going up and alot of people moving out.
T3h c@R is Americas lifeline.
Did you read the example? It was precisely this reason that I used the example of Canada, which is, by the way, a little bigger than America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
When I lived in Canada, it was in a rural area, about the same distance as you to groceries, and double that to everything else (a village). Also, there was a regular forty-eight kilometer drive every Saturday. I still didn't complain.
t3H $@m3 in America. Even in metropolis' like Miami cities are still separated by miles of road. Just because their is a house next to those roads (or highways) doesnt make the distance shorter. From Homestead to Hialeah is about 30-45 minutes of driving. My father does that every worday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And no c@NaD@ isnt bigger, its barren.
Uhhh...Canada is bigger. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Anyways, the point is that Americans should buck up and pay. Really, what's the problem? Drive a more fuel efficient car. By the way, where I lived, everyone drove trucks anyways. Still no complaints, and it was a good hour and a half to the nearest town with anything in it besides groceries and a school.
Thought I might add something:
LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by RI Magazine
LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by OMAC
65/2 = 32.5
This means Canadians travel 7.4 minutes more each day to and from work than Americans. Your earlier statement, therefore, doesn't ring true.
I should also rephrase my earlier statement.
Everyone complains about gas prices, but America seems to be the one nation willing to go to war to lower them.
Apology accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And would those trucks happen to be using "d13S3L"(diesel) the cheaper stuff that lets giant car crusher loving people to use them alot?
No we shouldnt "bucc up" and pay. If w3 h@v3 a problem with the very gas we depend on we need to change that fast. Or I can just get my extra $30,000-40,000 and get a hybrid? t3H n0T possible. And I can name places in this metropolis that I live in that also takes a hour and a half to get to. Speed limits included.
Your link deals with resteraunt destination times. And lik3 I said, Canada is barren.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Produc...02/R04T160.htm
Couple this with our American cars...z0mG
How much do you pay for gas?
You might want to read my post just above yours again.
Nothing to do with restaurant commutes.Quote:
The average American’s one-way work commute was 25.1 minutes in 2003, according to the U.S. Census Bureau
Gas prices around here are hovering at about 1,39 Euro.
And lik3 I said, Canada is barren.
Wouldn't that cause a bigger reliance on gas ?
For example nearest supermarket, gas station, resturants and place of work would be further away causing more driving....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
How many liters do you get usually for your vehicle? no wait I'm gonna have to ask alot of questions for you to get my point on this.
many things affect how much gas you get. And if we went to war for oil we wouldve said (or the president) "lets git that oil). This war would be ok if it was about oil...'fraid not, since oil actually went UP.
I'm sure this can all be explained in 1337 speak.
If by that you mean we have massive tracts of land full of wildlife and spectacular natural beauty unspoiled by development, yes, we're barren.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
And loving it. :canada:
I'd love to edit that and put in italic (Because)-Boyar Son z0mG 1337 PwNAg3 w00to0T0oT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Congrats. You want a smiley face sticker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
We complain so much because although we have cheaper gas than Canada (which is due to lower taxes on fuel), it still costs an arm and leg to fill up an average car.
When I'm spending $40 a week to fill up my tank (this is on average when I'm home from university), it becomes a pain in the ass.
There really is not other alternative to get from point A to point B.
Oh, yes, I'll have Jeeves get my Toyota instead of the BMW today.Quote:
Anyways, the point is that Americans should buck up and pay. Really, what's the problem? Drive a more fuel efficient car.
Oh wait, I don't have multiple cars to choose from! Nor do I have 30 grand to drop on a Prius that's more harmful in the long run anyways!
But to the silliest bit of your post - why in the world should 'Americans buck up and pay'? It's not like we've got some secret backdoor deal with OPEC, composed of Venezuela and those Middle Eastern states who all love us so much, that lets us get the gas on the cheap while everybody else pays extra.
The reality of it is simple - we don't have a huge load of taxes on top of it. We do have a great deal of taxes, though,and why shouldn't we be upset - the government hardly makes good use of all that money anyway and is always wanting more.
I see no reason to give the government more money, and how cheerfully accepting tax increases has anything to do with 'bucking up and paying' like it's some noble cause.
More related to the OP - Funny how Chavez supports FARC, when the people of Columbia are so very against it.
Where's JAG, anyhow?
CR
Well well well, chavez gave the FARC 300 million, now didn't we call that funding terrorism......
“Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.”
Evidence? Suggest? Given by the Colombian police? Sure, no manipulation.
Smell the Weapons Of Mass Destruction evidence!!!:beam:
“Actually, Angola was Vietnam in reverse, where a popular democratic movement, supported by the United States and South Africa prevented Cubans and Russkies from taking over the oil and mineral rich region”. Actually check who went in power after the South African intervention disaster…
But thank anyway to confirm that the main interest of the USA was to support democracy:2thumbsup:
“Chavez is like a modern king, he does whatever he wants.” Remind me some Democratically Elected President… Sarkozy…:laugh4:
Just FYI:
Common courtesy requires that discussions on this board take place in "normal" English.
"1337 speak" does not meet these requirements.
Posts in "1337 speak" will be considered to be spam and will be treated accordingly.
Thanks
:bow:
Because europeans do not drive for 45 minutes everyday, heh :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Funny isn't it , America gave money to the terrorists in Columbia , when the Americn government tried to limit the amounts being given because of the attrocities being commited by its terrorists the republican party objected....apparently human rights violations by people recieving US funding should not be an issue when it comes to US funding . Not that the republacans got their way of coyrse , funding was cut by up to 30% ...however distribution of those funds was handed over to the people running the terror groups with no oversight imposed by the US .Quote:
Well well well, chavez gave the FARC 300 million, now didn't we call that funding terrorism......
So Frag is it a pot kettle black situation ?
The bit that confuses me is where the US' interests are more important than the interest of the country they are interfering with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Of course it is but this doesn't seem to exist for the chavez-fans, they are either completily silent or laying in bed with a bag of ice on their head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Reminds me of those lorry drivers who come to fill up their diesel for 200EUR or more. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ice
More people should use public transportation, with a larger userbase it should then also be cheaper and better if you live in a capitalistic country.
I can't recall anyone saying at teh time of release that they had been bought free. It's possible that Chavez gave FARC 300 mil under the table so he could get some positive press coverage, but Chavez has in the past called the FARC a legitimate political group and besides, for a handful of hostages isn't 300 million extremely generous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Giving terrorists money to release people they've kidnapped is a bad idea, anyway.
Yes, I'll use public transportation, when there is an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B. Until then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
That's OK Seamus, my english skills aren't good enough to grasp it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
explain please?
40 bucks a week?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN??!?!?!?!?
Sorry kukri, I blame our school system and lack of youth centers... Life on the streets teach you to use your fonts.
Again, Horetore, yes I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
40 dollars could spend else ware and put to better use. My car was also very "fuel efficient" when bought a couple years ago.
Now, I can always flip this, and say just because Europeans in general pay an exorbitant amount of money to gasoline taxes, Americans can still gripe about the mainly market force price that we are paying (although there is a decent tax on fuel here too)
Doesn't really change the fact that it's pocket lint, not money, you're spending on gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Were these the terrorist we bankrolled before or after carving Panama out of Colombia to ease our naval transit issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
More importantly, were we getting good value for our dollar (though I suppose now the ingrates will start insisting on Euros!)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A 'burg" is a generic replacement for city in US slang, since so many of our towns (courtesy of German/Dutch immigrants) have names ending in b-u-r-g.
burg in English has the same exact sound as Berg in Bergen. Hence the bad sound pun of my phrase.
I remembered the tidbit about a woman you were dating hailing from there from some long ago post.
I beg your pardon? I would never touch a woman from Bergen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm living with a northerner though.... That would be just as bad, but fortunately for me she moved south when she was four so she's quite normal... Family dinners on the other hand.... Most of the time I'm trying to figure out what the hell the others are saying...
Absolutily fascinating but this is much more fun
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...27449820080304
Por favor!
They're doing the same thing Saddam was doing!
When will they ever learn?
Global south almost looks like a parrallel universe at times
Yes, I'll use public transportation, when there is an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B. Until then...
This is half the reason public transportation is crap in the first place, hardly anyone who can afford a car uses it, its a bit of a vicious cycle really.
I would hardly say for an average family driving two cars a week 100+ plus dollars worth of gasoline is "pocket lint" as you so eloquently put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Can I have your pocket lint? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
How the hell did we start talking about this? Anyone know of any good South American dishes (food or flatware)?