Chavez Warns of Resistance War With U.S.

[piercehawkeye45]

No, I don't have too. I don't support communism but if a communist state made life better for the poor I would support that aspect of it. I support some ideas of capitialism and I do not support that philosophy as a whole.

Just because you support one aspect of a political philosophy does not mean you have support the whole thing. It is like saying just because I like Dennis Rodman's rebounding skills that I support all of Dennis's decisions.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

No, I don't have too. I don't support communism but if a communist state made life better for the poor I would support that aspect of it. I support some ideas of capitialism and I do not support that philosophy as a whole.

Just because you support one aspect of a political philosophy does not mean you have support the whole thing. It is like saying just because I like Dennis Rodman's rebounding skills that I support all of Dennis's decisions.

So what you are saying here, correct me if I am wrong, is that you basically have no money, have no real significant income, and do not really own anything. Becasue once people like Chavez get in power and start taking things away from you, you really can't understand my position. So please correct me if I am wrong. What do you do for a living and how much are you pulling in as taxable income?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So what you are saying here, correct me if I am wrong, is that you basically have no money, have no real significant income, and do not really own anything. Becasue once people like Chavez get in power and start taking things away from you, you really can't understand my position.

Notice how TheMercenary makes massive leaping conclusions. Because Chavez promotes socialism, then everypone will have no money, have no real significant income, and not really own anything.

And since France is socialist, then Frenchmen don't have money, don't have real significant incomes, and do not really own anything.

TheMercenary is extremist. Therefore he replies to everything with 'black and white' perspectives. Clearly only 'good and evil' exist in his world. Only one perspective is valid - the 'good' perspective. Any other perspective must be evil. There are no moderates. Tolerance is weakness. His is a world of extremes. We also called that fascism.

TheMercenary will even misquote to promote a political agenda - another characteristic of an extremist. Example:

Americans BAD! Everyone else GOOD. Anyone who hates America, GOOD! All things to do with the US, BAD! Allahuakbar!!!!!

TheMercenary has intentionally and blatantly misrepresented what piercehawkeye45 posted. Somehow TheMercenary has dumbed it all down to "Chavez will take away everything". piercehawkeye45 did not even suggest that. But TheMercenary cannot comprehend the world any other way. His political agenda demands only 'black and white' conclusions; that Chavez will take away everything. TheMercenary translated what piercehawkeye45 posted into something 'black and white'.

That translation automatically proves "Chavez is evil". TheMercenary's agenda that cannot comprehend a world that is tolerant and has numerous perspectives. 'Black and white' is also how Rush Limbaugh's fans believe. Notice how Rush defined Hilary - and TheMercenary also calls her Hitlery.

Watch TheMercenary insist that 'good and evil' always exist. No wonder TheMercenary so strongly assoicates with George Jr, Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh logic.

TheMercenary has intentionally misrepresented what piercehawkeye45 posted so as to avoid admitting reality - a world of perspectives.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

1)TheMercenary 2) TheMercenary3) TheMercenary 4)TheMercenary5)TheMercenary 6)TheMercenary 7) TheMercenary 8)TheMercenary's 9)TheMercenary 10)TheMercenary 11)TheMercenary.... Allah Akbar!

Pssssssssssssst... tw, this ain't about me.

Now back to the subject at hand. Chavez will take his country to the toilet.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Pssssssssssssst... tw, this ain't about me.

Then why do you spin propaganda to promote an extremist political agenda? Remove you - and all that 'black and white' / ‘good verses evil’ reasoning disappears.

Chavez is irrelevant. Chavez will buy fighter planes. Chavez will buy submarines. Chavez will hunker down for the coming American attack. Chavez will say anything to get extremists upset. That emotion simply makes Chavez popular. Political agendas promoted by TheMercenary only play into Chavez's game of promoting Chavez.

Be a responsible nation; ignore Chavez, and Chavez will eventually self destruct. It is a well proven concept is called 'containment' that extremists just don't understand. We all remember 'containment'. That is what smart presidents did before George Jr. Extremists with a political agenda oppose 'containment'. TheMercenary is justifying 'pre-emption'. We all know what pre-emption created: "Mission Accomplished". TheMercenary, using hype and fear, is promoting Chavez as the next Saddam.

TheMercenary: it’s not about Chavez. He is irrelevant. It's about wacko extremist political agendas, hyped in fear, that promotes Chavez just like he were Saddam. It’s about your political agenda, hyped by fear, that promotes pre-emption and the 'Pearl Harboring' of sovreign nations.

[fargon]

Why would we attack them. Mr Chavez will be overthrown soon enough.

[tw]

Originally Posted by fargon

Why would we attack them. Mr Chavez will be overthrown soon enough.

Why did we attack Saddam? He also was on the verge of collapse. However logic does not prevail when reasons are justified by emotion and the 'them evil; we good' mentality. Reason that a majority of Americans supported "Mission Accomplished"? Exact same reasoning created Nam.

What will stop us from making the same mistake with Chavez? Well it took 30 years for Americans to completely forget those lessons from Nam. It may take another decade for 'big dic' reasoning to have credibility again.

Meanwhile Chavez is only a threat because the current American government is so dumb as to make Chavez look credible. Notice the number of once strong American friends that are now even talking to Castro.

[fargon]

Originally Posted by tw

Why did we attack Saddam? He also was on the verge of collapse. However logic does not prevail when reasons are justified by emotion and the 'them evil; we good' mentality. Reason that a majority of Americans supported "Mission Accomplished"? Exact same reasoning created Nam.

What will stop us from making the same mistake with Chavez? Well it took 30 years for Americans to completely forget those lessons from Nam. It may take another decade for 'big dic' reasoning to have credibility again.

Meanwhile Chavez is only a threat because the current American government is so dumb as to make Chavez look credible. Notice the number of once strong American friends that are now even talking to Castro.

"Nam" was purely economic, Textron Industries is or was owned by Lady Bird. I got this from my Aunt Marie Johnson.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But Ike started it.

[Undertoad]

Don't you dare doubt the word of Aunt Marie Johnson.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sorry Aunt Marie, I lost my head.

[TheMercenary]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/...rc=rss&feed=12

[piercehawkeye45]

Venezuela has never shown any intention of aggression to any country as opposed to Iran.

America has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons. Israel has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons. Russia has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons.

I find it ironic that the countries with the most nuclear weapons are the most aggressive countries in the world and they will limit countries to nuclear weapons because they say they are too aggressive.


And how is Chavez running his country into the ground. Even the fucking Economist will admit that he is doing well. They just don’t think it will last because of inflation and lowering oil prices. Time will tell…

[Urbane Guerrilla]

It is unconscionable to leave Chavez alone when all the misery his government can engender can come to a screeching halt once Chavez suddenly dies.

And tw, since your advice on these matters is invariably to leave totalitarians and totalitarianism alone, we all know you for a fascistocommunistic antidemocratic anti-human. Here are where your sympathies lie. You never had any political acumen, and you've entirely too much sympathy for nondemocracies and their continuing oppressions. You are disgusting, not amusing, and you are disgusting by your own conscious choice. Not a smart decision, boyo, but a measure designed to foster contempt of tw. Nice if you enjoy a heavy burden of contempt.

Have you, tw, traced 85% of Venezuela's problems, present and incipient, to Chavez's top management? If not, why not?

If Chavez abruptly leaves power, do 85% of Venezuela's problems depart with him?

Sung to "Matilda:"

Hugo Chavez -- Hugo Chavez --
Hugo Chavez, he takes your money
And runs Venezuela!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It is unconscionable to leave Chavez alone when all the misery his government can engender can come to a screeching halt once Chavez suddenly dies.

Urbane Guerrilla, who claims to be libertarian, instead advocates pre-emption. We must save Venezuela from itself. They voted for Chavez. Now we must invade them. We must burn the village to save it. That is not libertarian thinking. That is savage totalitarianism.

Urbane Guerrilla advocates totalitarianism. "We must use pre-emption to save them from themselves." That is the mindset of an extremist who must impose his will on all others.

Messing up oligarchies and disposing of socialists is how the world gets better

Again, only Urbane Guerrilla knows what is better. *Pre-emption*. No wonder UG could not comprehend Thomas Barnett's "Blueprint For Action: A Future Worth Creating." UG's conundrum is demonstrated by the words arrogant, Libertarian, democracy, and totalitarianism.

Urbane Guerrilla's mindset preaches democracy while advocating totalitarianism. No wonder America cannot impose democracy in Iraq. We did pre-emption doing exactly what Urbane Guerrilla and TheMercenary now advocate for Venezuela. Do they evern learn from the lessons of history?

Arrogant is a term used by the weak of will or weakly motivated to disparage initiative and motivation of which they disapprove, most generally for reasons of infinitesimal worth, long before jettisoned as worthless by the one they're yelling at.

BS is right. Arrogant is when Urbane Guerrilla knows what is right for everyone else and imposes 'his wisdom' on them. The arrogant also claim to be Libertarian?

Claims to be Libertarian, preaches democracy, but advocates military totalitarian actions. UG is the ultimate example of arrogant.