Chavez 'united' with Syria against US aggression

[bemildred]

A three popcorn story, I'd say ...
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that his government is united with Syria in strong opposition to the United States' "imperialistic aggression" in the Middle East.

"We are here in Damascus to call for peace," Chavez told Syrian state television on Tuesday night. "These two countries are strongly united against the imperialistic aggression and hegemonic pretensions of the US empire."

Chavez said that during his visit in Syria officials of both governments will sign a document opposing Washington's "aggression" in the Middle East.

JPost

[William769]

1. When you sleep with dogs...

[Kickoutthejams23]

5. Has Satan not been returning his calls?

Is there a dictator on earth this idiot hasn't swapped spit with in the last six months? ( Okay the Saudi Royal family but dammit that's Shrub's girl!)

[IndianaGreen]

11. The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Republicans are Nazis. Bush is Hitler. The war in Iraq is evil. Those that want war against Iran are insane.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Except when he is not.

"Republicans are Nazis." No. Not even close at this point. This is as stupid as when they claim that Democrats are Nazis!

"Bush is Hitler." :eyes:

"The war in Iraq is evil." You got ONE! :applause:

"Those that want war against Iran are insane." Insane or just don't care would be my guess, leaning more toward the latter though.

[geek tragedy]

49. Israel is Venezuela's enemy?

Boy, those pesky Zionists really do have a long reach, don't they?

[IndianaGreen]

59. Straw man much?

:puke:

[geek tragedy]

65. You're the one who said "the enemy of my enemy

is my friend" to explain why Hugo Chavez is sucking up to the dictator of Syria.

[psychopomp]

121. That was in reference to the U.S.A.

Headline: Chavez 'united' with Syria against US aggression

[Behind the Aegis]

22. I don't know that North Korea is on his "Rainbow Tour."

I also hear that there are some American/Israeli hating dictators in Africa yet to get an audience with this leader.

[hogwyld]

37. Someone has to stand up against

The 2 most agressive, imperialistic, immoral governments of the last 30 years, save Clinton's admin.

[geek tragedy]

40. Chavez stood up to Saddam and Hafez al-Assad?

Each of them killed far more Muslims than the US and Israel combined.

[hogwyld]

45. Sure, you just keep on dreaming...

How many U.N resolutions has Israel either ignored or broken? How many times has the U.S. vetoed resolutions to the puppet master? Have you overlooked that israel has imprisoned an entire people? How about the apartheid wall, and their south afrikan desire to subjucate anyone not jewish?

[geek tragedy]

47. Your hatred of Israel is irrational.

Israel has not committed the crimes that Baathist Iraq or Baathist Syria have.

If you're wondering what crimes I'm talking about, you have no clue as to the history of the Middle East.

[hogwyld]

50. And yet you say nothing about the atrocities

Committed on the Palestinians. Checkpoints everywhere, control of their daily lives. Land siezures. Preventing the free flow of people and trade between cities. Private roads for israelis only.

[geek tragedy]

53. Sure they've committed crimes and should be held

accountable.

But to label Israel as one of the two worst human-rights abusing states of the past thirty years is just insane. Have you ever heard of the Sudan? Syria? Saddam? Russia (ask the Chechens)? Serbia? Rwanda? North Korea?

[Behind the Aegis]

75. Hyperbole much?

I won't go into it because geek tragedy did a good job.

[donsu]

55. girl? don't you mean boy?

women and girls have no power in S.A.

or were you using girl as a demeaning misogynist word?

[bigluckyfeet]

7. I Admire any Man

Who takes a stand against the monkey.

[rman]

28. yeah, divide and conquer doesn't seem to be working as well

as it used to.

[The Stranger]

39. Who is sleeping with dogs? That is, unless you buy the Neoprop.

Not many here do.

[geek tragedy]

41. Syria is a Baathist dictatorship. eom

[The Stranger]

51. I asked about "dogs." Some consider the U.S. to be a dictatorship, or

at least heading in that direction. That doesn't mean that no one is to have anything to do with the Nation or that it is somehow less than human, thus the reference to "dogs." There are far worse "dictatorships" than this one.

[geek tragedy]

54. Chavez has been hanging with plenty of dogs these

days. Ahmadinejad, Baby Assad, etc.

I'm sure he'll have cuddle time with the government of The Sudan next.

[The Stranger]

84. Oh please, Assad is a dentist, or a doctor. Get real with the Neoprop.

[geek tragedy]

86. He's also a dictator who inherited power from his father, a man

who killed more Arabs in one day than Ariel Sharon did in his entire life.

[The Stranger]

94. He's not a dictator -- he's a dentist. And he wasn't groomed for the

position, he was forced into it when his brother died in a car accident. Your trying to make this guy into Saddam Hussein or Stalin is laughable. The Neocons want the U.S. to hate Syria because their plan all along has been to launch preemptive wars and occupy Syria.

[geek tragedy]

96. What is he, then, a king?

Your argument is completely nonsensical.

[TheLastMohican]

106. Since you have mentioned Sharon

He was quite a butcher in Sabra and Shatila. Now that lifeless sack of shit is deservingly living the life of a vegetable.
But you missed the real event. China signed an agreement with Venezuela for a large shipment of oil. The raving neocon freaks are hitting the ceiling from madness.


This Chavez scare-mongering is getting old. He does what is best for his country. It doesn't necessarily be good for US. But isn't it the way US runs foreign policy?

[geek tragedy]

107. I could give a shit about Chavez on a strategic level.

His domestic social policies are largely going in the right direction, and while he isn't Mr. Civil Liberties, there are far worse in this world of ours.

I just find it odd that so many people deify and canonize a guy who's every bit as willing as Bush to cuddle up to loathsome dictators and theocrats.

[hogwyld]

113. Of course we can canonize the guy

After all, didn't our beloved FDR sidle up with Stalin and Mao against the Nazi's? You get your allies where you can to combat a greater evil.

[paulk]

136. You equate Stalin and Mao with the United States?

That's quite a stretch...

Really.

[YOY]

2. He is messing around with a devil that he doesn't know...

I'd recommend staying with disliking the devil he does and avoiding the delusional 'enemy of my enemy' aphorism.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Assad wants peace, and he wants the Golan back

Syrian women are better off than Iraqi women, at least since the US "liberated" them. I have seen enough of Bush's "freedom and democracy" to know I want no part of it.

[killbotfactory]

21. Didn't Syria also help us with Al-Qeada intel?

I guess that was before Bush made public his desire to "transform" the middle east into his image.

[YOY]

32. Assad's personal track record I am not extremely familiar with

However, I know that Syria's track record itself is nothing to brag about.

[geek tragedy]

48. Hafez al-Assad (from whom Baby Assad inherited power)

once massacred 20,000 people in one town to discourage dissent.

[killbotfactory]

81. The current Assad is or was considered a somewhat of a reformer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3849909.stm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504220340apr22,1,1396893.story
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0520/p09s01-wome.html

I'm sure threats from the US is helping things along.

[geek tragedy]

42. He also favors dictatorship. Baby Assad's daddy could teach

the Neocons many things about sheer brutality and inhumanity.

The dead of Hama are the cornerstone of the Baathist state.

[IndianaGreen]

57. We know what happened when we toppled the Baathists of Iraq

it led to an Islamic Republic heavily influenced by Iran.

Is that what you want for Syria as well?

What kind of pro-Israel supporter is one that would wish the secular Baathist government of Syria to be replaced by another Islamic theocracy influenced by the ayatollahs of Iran?

Looks to me that those of us that want Israel to return to her pre-June 1967 borders, and want her to make peace with her enemies are the true friends of Israel. The status quo is harming Israel as much as it harming the United States.

[geek tragedy]

58. The choice was not 'Saddam or anarchy or theocracy"

in Iraq, just as it is possible for Syria to follow a path other than dictatorship, secular or otherwise.

The United States should have no role in Syria's internal politics, and the Syrian people have the absolute right to decide for themselves what form of government they want.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Are you advocating Bush's "freedom and democracy" for the world?

That's exactly what it sounds you are saying!

[geek tragedy]

64. Leave it up to a Stalinist to

equate support for Democracy to Bush.

You must have missed the part where I plainly said, and I quote:

<b>The United States should have no role in Syria's internal politics</b>

[ldf]

109. yeah, just like we have

no influence on the internal politics of iraq?

syria is just one of the next dominos the pnacers have their eyes on, along with iran.

hugo is playing politics. he is pretty good at it. and he is a thorn in little lord pissypants' side.

[geek tragedy]

123. What part of the word "should" is ambiguous? eom

[0007]

3. Ah the good old Jerusalem Post! Who can trust that right wing

rag?

[cigsandcoffee]

4. It's all over the place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901599.html

Chavez Says Syria, Venezuela United

By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 29, 2006; 10:35 PM

1 CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday his government is united with Syria in strong opposition to the U.S. government's "imperialistic" aggression in the Middle East.

"We are here in Damascus to call for peace," Chavez told Venezuela's state television by phone shortly after arriving in Syria late Tuesday. "These two countries are strongly united against the imperialistic aggression and hegemonic pretensions of the U.S. empire."

[Behind the Aegis]

24. .

:eyes:

It was a story by the Associated Press, not JPost.

[0007]

36. cough cough

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525969446&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

72. Try Robetussin.

The story was from AP, not the JPOST, as another poster pointed out! It just happened to be the one used to start this thread. I guess the OP could have used the WashPost, but may have not known it was there.

[hogwyld]

6. So what's going to happen when

Chavez visits the other 160+ countries, and they all rise up against us and israel???

[Judi Lynn]

8. Your pResident "rose up" against Chavez, incidently, butting into

the people of Venezuela's right to elect their own President and have him serve in that capacity until his term is up.

Maybe you didn't hear about that.

[hogwyld]

15. Sorry, my president is Gore

What I meant to say was I hope he can teach that little prick in the wh (white house) some much needed humility. I used the uncapitolized version of the U.S. and Isreale to highlight how far down the tubes we have gone. Peace!

[IndianaGreen]

10. What do you mean by "us"? I am not part of that "us" of yours!

Iraq is not my war. Bush is not my President. And Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, and the Golan belongs to Syria, and Israel should live in peace behind her 1949 borders.

[hogwyld]

14. It was a rhetorical question

I hate * , and every single one of his fucked up policies as much as anybody. Maybe it was badly worded, but my point was that when Hugo gets the rest of the world to gang up on us (meaning the United States, no us as in DU or libruls) and shun us, MAYBE then, the people here will finally come to their senses.

[IndianaGreen]

16. I fear that people won't come to their senses, but will seek scapegoats

and embrace fascism out of fear.

[hogwyld]

18. This is exactly why we need to take back control

Oh, and when I say we, I mean libral/progressives. Only when we become a better nation, will the world look up to us again with admiration and respect instead of loathing.

[donsu]

56. ditto

nt

[IndianaGreen]

9. "We are here in Damascus to call for peace"

A common bond that Chavez shares with hundreds of millions of people around the world, and millions of progressives in America, that are repelled by Bush's and Olmert's wars of aggression, and like Chavez said, are "strongly united against the imperialistic aggression and hegemonic pretensions of the US empire."

US Out of Iraq! No Iran War! Israel out of Palestine!

[geek tragedy]

43. Would a man of peace send missiles to Hezbollah? eom

[IndianaGreen]

61. Would a man of peace bomb Beirut like the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw?

Would a man of peace prevent the UN from calling for a ceasefire to allow Israel to kill more civilians in Lebanon?

Looks to me that your champions, Bush and Olmert, have something to explain to the International Crimes Court at The Hague.

[geek tragedy]

66. I haven't praised Bush and Olmert. You have praised

Nasrallah and the dictator of Syria.

Appropriate conclusions can be drawn.

[mitchtv]

78. the ecoterrorism was the last straw for me

If there is a God he will pay Israel back in spades

[Jim Sagle]

170. Only if God is really the devil.

[geek tragedy]

44. Would a man of peace send missiles to Hezbollah? eom

[gorbal]

13. Sometimes I wish he would lay low

Not give the Bush administration to call him a "security risk". It's good that he stands up for other countries, but does he want that "X" on his back to get any bigger?

[killbotfactory]

17. They had him on his sights long ago

If anything, making controversial statements that get a lot of press makes it harder for the US to get away with making him "disappear"

[hogwyld]

19. I hope he never shuts up!

Because if the fascist succeed in intimidating him, or shutting him up by other means, what's to stop them from "shutting us up" for criticizing the government?

[ronnie624]

20. Notice how "aggression"

is placed in quotation, as if the thoroughly documented history of U.S. aggression in the Middle East is merely a matter of opinion or interpretation.

Chavez said that during his visit in Syria officials of both governments will sign a document opposing Washington's "aggression" in the Middle East.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Do you understand why that is in quotes?

It is not, as you surmise, because "...U.S. aggression in the Middle East is merely a matter of opinion or interpretation."

The very first paragraph has a quoted statement, too. It is: "...in strong opposition to the United States' "imperialistic aggression" in the Middle East." Gee, why did they quote that statement? Well, it is because Chavez said: ""We are here in Damascus to call for peace," Chavez told Syrian state television on Tuesday night. "These two countries are strongly united against the imperialistic aggression and hegemonic pretensions of the US empire.""

Therefore, the "aggression" quote is not because it is "...merely a matter of opinion or interpretation", but rather, because it is a DIRECT quote from Chavez, himself, and why he is going to "...sign a document opposing Washington's "aggression" in the Middle East"!

[rman]

30. I think the notion of US (imperialistic) agression is so common place,

it requires no quotations. It's not as though Chavez is unique in saying such things about the US.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. Irrelevant.

It wasn't quoted for the reasons that the other poster surmised. Instead, it became fodder for something ludicrous.

[rman]

33. Does the MSM use quotes when they talk about the war on terror, or

axis of evil (quoting the Bush admin)?

I think the not-so-mainstream media do tend to, but not the MSM, certainly not now that it's years ago when those phrases were first used.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Actually...

When I see those terms it is usually, The War on Terror or the The Axis of Evil. No quotes are used. The MSM use them as "titles," much like movies. However, I have seen them quoted a number of times. The MSM use them like movie titles, the not-so-MSM use them for the word play they actually are. That still doesn't explain your response to me regarding the irrelevance of the quotes in this article.

[rman]

35. Right. And you don't often see US Imperialist Agression

(without quotes) used by the MSM; they put it in quotes as though it is word play, as you call it.

Which is the point i (and i think the other poster) was/were making.

[Behind the Aegis]

76. It is word play.

In this case, the playing comes from Chavez. However, that is still irrelevant to why the word is in quotes. It is a direct quote of his words.

[The Stranger]

38. Neither Chavez nor Assad used the word "aggression" --

that is, unless they were speaking English, which is HIGHLY doubtful. Therefore, someone must have TRANSLATED from Spanish and/or Arabic and used the word for the quote.

THEN, AFTER USING THE WORD IN TRANSLATION, they also decided to put it in quotes, as the OP said, indicating that U.S. aggression in the Middle East is some far-out fantasy.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. Your post makes NO sense!

They could have used the word 'aggression' it would have just been in Spanish or Arabic, unless you somehow think that word doesn't exist in either of those languages.

After translating, the word was quoted because it was an exact word used by Chavez and not as the OP speculates that it is a way to say that US policy in the ME is some "far-out fantasy."

[The Stranger]

85. "Aggression" is an English word. It must have been translated from

one or two other languages, probably other phrases and terms. Is this too difficult to understand?

[Behind the Aegis]

88. I know which language it is.

It seems you have no point whatsoever.

See this:

""We are here in Damascus to call for peace," Chavez told Syrian state television on Tuesday night. "These two countries are strongly united against the imperialistic aggression and hegemonic pretensions of the US empire.""

I am guessing that statement was in Spanish, and translated into Arabic. Thus, when the writer refereed back to that statement, s/he correctly quoted the exact translation of the word used by Chavez. By using the quotes, the author makes it clear that is the statement by Chavez and not the author's choice. unless you are the author, you cannot do anything but speculate what word he would or wouldn't have used in place of the DIRECT quoted word from Chavez!

[The Stranger]

95. You still don't get it, do you.

The word "aggression" is a translation from one or more words in another language. It is not necessary to put it in quotation marks once it is translated.

And the original point was that the English version puts it in quotation marks for an entirely different reason. Not all of the TRANSLATED quotation was put in quotation marks, only the "aggression" part was.

And this implies that there is something defective or wrong about the use of this word. That is the point.

[Behind the Aegis]

101. You are the one who doesn't get it.

You are also making something out of nothing.

"It is not necessary to put it in quotation marks once it is translated." This is not true.

The chief use of quotation marks is quite easy to understand: a pair of quotation marks encloses a direct quotation ‹ that is, a repetition of someone's exact words. Here are some examples:

President Kennedy famously exclaimed "Ich bin ein Berliner!"
Madonna is fond of declaring "I'm not ashamed of anything."
"The only emperor", writes Wallace Stevens, "is the emperor of ice cream."
Look closely at these examples. Note first that what is enclosed in quotes must be the exact words of the person being quoted. Anything which is not part of those exact words must be placed outside the quotes, even if, as in the last example, this means using two sets of quotes because the quotation has been interrupted.
Consequently, the following example is wrong:

*Thomas Edison declared that "Genius was one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration."
Here the passage inside the quotes transparently does not reproduce Edison's exact words. There are three ways of fixing this. First, drop the quotes:
Thomas Edison declared that genius was one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.
Second, rewrite the sentence so that you can use Edison's exact words:
According to Thomas Edison, "Genius is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration."
Third, move the quotes so that they enclose only Edison's exact words:
Thomas Edison declared that genius was "one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration".
All three of these are perfect, since only Edison's exact words are enclosed in quotes. source

Finally, here is another example of what we are discussing:

Lawyers cite concerns in Iraq murder case
By Adam Tanner

CAMP PENDLETON, California (Reuters) - Lawyers for two U.S. Marines accused of murdering an Iraqi civilian expressed concern on Wednesday over their clients' ability to get a fair trial and one criticized a pretrial hearing as a "rubber-stamping process."

...

The accused troops allegedly shot 52-year-old disabled Hashim Ibrahim Awad after dragging him from his home, then planted an AK-47 assault rifle and a shovel next to his body to make it appear he was an insurgent placing a roadside bomb.

...

Jodka attorney Joseph Casas criticized the hearing before it started. "Chances are this will be a rubber-stamping process," he said.

Another of his attorneys, Jane Siegel, complained that his right to a fair trial would be jeopardized by the disclosure of details given in written and videotaped statements by witnesses.

"When the cat is out of the bag and the bell is rung there is no way to get evidence out of a juror's head," Siegel said. "To openly discuss the contents of the statement will completely pollute a local and national pool."

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/ts_nm/iraq_usa_mari... DU Discussion thread

(Emphasis added)

The reason the word agression was quoted was because in this sentence, "Chavez said that during his visit in Syria officials of both governments will sign a document opposing Washington's "aggression" in the Middle East" the word "agression" is the only one that is directly quoted. There is nothing sinister, despite you and the OP's desire for there to be.

[NuttyFluffers]

115. irrelevant sources. there could be a real translational issue.

i would have to read the spanish or arabic transcript, if there is one. there's quite a bit, as i'm in training to become a professional linguist, that just does not translate, or translate incompletely, as you already know. you are trying to push an assertion that "IT IS WHAT IS SAID IT IS," when you know perfectly well that you cannot possibly know that unless you read the transcripts, preferrably in the original language. so, instead of trying to assert a point you cannot possibly defend (unless *you* were the translator there), it would be wise to back off. you don't know, i don't know, and the only source of "knowing" provided is the LENS of a writer of an AP article -- which is a pretty bad lens to place much faith in. language is all about nuance, as is politics, and media's whole dichotomic raison d'etre is on the scale of faithful transmission of truth to subtle manipulative lies.

i'd let this one go if i were you.

[Behind the Aegis]

119. Then provide the original!

I can read Spanish.

Stop trying to back up this "they are always mistranslated" bullshit mantra!

[Lurking Dem]

122. "agresion" is pretty easy to translate

http://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/ediciones/2006/08/31/politica/espana-mundo/d31esp20.676765.php

[Lurking Dem]

128. This quote was also a winner -

Chávez fue más allá en sus acusaciones contra Tel Aviv al afirmar que "Israel, en su estado actual, nos recuerda el nazismo".

[ronnie624]

52. I don't think you know what your talking about. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Think what you like.

I clearly explained how your conclusion was faulty.

[ronnie624]

102. You may have explained

something, but you certainly didn't do it very clearly.

Chavez said that during his visit in Syria officials of both governments will sign a document opposing Washington's "aggression" in the Middle East.

Notice how the article claims "Chavez said", but only the word "aggression" is in quotation. It seems to me, if the author of this article had intended to simply quote Chavez, he/she would have included the actual statement by Chavez. Obviously the author of this bit of garbage does not necessarily agree with the claim by Chavez that the U.S. is guilty of aggression in the middle East. Clearly, this person is either an idiot or a liar who propagandizes for their corporate masters.

Your "explanation" makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of honesty and a decent understanding of how the English language is recorded in text.

[Behind the Aegis]

104. See post #101

The line you provide is restating the actual full quote. You are making a big deal about absolutely nothing.

[ronnie624]

105. I posted an observation

about an article, generating a sub-thread consisting of twenty-two posts, five of which were mine, and ten of which were yours.

I can't imagine how you conclude that I'm making a big deal of anything.

[breakaleg]

117. Exactly!

I got your explanation perfectly, but BehindtheAgeis' "explanation" was as you described.

[Behind the Aegis]

143. No it wasn't.

The only people that seems to think that are those who are anti-Israeli.

[geek tragedy]

67. Kind of like how Reuters and the BBC refuse to

label Al Qaeda as 'terrorists.'

[killbotfactory]

87. You don't know what you are talking about

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/hunt_for_al_qaeda.shtml

Peter Taylor presents a special three-part series which reveals how a global Al Qaeda network was uncovered and how it evolved new structures, in response to the inroads made by counter-terrorist agents spanning the globe.

[geek tragedy]

93. Check out reports about specific terrorist incidents

like the London bombing or Bali--they call the people who carry out those attacks "militants" not "terrorists."

[killbotfactory]

108. Like this one?

The Bali bombers' network of terror

"Some analysts warn, however, that it is not clear how far JI is a structured organisation, or whether it is a loose affiliation of like-minded people, many of whom have no interest in terrorism."

and

"Mr Ba'asyir denies any involvement in terrorist acts, and denies that JI even exists."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2499193.stm

They call them militants, sure, but say they are engaged in terrorism.

[ronnie624]

103. My post had nothing to do with labels.

I drew attention to the context in which a particular word was being used in the OP's article. The context of the word "aggression" - in quotation - was clearly designed to foment doubt in the mind of the reader with regard to the aggressive intervention by the United States in the Middle East.

I think some posters on this thread are being dishonest about the way written language is used to convey a message beyond that which is contained within the text itself, such as the use of quotation. These posters have themselves used this device to convey a double entendre, yet now, they would have others believe they have never heard of such a thing.

Bizarre.

[kamtsa]

25. Cindy Sheehan in good company.

[Judi Lynn]

26. These poor "journalistic" bastards are so gripped by their own need

to spin some raving propaganda, they often forget the entire point of events. It's good to take a quiet moment to remind people there is an actual POINT to this trip outside the right-wing loons' version of the news:

Venezuela's Chavez to Travel to Syria to Sign Energy Agreements

By Peter Wilson

Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will visit Syria tomorrow to strengthen energy cooperation between the two countries.

Chavez, 52, will sign several energy agreements during the visit, a foreign ministry spokesman said today in a telephone interview. Chavez will visit Syria on his way to Angola, the last scheduled stop on his current tour of Asia and Africa.

The spokesman declined comment on how long Chavez would be in Syria.

Venezuela has repeatedly said it wants to diversify customers for its crude oil. The South American country now sends about 60 percent of its 2 million barrels in daily oil exports to the U.S. Relations between the two countries have worsened since Chavez took office in 1999.
(snip/)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aquJdP9yUOBU&refer=latin_america

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It must be exhausting, trying to pretend you're a bonafide journalist when anyone can see you're a hired yarn spinner, cheater, a social criminal, a professional LIAR!

[geek tragedy]

46. Of course he's going to use that rhetoric to score

points with potential customers in the Muslim world.

It still shows that there is no government so objectively odious that he won't snuggle up next to them.

He's like George Galloway in that respect.

[Bacchus39]

62. good post. anyone who is an enemy of the US

, and most deservedly so, is someone Chavez wants to suck up to.

[IndianaGreen]

111. Despite what you might believe, Bush is NOT the US

Bush is our enemy. Bush is the enemy of real freedom. Bush is the greatest threat to global peace since the Third Reich. I applaud efforts by President Chavez to forge coalitions with other nations that despite being different from Venezuela, do share a bond with all anti-Bush and anti-imperialist forces in the world.

Israel would do herself a favor by reconsidering her alliance with Bush and his neocon cabal, as in the recent article by Jim Lobe indicates:

(I)n the opening days of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, the White House not only reportedly rebuffed an appeal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself for Washington to quietly approach Damascus about pressing Hezbollah to release two Israeli soldiers whose capture touched off the crisis, but also urged Olmert, according to one account in the ‘Jerusalem Post', to attack Syria directly.

‘'In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, (deputy national security advisor Elliot) Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbour, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria,'' a well-informed source, who received an account of the meeting from one of its participants, told IPS here this week.

While Abrams was discreetly urging Israel to expand the war to Syria, his neo-conservative allies, some of whom, like former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, are regarded as close to Vice President Dick Cheney, were more explicit, to the extent even of expressing disappointment over Israel's lack of aggressiveness or success in ‘'getting the job done.''

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-05.htm

[gorbal]

63. I guess I have been relying to heavily on western media for my info

On the middle east at least. I have it imprinted on my mind that Iran and Syria are dangerous, I probably should do some more reading. I have been unconsciously holding on to my last strings of trust in the western media, but they have completely fraid and broken off in the last couple of months.

I'm all for taking a stand against imperialism, I'm just worried about how it will play out.

[Judi Lynn]

68. We're all floating in a sea of misinformation, aren't we?

It takes real work studying what we're given long enough to start seeing the patterns, kinda like those "Magic Eye" 3-D illusion pictures!

[geek tragedy]

69. Yes, heaven forbid that anyone think that Iran

and its clients are a threat. I mean, what in the name of Ibrahim Hussein Berro are we thinking?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9983810/from/RL.5/

[Judi Lynn]

70. Yes, geek tragedy. You're always right, of course!

Yessss, allllllwayssssss riiiiiggghhhhhttttt.

http://www.hypnosiscourse.com/hypnotized!.JPG

We've obviously all been misled, it's plain to see!

[geek tragedy]

71. Well, the Iranians/Hezbollah

have seen fit to murder Jews in Argentina.

Why wouldn't people consider those kind of people dangerous?

I mean, those 13,000 missiles that Iran/Hezbollah put on the border with Israel--merely harmless and for show, really.

Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for years now. It's not a strategic threat to the United States, but they are bad, bad actors on the international scene.

[oblivious]

79. BBC: Hezbollah denies Argentina bomb

Friday, 11 November 2005

Islamic militant group Hezbollah has denied that one of its members was the suicide bomber who attacked a Jewish community centre in Argentina in 1994.

...But Hezbollah said that he had died in southern Lebanon while fighting Israel.

...But Hezbollah described the accusations as "categorically false".

"The martyr Ibrahim Hussein Berro was among the mujahedeen brothers who were martyred during a confrontation between the Islamic Resistance and the Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon," it said in a statement.

...Argentine, US and Israeli officials have all said that Iran is to blame - a charge Tehran denies.

Independent investigators are sceptical, correspondents say.

They point to repeated incompetence and deception in the official investigation, in which no proper autopsies or DNA tests were done on human remains at the site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4426970.stm

[geek tragedy]

80. And you believe them. How touching.

Then again, you also don't think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ever denied the Holocaust, so we know exactly where you're coming from.

[oblivious]

82. BBC: Iran has repeatedly & vehemently denied any involvement in the attack

Argentina marks 1994 bomb attack
18 July 2006

...Nobody has ever been convicted, but the current government has said it is determined to secure justice.

A prosecutor last year blamed Hezbollah for the blast, which the group denied.

...Unsolved

Over the years, the case has been marked by rumours of cover-ups and accusations of incompetence but little in the way of hard evidence.

Minor figures, including a policeman who sold the van used in the attack have been named, but no-one has been convicted.

Many accused previous governments of doing too little to find the perpetrators.

...Local Jewish groups have long said the bombing bore the hallmarks of Iranian-backed Islamic militants.

Iran has repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the attack.

Last November, an Argentine prosecutor said a member of the Islamic militant group, Hezbollah, was behind the attack and had been identified in a joint effort by Argentine intelligence and the FBI.

But Hezbollah said that the man, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, had died in southern Lebanon while fighting Israel.

The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people, also remains unsolved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5190892.stm

[geek tragedy]

83. Well, Iran's president also denied the Holocaust happened

so there you go.

[oblivious]

89. Iran's president has acknowledged the Holocaust.

But I know you need to believe he didn't so badly because you want to see those bombs dropping. I can almost see you drooling at the prospect. So keep up the propaganda and maybe your dream will come true.

[geek tragedy]

90. No, he really hasn't.

He has called it into question several times, and this time said that "I won't argue about it, but even assuming that it did happen" . . . --his standard rhetorical play.

I don't think the US should invade or attack Iran, and I strongly oppose such a move. But I won't act as a propaganda agent for Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad.

[geek tragedy]

91. Unless you think the phrase:

"But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them."

doesn't sound like much of an acknowledgement. Especially considering that he has REPEATEDLY engaged in Holocaust denial (something that only his diehard apologists and supporters acknowledge).

[rman]

77. We're all worried

about how things will play out.

The thing is, the current state of affairs; the imperialism, isn't playing out to well for like half the global population (3 billion people living on less than $2 a day http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp#fact1).

[rman]

29. The more opposition to US agression, the better. nt

[MikeyJones]

92. First the Belarusian asshole, now Assad??

I tend to hold Chavez in a fairly high esteem but he's giving me reason to downgrade his status. Maybe he's so desperate for friends that he's turning to our quasi-enemies.

After all, if the administration blacklists you expect the rest of the Western world to follow suit lock, stock, and barrel.

[Master of Disaster]

97. I see that the little boy is seeking attention again...

He needs to come up with something a little more original though.

His repetitive, simple minded rhetoric is getting old. :boring:

[oblivious]

98. LOL. LOL. Chavez now called "Venezuelan Marxist leader and strongman".

Venezuelan Chavez Partners with Syria for New World

By Sher Zieve – Venezuelan Marxist leader and strongman Hugo Chavez continued his anti-US rhetoric, when he met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday. Chavez met with Assad at the Syrian presidential palace.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17815.html

[citizen snips]

99. duh

anything anti-US is marxist.

:sarcasm:

[Minstrel Boy]

100. FDR "united" with the USSR against German aggression

World wars make unlikely bedfellows. And don't think we're not in one.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

112. Stalin's redeeming quality is that he didn't have a Religious Right

Under Stalin, pukes like James Dobson, Pat Roberson, Jerry Falwell, and other like-minded Christiano-Fascists, would have been sentenced to hard labor for poisoning the people with their theological filth.

[Superman Returns]

116. yeah sorry

Stalin had no reeeming qualities. I'll take battling the Roberstons of my country over having the biggest mass murderer in history as my ruler. Your not a Democrat your a Stalinist.

[MikeyJones]

134. I agree completely.

"Stalin had no reeeming qualities. I'll take battling the Roberstons of my country over having the biggest mass murderer in history as my ruler. Your not a Democrat your a Stalinist."

Amen.

What he obviously doesn't understand is that even with the Dobsonites we still have a fairly stable democracy, or at least one that we can still fight for. Under such a madman as Stalin, most Democrats would be sent to gulags because they wouldn't agree with his authoritarian tactics.

Not to mention Stalin would probably come for him next.

[IndianaGreen]

156. Yeah, and you are also straight

and you have no clue what it is to be like at the receiving end of the homophobic Religious Right.

[Superman Returns]

165. look,

I'm not trying to be mean. Just because Stalin had no religous fundamentalists is his country does not excuse the evil of his regime. The Soviet people had no freedom. Millions died. He killed more humans on earth than Hitler. Hell, Stalin wasn't even a real communist. I'm sure you with the Karl Marx avatar would know that. He was an authorotarian dictator. I highly doubt many of the DU community which is outspoken for progressive values would last a day in Stalin's Soviet Union. Sadly this country has its share of fundamentalists and false prophets that put negative pressure on gays. However, this goes along with free speech. This is where we come in. Its our job to fight them in the realm of public opinion and make our case, and reform our laws, and grant equality to all. Also, homophobia does not always stem from religious nuts. A lot of people in general are homophobic. So lets not paint religion with a broad stroke here.

[Judi Lynn]

118. Theological filth is about right. It also contains a murderous edge.

These people would be hell on wheels if they weren't afraid of rupturing their images with their sheep.

Who would truly be willing to overlook Robertson and Falwell's close friendship with one of the bloodiest, dirtiest, most evil monster to have ever lived in the Western Hemisphere, Efraín Ríos Montt? Holy keerist.

For that matter, Falwell's pretty high on Rev. Moon, as well. Scums. Pure filth. Con men, grifters, scum.

[geek tragedy]

125. Of course, Stalinism doesn't have a murderous edge.

It's murderous in its entirety.

[IndianaGreen]

157. Heteros like yourself are not threatened by the Religious Right

LGBTs are the targets of those you defend.

[geek tragedy]

173. Oh please. I'm not defending Dobson et al. They're scum.

However, they rank much lower on the historical totem pole of evildoers than Stalin.

[MikeyJones]

135. I'm not overlooking Robertson and company

But that doesn't give us license to blindly sweep the crimes of communist dictators like Mao and Stalin under the rug just because some on the left are Marxists. These men were still the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers of their day. And to have a president of the United States being so buddy-buddy with him sends shivers down my spine.

[geek tragedy]

124. Worshipping Stalin was the state religion of the USSR.

The Soviet ideology was every bit as superstitious, repressive, and even anti-science as anything Dobson et al have to offer.

[IndianaGreen]

158. Stalin is history, Dobson et al are reality

and like I said, heteros such as yourself have no clue what it is like to be the targets of the Religious Right.

[MikeyJones]

129. Stalin had no redeeming qualities

The man was a mass-murderer and a fucking monsterous pig.

[IndianaGreen]

159. Bush is the only monster today

and those Bible thumpers that use religion to justify Bush's policies are the enemy!

[Behind the Aegis]

163. If you think that...

...you are blind!

[IndianaGreen]

164. If you don't see Bush as the enemy, you are an appeaser of fascism

and are an enabler of the biggest butcher of the 21st century!

[Behind the Aegis]

166. you SAID....

"Bush is the only monster today and those Bible thumpers that use religion to justify Bush's policies are the enemy."

See that word...'only'...that is what I took issue with! So if you think that bush is the "only monster" then, you are an "appeaser" of the right-wing, who try to make us look "batty." And, as horrible as his crimes in the ME are, they are not as horrible as the butchery in Dafur!

[rinsd]

153. Only because they were competition for his own filth.

[hogwyld]

114. FDR was one of our greatest presidents!

And without Russia's help, we (the other allies) might have never defeated the Nazi's. As rough around the edges as Stalin was, he was good at winning wars.

[MikeyJones]

132. Stalin wasn't good at winning wars.....

Had it not been for America and Britain giving his men quality clothes and weapons he wouldn't have even survived. When the Nazis were 20 miles outside of Moscow he had an emergency train car ready to go East along with the fact he was ready to surender to Hitler the fucking coward. He was so scared that he thought his generals were going to launch a coup against him. The bastard was a coward and a murderer.

[geek tragedy]

138. Cooperation was necessary to defeat Hitler.

Of course, Stalin's incompetence cost the Soviet Union millions of lives.

[MikeyJones]

139. Sure, we had allies helping us fight the Nazis, but......

FDR basically lured and baited Japan into a war because he knew Hitler would join the war against America. I don't think we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler assuming we wouldn't have had to fight Japan -- something FDR instigated. We probably could have taken out both Hitler and Stalin with one clean swift stroke. There were many Soviet POWs captured in the early part of the war who didn't even have shoes. The Germans were finally surprised to find Soviet soldiers with American made shoes.

[geek tragedy]

140. FDR instigated Pearl Harbor?

I invite you to imagine every single Nazi division that Hitler sent into Russia waiting, fully equipped, for us in France.

[MikeyJones]

149. There were several instances

For one, in 1936 he sent a U.S. navy ship to China that was accidently bombed by a Japanese bomber in a river during an "observation exercise."(translation: he was trying to throw his big stick around and stop Japan's war with China)

The Japanese apologized and paid the U.S. reparations.

Next, right before the war FDR went out of his way to get Latin American nations to stop sending Japan oil, coal, and other natural resources that Japan so desperately needed to fight their war with China with. He also embargoed Japan to stop their attacks on China.

By this time I'm sure the Japanese military command realized that this wasn't just some slap on the wrist embargo. FDR really wanted to stop the Japanese war machine from expanding.

It was sort of like when the Arab armies were surrounding Israel in 1967 and just waiting for the order to attack. They were fully mobilized and just waiting for their orders. What happened though was that the Israeli PM knew they were going to hit them, it was just a matter of when. So the Israelis hit them first, a pre-emptive hit so to speak. In a very crude sense, that's what Pearl Harbor was.

[geek tragedy]

171. Are you comparing Israel with Imperial Japan?

Japan was a true imperialist state, trying to conquer the entire Pacific region and subjugate everyone there to their rule. They were appropriate partners for Adolf Hitler.

Israel, not so much.

[geek tragedy]

126. Wtf? "Quasi-pinko?"

Uh, yeah. I mean, stroking Stalin's ego was far too heavy a price to pay for defeating Nazi Germany.

[MikeyJones]

130. Tell that to the 50+ million people that pig murdered, not to me

I'm not the sick psychotic killer who said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."

I am by no means justifying Hitler or the fucking Nazis but I am calling out Stalin for what he was:

a horrible disgusting murderer who should have been shot.

[geek tragedy]

131. I agree about Stalin.

But, he was the lesser of two evils. Still an absolute evil pig, but at least he was a containable one.

[Minstrel Boy]

141. No one's disputing Stalin's crimes. It's your

bizarre assertion that FDR was a "quasi-pinko," which you define as a "communist or wannabe communist," we have trouble understanding.

Do you believe forming a Grand Alliance to defeat Nazi Germany was a traitorous act? Do you think FDR should have waged war against Stalin as well as Hitler, or rather than?

I'm a socialist myself, and I've never heard one use "pinko" disparagingly.

on edit: I see now you've already answered my question above: "We probably could have taken out both Hitler and Stalin with one clean swift stroke" Alrighty then....

[lumpy]

146. Someone is absorbing the fanatical

far right drivel that was so prominent during the 50s. The same people who claimed Eisenhower was a Pinko. I thought this sort bull died out.

[IndianaGreen]

162. Is it 50 million now? It used to be 20 million when William Hearst first

made it up! Amazing how the rightwing inflates and demonizes its enemies.

Like Saddam gassing the Kurds. Never mind it was Iran that first used poison gas, and that Iraq used the poison gas that the Holy Saint Reagan gave them.

[IndianaGreen]

160. It was the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz

perhaps you would have preferred that more Jews were exterminated until they were liberated by the "proper God-fearing" troops.

[geek tragedy]

172. Why was that post in response to mine? eom

[Minstrel Boy]

127. "Don't get me wrong"

Usually here, when someone prefaces their thoughts with that phrase, I have them right.

"I'm a socialist but Mr. Roosevelt was quasi-pinko"

Yup, uh huh.

[MikeyJones]

133. Don't know how you define pinko

I define pinko as either communist and/or wannabe communist.

In case you forgot the communists shot and jailed socialists just like any other group they disagreed with. Don't presume to know anything about me. This is my condemnation of that pig Stalin and his murderous legacy coming from a proud socialist.

The fact FDR was buddy-buddy with that sicko gives me the creeps. It's on documented record that Churchill often had to fight FDR just to get him back to his right mind. As far as I'm concerned the man was an American traitor who sided with what was to become our greatest enemy in the 2nd half of the 20th century. That side of FDR is nothing to praise or defend.

[lumpy]

147. You know nothing.

period

[Judi Lynn]

148. Apparently some people believe it's time for a McCarthy revival.

Whole lot of pent-up pointing and labeling and seething, stupid hatred yearning to burst free!



Didn't Republican Senator Joe McCarthy die of alcoholism? Or maybe it was simple stupidity.

[MikeyJones]

151. You wanna call me a McCarthy because I blast Stalin?

If that's the reason you need help. I'm a proud socialist but I have yet to see a communist who wouldn't round me up and throw me in a gulag if he had the chance. Communism does not allow for freedom of expression or difference in ideals. The simple fact you brought up McCarthy is disturbing. I was merely blasting somebody who was defending a cold-blooded killer. A defense of that individual is in essence an indirect defense and/or whitewashing of Stalin and his grotesque human rights record.

[geek tragedy]

174. Do you think the New Deal was pinko communist stuff?

Just curious as to why you think FDR was a Communist sympathizer when he tried nothing like Communism despite having unprecedented powers and support among the general population.

[MikeyJones]

150. Because you say so? lol nm

[lumpy]

144. The US and it's allies urgently needed

Russian military support to defeat Hitler. If you recall, Russia had a loosely formed alliance with Germany in order to protect it's own borders. Through US efforts Russia formed an alliance with the US. Without Russian's military the war would likey have dragged on for a lot longer. The mistake was made when the US and it's allies agreed to allow Russia a decision, in payment for that support, in the redistribution of European territories after the war.

[MikeyJones]

152. Incorrect

"The mistake was made when the US and it's allies agreed to allow Russia a decision, in payment for that support, in the redistribution of European territories after the war."

It's documented that, to Churchill's horror, FDR OFFERED Eastern Europe to that monster. And after being rebuffed by Churchill he relented a bit but by that time he was no longer in a bargaining position to fight off Stalin.

[lumpy]

167. I fail to see what was incorrect about the

sentence stating the mistake that was made by allowing Stalin control of east European territories. What is 'incorrect' about that statement? The fact that I didn't include Churchill's being horrified at Roosevelt's giving in to Stalin's demand? Roosevelt didn't OFFER a damn thing, he conceded to Russian demands. Perhaps I should have included that Roosevelt was hoping for Russia to join the fight against Japan. Sounds like you are arguing for the sake of argument. Your hatred of Roosevelt is going way over the top.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

175. Well, whose troops were in Eastern Europe after Germany

surrendered?

It's not like Stalin, himself quite an imperialist, was going to leave.

[Master of Disaster]

120. I wonder if they are united in the their opposition to golf courses

as well?

Chavez is such a flake.

[Marie26]

137. Next stop - North Korea? nt

[paulk]

142. he was planning on it

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.310576969&par=0

but, other members of his cabinet convinced him it wasn't such a good idea.

[geek tragedy]

145. He has smart people in his cabinet. eom

[w4rma]

154. Good. Syria is a stabilizing influence on the middle east, atm. (nt)

[Behind the Aegis]

161. LMFAO!!!!

:rofl:

[lumpy]

168. Well Israel sure and hell isn't stabilizing

anything.

[Spinoza]

155. Chavez sure seems to love countries

where if you openly criticize or ridicule the ruler(s) you will be in heap big trouble.

[Lurking Dem]

176. Since no one commented above

what thoughts on this quote?

Chávez fue más allá en sus acusaciones contra Tel Aviv al afirmar que "Israel, en su estado actual, nos recuerda el nazismo".

(Chavez made further accusations against Tel Aviv, affirming, "Israel, in its present state, reminds us of nazism.") (Altered for English grammar rules and because my Español could use a brush up.)

[Judi Lynn]

177. How have you avoided reading that sentiment expressed here,

again, and again, and again, and again, by DU'ers? What's the big woof?