Chavez - UN!

joebhoy1916

Watching it yesterday and now on FOX, Chavez is speeching and no joke people dont like him but he makes a hell alot of sense to me.

Saying George Bush is the devil he had some book in his hand everyone started laughing.

Saying countrys are not terrorists there just waking up to the US not in a bad way stick it on taking the piss out of George bush saying the devil was in this house yesterday.

He makes sense to about UN.

Dave!

What?

petes

DaveMcG wrote:

What?

My sentiments exactly.

Gordon

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Watching it yesterday

Will it be good fun?

biko

I want to understand but...?

Rb

joebhoy1916 wrote:

He makes sense to about UN.

Yes!About UN he does make sense to!


...what?

toiletduck

*scratches head*

mike65

To the bin!

Mike.

RedPlanet

It's here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214709,00.html

Yes Chavez took the podium and gave a good rant.
He got a standing ovation.

WhiteWashMan

to the batmobile!

who is chavez, and is that link work safe?
i mean, sanity safe?

Mr.D.Leprachaun

The President of Venezuela and the USA's current bete noir.

Hobbes

Its on BBC news. Its not like hes making it up. I believe he referred to Bush as the devil himself and said "The UN still smells like sulpher after his visit".

No love lost between the two so not unexpected.

What I would find funny is that he said the UN should be done away with, Right wings heads must be exploding at this time agreeing with him.

Dave!

Link to a video of the speech?

Ruu_Old

DaveMcG wrote:

Link to a video of the speech?

Get up off yer arsh and find it!
Moving this to Politics, doesn't really belong here, as usual mods do what you wish with this.


here

D-Generate

Oooh he card read good.

oscarBravo

This thread will need to develop some sanity if it's to survive over here.

Manic Moran

He's kindof like a non-musical version of the New Zealand Army Band. Rather entertaining, and you never know what he's going to do next...

NTM

rlogue

Whatever Chavez says about Bush, we must remember that Chavez is even more of Bush's puppet than Blair. After all the US is Venuzeula's largest market for oil exports.

constitutionus

i just love the fact when the "terrorist axis of evil" states had their summit in cuba nowt happened. no soldiers, no riot police. no secret service guys wandering around in trench coats to prevent these guys getting overrun by protesters. ya gotta wonder about that chavez himself said something along the lines that theyre not the ones pissing off the world! must drive bush wild

constitutionus

rlogue wrote:

Whatever Chavez says about Bush, we must remember that Chavez is even more of Bush's puppet than Blair. After all the US is Venuzeula's largest market for oil exports.

actually i think you'll find they flog most of their oil to china now. thats whats pissing off bush. he's no leverage over the guy, bush need his oil more than chavez needs bush. particularly seeing as he' also flogging oil to half of south america in return for food/doctors etc

meepins

constitutionus wrote:

actually i think you'll find they flog most of their oil to china now. thats whats pissing off bush. he's no leverage over the guy, bush need his oil more than chavez needs bush. particularly seeing as he' also flogging oil to half of south america in return for food/doctors etc

It's not just the fact they are selling to China. It's because the increased supply is messing up the oil market... after all the trouble the U.S went to , securing Iraqs oil and getting a strangle on supply for the corporate masters.
Chavez wants to sell at fifty dollars.. a price quite below the current one.

constitutionus

could this be why the price of oil dropped to 62dollars a barrel? i have to admit that took me by surprise during the week and i couldnt figure out a reason for it.

i have to admit i love chavez. the guy genuinely seems to be acting in his peoples best interest, i'll admit to being shocked at finding a politician who doesnt seem to be able to be bought off. bush must be at a loss as to how this guy seems to want to use his oil to educate and advance his country instead of linning his pockets pity our lot only seem interested in giving our resources away to foreign multinationals

Manic Moran

constitutionus wrote:

could this be why the price of oil dropped to 62dollars a barrel? i have to admit that took me by surprise during the week and i couldnt figure out a reason for it.

Nothing so dramatic, I'm afraid.

Prices always go down a little in the Autumn, as countries have replenished their oil hoards for the winter, and also people stop driving and flying around on their holidays.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090600354.html

SINGAPORE -- Oil prices fell to five-month lows Thursday amid easing gasoline demand with the end of the summer driving season.

Light, sweet crude for October delivery dropped 4 cents to $67.46 a barrel in Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The contract fell Wednesday by $1.10 to settle at $67.50 a barrel _ the lowest closing price for front-month futures since April 7.

U.S. petroleum demand tends to fall after Labor Day, this past Monday, which traditionally marks the end of the summer driving season in the United States.

In addition, easing concerns about the threat to supplies posed by the Iranian nuclear dispute and the Atlantic hurricane season have prompted crude oil prices to fall by about 12 percent in the past month.

[...]

Further easing supply concerns, Shell Exploration & Production Co., a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, said its Mars platform in the Gulf of Mexico, which was heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina, is now pumping 190,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, or 20 percent more than before last summer's storm.

NTM

sovtek

rlogue wrote:

Whatever Chavez says about Bush, we must remember that Chavez is even more of Bush's puppet than Blair. After all the US is Venuzeula's largest market for oil exports.

BUt Chavez actually made them pay fair royalties to the country, something anathema to oil companies and their puppet governments.
Thats been a recipe for the CIA to come in and get rid of you for the past 50 years.

blorg

constitutionus wrote:

pity our lot only seem interested in giving our resources away to foreign multinationals

I would be very interested in your explaining exactly what you mean by this. I'm no big fan of the current coalition, but I would feel that multinationals have on balance been good for this country (a position which all the main parties are in agreement on.) From Pat Rabbitte's "Fair economy" manifesto, for example:

There is an, at least implicit, acknowledgement here that sound public finances, a stable currency, social partnership and direct foreign investment are not the sole preserves of the exponents of liberal market economics. ... A commitment to a strategy of encouraging inward investment has been common to all of the main political parties since as far back as the late 1950s. It was the rainbow Government that locked Ireland into the current 12.5% corporation tax rate ...Furthermore, any full account of the origins of the Celtic Tiger must include other factors, including ... good strategic decisions by the IDA, particularly through the 1980s and 1990s, in identifying high-tech industries as engines of jobs growth.

freddyfreeload

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Watching it yesterday and now on FOX.

You watch Fox!? :eek:

ff

mickoneill30

I watched it on Fox this morning too. You really don't need to give the Fox guys much to get them whinging about the UN. One guy was complaining about the 3 billion that the US pays to the UN each year. 30 seconds later another woman was complaining about the 5.5 billion. Now that's inflation 2.5 billion in 30 secs.

Macy

blorg wrote:

I would be very interested in your explaining exactly what you mean by this.

I would suspect it's do with us giving away our rights to our own potential oil resources for peanuts. Behind all the Rossport 5 protests was the far more significant giving away of resources by the current coalition. They've just done it again infact.

constitutionus

blorg wrote:

I would be very interested in your explaining exactly what you mean by this. I'm no big fan of the current coalition, but I would feel that multinationals have on balance been good for this country (a position which all the main parties are in agreement on.) From Pat Rabbitte's "Fair economy" manifesto, for example:

you do know ray "rambo" burke and bertie are responsible for the contract with shell that means they get all the oil and gas they find and get to sell it back to us at the market rate dont you? we dont even get a royalty out of it like the danes do. if thats not giving away the nations resoucres i dont know what is. hell they even get to write off all the costs for exploration againts tax. this is the worst deal the countrys ever made, not to mention borderline unconstitutional

when you consider one of that duo has done time for corruption you have to admit theres questions to be answered (particularly when you consider the other half of that duo climbed every tree in dublin to find dirt on him and found nothing. just as well berties not a gard eh?)

LostinBlanch

Chavez has also pissed off Bush by giving cheap/free oil to the poor in Boston and New York. The cheek of him :rolleyes:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/11/24/1132703314620.html

Chavez's cheap oil for US poor angers Washington

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

By Alec Russell in Washington
November 25, 2005
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, has pulled off his greatest public relations coup yet in his campaign to irritate the Bush Administration with a deal to supply cheap fuel to thousands of poor residents of Boston and New York.

To the anger of many in Washington, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a company controlled by the Venezuelan Government, will supply more than 45 million litres of oil at 40 per cent below market prices.

The deal is one of the most spectacular moves yet in Mr Chavez's attempt to market his "21st-century socialism" using his country's oil wealth.

While it will not change many minds in Washington about his populist and autocratic regime, Caracas hopes it will bolster Mr Chavez's claim as the coming leader of an anti-capitalist Latin America. Mr Chavez, who once dubbed President George Bush a "genocidal madman" and led a huge anti-US protest earlier this month, first proposed his fuel offer in August when oil prices were at a record high after Hurricane Katrina.

Joe Kennedy, the chairman of Citizens Energy, one of the organisations that will distribute the oil, said the deal highlighted the failure of oil companies in the US and the Government to step in to help.

"Our government has made billions of dollars just this year on the royalty payments the oil companies pay to the Government," he said. But when it is a question of poor Americans, "what do we hear from Washington? Sorry boys. There's no money in the till."

To promote his dream, Mr Chavez has offered cheap oil and refineries to his neighbours and pledged financial support for regional development programs.

All the while he has positioned himself as a rival to Washington, accusing the Bush Administration of plotting a coup against him, and predicting the imminent demise of American capitalism.

The US on Wednesday threatened to block a record-breaking arms deal under which Spain would sell ships and aircraft to Venezuela, claiming that the €1.3 billion ($2 billion) arms deal with Mr Chavez could destabilise the region.

The deal, due to be signed in Caracas on Monday, would be a huge boost to Spain's ailing shipyard industry and to the rest of its defence industry.

"Those air or naval platforms include US technology," the US ambassador to Madrid, Eduardo Aguirre, said on Wednesday. "We have not yet decided whether to grant our permission for obtaining that technology."

constitutionus

thats absolutely ****ing brilliant!:D sheer genius, can you imagine turning around as a local rep and having to admit a foreign country is supplying most of the fuel in your constituency because it cant afford local fuel and the gov wont help. man bush must be going nuts

Sgt. Sensible

constitutionus wrote:

you do know ray "rambo" burke and bertie are responsible for the contract with shell that means they get all the oil and gas they find and get to sell it back to us at the market rate dont you? we dont even get a royalty out of it like the danes do. if thats not giving away the nations resoucres i dont know what is. hell they even get to write off all the costs for exploration againts tax. this is the worst deal the countrys ever made, not to mention borderline unconstitutional

I've often wondered about that.

bunreachtnaheireann wrote:

Article 10

1. All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution and all royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the State subject to all estates and interests therein for the time being lawfully vested in any person or body.

constitutionus

hang on does that mean the government can flog the air to a foreign multinational and we'd have to pay to breathe it? lord

Manic Moran

I'll be buggered. About the last person I would imagine to lambast Chavez for his lambasting of Bush would be Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

I can see Rangel's point of view: There's something called 'diplomatic courtesy.' Saying your piece on foreign soil is well and good (I presume the UN building counts), but to do so on your host's territory is just impolite.

NTM

lostexpectation

oh something interesting coming up when they vote for the south american place on the UNSC

venezuala vs guatemala with US and most of europe backing G and the most of south america, africa and arabia backing venezuala....

its secret vote but the above have publically pledge for Venezuala, so what we Ireland do

I wonder which country ireland is going to vote for...?

I looked for anything in ireland in the UN, didn't find much apparently on ambassador to the is man named David Cooney ever heard of him, not only did we have a seat and a vote at the time of the Afghanistan we were the chair of it!?



imagine they have to fight this hard just to get temporary seat.

Akrasia

constitutionus wrote:

hang on does that mean the government can flog the air to a foreign multinational and we'd have to pay to breathe it? lord

well, in Bolivia the IMF forced them to privatize all their water including every drop in every river lake and stream, and the water that fell from the sky as rain.

Free market enthusiasts like Milton Friedman believe that we should Privatize everything, every square inch of land on this planet, all the air, water, soil and sand.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

I'll be buggered. About the last person I would imagine to lambast Chavez for his lambasting of Bush would be Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

I can see Rangel's point of view: There's something called 'diplomatic courtesy.' Saying your piece on foreign soil is well and good (I presume the UN building counts), but to do so on your host's territory is just impolite.

NTM

would you be polite if you were speaking about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin?

Would you be polite if you were talking about the devil on a podium overlooking the river stix?

uberpixie

Akrasia wrote:

would you be polite if you were speaking about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin?

Would you be polite if you were talking about the devil on a podium overlooking the river stix?

To be fair, last I checked, Bush has said some very insulting things about Cahvez, so I don't think it's suprising that some mud gets slinged back:D.

Nice move with the low cost oil program. That will really piss off the US government while making Venezuela look very good.;)

galactus

Chavez is of the opinion that the UN has failed and he's quite right of course. What is the point in being polite?

"I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless. Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches"

The UN is powerless when faced with the US. Exposing the hypocrisy of the US (democracy and hegemony are not bedfellows) is entirely neccessary.

"Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions."

Chavez proposes moving the UN - an excellent idea.
"We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations. And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela."

Perhaps Ireland should join the non-aligned nations. After all, aren't we neutral?

Frederico

Strange to hear a polititian actually speak their mind without so much spin and ambiguity.

tallus

I think he's either nuts or has steel cohones. Either way I agree with Frederico, it's refreshing to see a bit of honesty, but I do think he could have gotten his point across with a bit more finesse. The "smell of sulphur" think was hillarious, don't think I have ever heard of a politiician talking like that before.

Manic Moran

uberpixie wrote:

To be fair, last I checked, Bush has said some very insulting things about Cahvez, so I don't think it's suprising that some mud gets slinged back:D.

Did Bush say anything about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country?

There are 'rules of the game.' Career diplomats spend years refining the art of how to act in host countries, openly insulting your host is simply 'bad form'

NTM

daithimac

althought the UN is in new york, it is considered international teritory. tecnically he was not in america.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Did Bush say anything about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country?

There are 'rules of the game.' Career diplomats spend years refining the art of how to act in host countries, openly insulting your host is simply 'bad form'

NTM

I don't think it makes a difference where you are. It's not Chavez's fault that the U.N. is based in New York. Why should Bush have home field advantage every year just because they own the patch of land the building is built on.

Chavez only gets one chance every year to address all of the World leaders. He should get to say anything he wants. I only wish all the other leaders were more honest and forthright in their position.

Trode

Can I assume everyone here applauding Chavez's honesty, wit and courage were similarly impressed with Bush's 'Axis of Evil' claptrap?
Or does 'Ha ha I don't like them so they're TEH DEVIL!!1!' suddenly become a devastatingly insightful and hilarious political commentary when you happen not to like the target?

layke

I think everyone has respect for him because he refuses to bow down to the America's usual I say you do atitude, has a more cut the **** attitude and actually has a spine to speak his mind unlike our own polititions. Plus he's giving them a taste of their own medicine and quite honestly he is making Bush and his party seem like a pack of tools who have invaded a counrty for oil when it's cheaper to buy it off the guys down the road.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

I don't think it makes a difference where you are. It's not Chavez's fault that the U.N. is based in New York. Why should Bush have home field advantage every year just because they own the patch of land the building is built on.

You will note that in my earlier post I made the assumption that the UN is foreign soil. (I believe it is).

Rangel's remarks came after Chavez made a speech in Harlem, which is the other end of New York from the UN buildings, right in the middle of his Constituency and very much un-related to the UN. I haven't too much issue with the UN speech, I think the Harlem speech is what broke Rangel's camel's back.

NTM

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

Did Bush say anything about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country?

There are 'rules of the game.' Career diplomats spend years refining the art of how to act in host countries, openly insulting your host is simply 'bad form'

NTM

Bush's government was involved in the Venezuelan coup in 2002 and so yeah Chavez is quite within his rights to say what he did.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html
http://foi.missouri.edu/federalfoia/usfundsaid.html

Akrasia

Trode wrote:

Can I assume everyone here applauding Chavez's honesty, wit and courage were similarly impressed with Bush's 'Axis of Evil' claptrap?
Or does 'Ha ha I don't like them so they're TEH DEVIL!!1!' suddenly become a devastatingly insightful and hilarious political commentary when you happen not to like the target?

Chavez is using his wit and poetic license to call for peace and prosperity for all, while Bush's axis of evil speech was a manifesto for unending war.

There is a significant difference

Trode

layke wrote:

I think everyone has respect for him because he refuses to bow down to the America's usual I say you do attitude, has a more cut the **** attitude and actually has a spine to speak his mind unlike our own polititions.

You don't see the irony in the fact that those are pretty much exactly the excuses given by Bush's supporters in defence of the lack of intelligence displayed in his speeches?

layke wrote:

Plus he's giving them a taste of their own medicine

or sinking to their level.

layke wrote:

and quite honestly he is making Bush and his party seem like a pack of tools who have invaded a country for oil when it's cheaper to buy it off the guys down the road.

Like they need any help with that.

I don't like Bush. At all. I have no problem with Chavez. I don't agree with his politics, but he seems to be making it work for his country in the face of mild opposition from the most powerful country on Earth. Respecting him is completely understandable.
But that doesn't mean you have to respect everything that comes out of his mouth. Childish name-calling is childish name-calling, no matter who's doing it. It isn't worthy of respect, and it certainly isn't worthy of overwhelming praise being heaped on the offender simply because he's 'speaking his mind'.

Trode

Akrasia wrote:

Chavez is using his wit and poetic license to call for peace and prosperity for all, while Bush's axis of evil speech was a manifesto for unending war.

There is a significant difference

Calling the (arguably) democratically elected leader of a country a tyrant, a dictator with imperialist ambitions and the devil himself to the UN, which he simultaneously decries as worthless and undemocratic, is a call for peace and prosperity? Would the same be true if Bush said those things?
In answering,try not to confuse the dancer with the dance.