kotzabasis said:
Your confused, the people of Venezuela have lived in poverty while they followed the empty promises of American bullshit and thier own corrput elites. Living conditions have changed drmatically for the better under Chavez.
hugo is the man
- Thread starter cortezzz
- Start date
Your confused, the people of Venezuela have lived in poverty while they followed the empty promises of American bullshit and thier own corrput elites. Living conditions have changed drmatically for the better under Chavez.
darkbeaver
Of course there was poverty before, that is stating the obvious. But the overwhelming evidence is that when leftists of the sort of Chavez take over their countries, they ruin their economies and worsen the poverty of their people. Whereas under the dynamism of individual enterpreunership, countries' economies have a great potential to develop and hence lessen their poverty. It's this fact that you completely disregard.
Of course there was poverty before, that is stating the obvious. But the overwhelming evidence is that when leftists of the sort of Chavez take over their countries, they ruin their economies and worsen the poverty of their people. Whereas under the dynamism of individual enterpreunership, countries' economies have a great potential to develop and hence lessen their poverty. It's this fact that you completely disregard.
Jay said:
NOW you might see a military strike against the Venezuelan military.
Chavez is unbalanced. Doing so is being more than deliberatively antagonistic. No country who buys fighter planes is allowed, by contract, to sell the planes to another country without the permission of the US.
Oh, but of course, it will be all about oil.
Actually, this makes some sense.
Chavez is up for election in November. He won't be running against a Venezuelan. He'll be running against the United States. The more agitated he can make the population, the more he can make them feel an attack is imminent, the more likely they will rally around him.
Chavez is up for election in November. He won't be running against a Venezuelan. He'll be running against the United States. The more agitated he can make the population, the more he can make them feel an attack is imminent, the more likely they will rally around him.
kotzabasis said:
I completely disregard you because youre completely wrong, if you could provide a list of failed leftist states that were not crushed by capitalist and covert western terrorism you would have an argument, but you can provide no list since none exists, therefore you are simply an imperial merchant of bullshit. :lol:
Toro said:
Its not hard to convince anybody in any country that the US is planning an attack, since the US has a long history of warfare and murder against the people of the world, Bush the christian is up for election in November, the only chances he has of electoral victory is fraud like the last two times or the crushing of Iran or both.
darkbeaver said:
Most sub-Saharan African nations in the 1960s set about increasing nationalization and government involvement in the economy as a way of throwing off imperialism. Most countries wound up stagnating and/or declining over the next 20-30 years. Certainly, there were other factors at play - most notably corruption - and its certainly pointless to apply such a standard for countries that are in a constant state of war. But most state enterprises set up in the 60s and 70s, and the economies tied to those enterprises, turned out to be failures. Even Jules Nyerere of Tanzania admitted at the end of his reign that his socialist experiment did not turn out the way he thought or hoped. Today, the biggest failure is Zimbabwe where they are seizing land, increasing tariffs and printing money causing hyperinflation.
Its difficult to argue that China was better off in 1980 than it was in 1960. Also, North Korea, Cambodia. The policy of import substitution in India was a failure.
Though considered right-wing, the governments of Latin America were disasters following what we would generally think of as policies advocated on the Left (though you hear such economically ignorant people on the right, ie Pat Buchanan, advocating many of the same things). These policies include import-subsitution and protection of national industries through high tariffs, nationalization of resources, and monetizing national debt by keeping interest rates low and printing money creating hyperinflation. Whether or not these policies are implemented by left or right wing governments, these are policies of state intervention, generally not supported by those advocating free markets.
darkbeaver said:Toro said:
Its not hard to convince anybody in any country that the US is planning an attack, since the US has a long history of warfare and murder against the people of the world, Bush the christian is up for election in November, the only chances he has of electoral victory is fraud like the last two times or the crushing of Iran or both.
Excuse me?
I'll ignore the rest of the BS in this post, but Bush is NOT up for re-election this year. First of all, it is NOT a Presidential election year, and secondly, even if it were, Bush is Constitutionally prohibited from serving more than two full terms.
The rest of your post is about as accurate as your election contention.
Toro said:
Blah blah blah blah blah cough blah blah, if you don't have a list why did you bother to relpy to my post? Capitalism and the free market ripoff are going down the hole followed by the sick American empire with all it's rubes dudes and rowdys. :lol:
Nice list but it's produced by The Fund for Peace based in Washington and therfore inacurate and misleading. The organization is it's own failed state. Most of the countrys on the list have been driven to thier present condition by free market pillage and military intervention sponsered by or conducted by the US.
Re: RE: hugo is the man
Oh, yes. Its only valid if it comes from GlobalResearch, or some other bizarre, fringe organization.
darkbeaver said:
Oh, yes. Its only valid if it comes from GlobalResearch, or some other bizarre, fringe organization.
