Thread: us attacking venezuela

Originally Posted by Garry

...go and invade Pakistan and punnish Musharaff who has jailed a democratically elected Government and tested a nuclear bomb in breach of all possible treaties signed...

Pakistan was not a signatory to the NPT. Their test did not breach any treaties.

And get serious, Chavez isn't going to redistribute any oil wealth to the Venezuelan people.

If you want to see Venezuela's future, look here:

http://www.therealcuba.com/

Originally Posted by Garry

I am missing something here? Never heard of millions of people ever killed in Venezuela.......

"like Saddam." did you miss that part?

their oil is property of their people, who have sovereign right to decide what to do with that..... nationalize, privatize, sell under concession etc....

The oil is the property of the people that own the oil.

and APPLY ADDITIONAL TAX for abnormal profits due to rises in oil prices....

Good idea. So what do you think the oil companies are going to do then? Raise prices? That's what I would do and then I would make the same amount of profit. Congratulations, you’ve just stiffed the common man. Aren’t taxes great?

As you may see this is a global trend and Venezuela is not even a pioneer here.....

I see a purely imaginary trend.

As for Iraq, when hundred of thousands of people were killed there you did not move a finger in 1991-92 though you had a lot of forces there and could support a popular upraising there....

We should have taken the fight to Baghdad the first time around. It would have saved us a decade of annoyance and numerous American and Iraqi lives.

probably you did not want to destabilize an important oil region then....

I'm sorry. I wasn't running the US government at the time.

You came back to this issue only after two aircrafts hit Twin towers....

No. I don't recall doing that.

though Iraq had nothing to do with that....

Saddam was part of the root cause of terrorism. His regime kept his people poor and repressed. That is a recipe for extremism.

the mass killiing in New York gave your Government all support it needed to do fight whoever they wanted abroad with support of electorate.....

It should have. This isn’t a country like some we’ve seen that looks for a way to appease it totalitarian enemies.

if you are so idealistic go and invade Pakistan and punnish Musharaff who has jailed a democratically elected Government and tested a nuclear bomb in breach of all possible treaties signed.....

Despite what you "think." War is far from my first choice.

what is the difference between Iran and Pakistan? yes. One is US friend the other is not....

It wasn't like we had the two countries pull straws to see who got to be the enemy and who got to be the friend. There are reasons that both of those countries have the relationship that they do with us.

Originally Posted by Leader

"like Saddam." did you miss that part?

Venezuela leader was elected and stayed the army coup because peoples of Venezuela supported him openly... He did not order murdering anybody but avoided political repressions when he won the coup.... Hence I do not see any parallels. If you see point me please

Originally Posted by Leader

The oil is the property of the people that own the oil.

All natural resources belong to soverieng nations on whose territory they are located. In Venezuela it is written in their consitution. Others may own lisences to develop reserves and extract oil..... This laws are similar to US.... you also have

Originally Posted by Leader

Good idea. So what do you think the oil companies are going to do then? Raise prices? That's what I would do and then I would make the same amount of profit. Congratulations, you’ve just stiffed the common man. Aren’t taxes great?

Abnormal means more than a normal return on investment assumes. Now prices are $60 per barrel... do you think that extracting oil costs that much????? in most oil deposits it is ranging frm $1 per barrel to $9 per barrel. The latest is very extream for oil industry.....

Common may in Venezuela must see profit from his country's natural wealth.... BP was paying only pennies to Iranian Government insulting local people who felt robbed... that is why BP and other companies lost everything in Iran

Originally Posted by Leader

We should have taken the fight to Baghdad the first time around. It would have saved us a decade of annoyance and numerous American and Iraqi lives.

I'm sorry. I wasn't running the US government at the time.

Saddam was part of the root cause of terrorism. His regime kept his people poor and repressed. That is a recipe for extremism.

It should have. This isn’t a country like some we’ve seen that looks for a way to appease it totalitarian enemies.

Despite what you "think." War is far from my first choice.

It wasn't like we had the two countries pull straws to see who got to be the enemy and who got to be the friend. There are reasons that both of those countries have the relationship that they do with us.

Iraq had not relation to September 11th. At least no evidence was found till now.... so the use of this event by your government to support its nation building deams is called lyeing to electorate or at least manipulating electorate giving wrong information....

Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda.... but you are correct that making his people poor he was creating base for extremism... but this extremism against him and his brutal rulling not against US.... no terrorists act againt US started from Iraq.

I also don't think that Pakistan deserves an invasion.... it is just impossible to see it on democratic path anywhere soon. So Musharaf is not bad at all..... I pointed to Pakistan to illustrate what I mean.....

Yes. In 1991 moving to Bagdad would have been right move.... and supported by many Iraqis. Especially when he started using chems against people and killing thousands of Kurds and Shias...

In 2003 weak Iraq did not represent any threat to US nor its allies. Liberating his people is impossible by removing Saddam's regime only. Because this people now are on a stage where only two alternatives are available - some kind of dictatorship or chaos....

I had it explained in my other posts.

Inconsistencies in the War on Terror


Why Extradict Hamdi Isaac and Not Posada Carriles?
By JOSÉ PERTIERRA

The day after his detention in Rome, the Ethiopian Hamdi Isaac received the news that he would be extradited to London. He was told in no uncertain terms that he had no recourses available: no right to a bond, no immigration hearing to attend, no administrative proceedings to delay his extradition. It was enough for Italian authorities that he was wanted by London for the terrorist attacks this past July 21. According to the Italian news agency, ANSA, Hamdi´s extradition will be expedited.

Why are things so different in the United States? In what legal limbo can a terrorist who is accused of 73 counts of premeditated murder find shelter? What is the status of Venezuela's request for the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles?

The inconsistency in this so-called war against terrorism is glaring. Whereas Hamdi´s extradition to London will take place in a matter of days, Luis Posada Carriles´case languishes, and after a more than a month and a half the United States has yet to even name a prosecutor to handle the extradition case in court.

The United States instead stubbornly insists on plodding along with an immigration case, premised on the inconsequential charge of Posada´s visa violations. The authorities want to hypnotize us with the immigration case in El Paso, so that we forget the extradition matter pending in Washington. They want to show us the undocumented immigrant detained in El Paso since May, so that we do not discover the terrorist that they sheltered for more than four decades.

A storm, however, may be brewing in El Paso. Washington didn't count on the legal audacity and courage of a previously unknown administrative judge in El Paso. A few days ago, Judge William Abbott told one of Posada´s lawyers that it doesn't matter if it was the United States that organized and planned his client's actions. According to news reports, the attorney was astonished to hear Judge Abbott tell him that under U.S. immigration laws there is no such thing as good terrorism and bad terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, period.

Posada Carriles´ asylum application is a Pandora's Box. From it spring, as hidden demons from a bottle, the secret intelligence agencies and sacred cows of American political institutions who, alongside local dictators, unleashed a campaign of terror in Latin America for decades.

Despite the distasteful consequences to some, immigration law is quite clear. To stand a chance of winning, an asylum applicant must testify and tell the truth under penalty of perjury. To have Posada Carriles under oath, answering questions about his life as a CIA agent, is his superiors´ worst nightmare.

Posada has never been a loose cannon. He was a disciplined and key agent in Washington's dirty war in Latin America. Will he explain on the stand under whose orders he acted?

Will Judge Abbott be given as evidence the admissions that Posada made to the New York Times in 1998, claiming credit for masterminding the string of bombs that exploded in several Cuban hotels and restaurants the previous year, resulting in the death of an Italian tourist. He is already examining Posada´s record of conviction in Panama for the attempted murder of Fidel Castro with C-4 explosives in a university auditorium crowded with students. Posada´s testimony about these terrorist acts will be riveting and fraught with danger for his accomplices and superiors.

It is evident that Judge Abbott wants to get to the heart of the immigration case at bar, and we applaud the efficient way he goes about his job. But the Immigration Court in El Paso is the wrong forum to hear about the crimes of Luis Posada Carriles. It's an administrative forum within the executive branch of the government. The maximum sanction it can impose on Posada is to deny him asylum and recommend he be expelled from the country. It can neither convict nor punish.

The Italians know it, and they instead promise to expedite Hamdi´s extradition to London. The United States knows it as well, yet thus far it refuses to begin Posada´s extradition proceedings. Why?

There is an arrest warrant for Luis Posada Carriles in Caracas for 73 counts of first degree murder. Posada escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 in the midst of his criminal trial. The case against him is still pending.

The children, widows and loved ones of those who perished in a ball of fire in that passenger plane above a sun drenched beach on October 6, 1976 have a right to see him prosecuted for homicide. To try him in the United States for immigration violations makes a mockery of their pain and is an affront against the war on terrorism.

José Pertierra is an attorney. He represents the government of Venezuela in Washington, D.C.

Originally Posted by LUND

Inconsistencies in the War on Terror


Why Extradict Hamdi Isaac and Not Posada Carriles?
By JOSÉ PERTIERRA

The day after his detention in Rome, the Ethiopian Hamdi Isaac received the news that he would be extradited to London. He was told in no uncertain terms that he had no recourses available: no right to a bond, no immigration hearing to attend, no administrative proceedings to delay his extradition. It was enough for Italian authorities that he was wanted by London for the terrorist attacks this past July 21. According to the Italian news agency, ANSA, Hamdi´s extradition will be expedited.

Why are things so different in the United States? In what legal limbo can a terrorist who is accused of 73 counts of premeditated murder find shelter? What is the status of Venezuela's request for the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles?

The inconsistency in this so-called war against terrorism is glaring. Whereas Hamdi´s extradition to London will take place in a matter of days, Luis Posada Carriles´case languishes, and after a more than a month and a half the United States has yet to even name a prosecutor to handle the extradition case in court.

The United States instead stubbornly insists on plodding along with an immigration case, premised on the inconsequential charge of Posada´s visa violations. The authorities want to hypnotize us with the immigration case in El Paso, so that we forget the extradition matter pending in Washington. They want to show us the undocumented immigrant detained in El Paso since May, so that we do not discover the terrorist that they sheltered for more than four decades.

A storm, however, may be brewing in El Paso. Washington didn't count on the legal audacity and courage of a previously unknown administrative judge in El Paso. A few days ago, Judge William Abbott told one of Posada´s lawyers that it doesn't matter if it was the United States that organized and planned his client's actions. According to news reports, the attorney was astonished to hear Judge Abbott tell him that under U.S. immigration laws there is no such thing as good terrorism and bad terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, period.

Posada Carriles´ asylum application is a Pandora's Box. From it spring, as hidden demons from a bottle, the secret intelligence agencies and sacred cows of American political institutions who, alongside local dictators, unleashed a campaign of terror in Latin America for decades.

Despite the distasteful consequences to some, immigration law is quite clear. To stand a chance of winning, an asylum applicant must testify and tell the truth under penalty of perjury. To have Posada Carriles under oath, answering questions about his life as a CIA agent, is his superiors´ worst nightmare.

Posada has never been a loose cannon. He was a disciplined and key agent in Washington's dirty war in Latin America. Will he explain on the stand under whose orders he acted?

Will Judge Abbott be given as evidence the admissions that Posada made to the New York Times in 1998, claiming credit for masterminding the string of bombs that exploded in several Cuban hotels and restaurants the previous year, resulting in the death of an Italian tourist. He is already examining Posada´s record of conviction in Panama for the attempted murder of Fidel Castro with C-4 explosives in a university auditorium crowded with students. Posada´s testimony about these terrorist acts will be riveting and fraught with danger for his accomplices and superiors.

It is evident that Judge Abbott wants to get to the heart of the immigration case at bar, and we applaud the efficient way he goes about his job. But the Immigration Court in El Paso is the wrong forum to hear about the crimes of Luis Posada Carriles. It's an administrative forum within the executive branch of the government. The maximum sanction it can impose on Posada is to deny him asylum and recommend he be expelled from the country. It can neither convict nor punish.

The Italians know it, and they instead promise to expedite Hamdi´s extradition to London. The United States knows it as well, yet thus far it refuses to begin Posada´s extradition proceedings. Why?

There is an arrest warrant for Luis Posada Carriles in Caracas for 73 counts of first degree murder. Posada escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 in the midst of his criminal trial. The case against him is still pending.

The children, widows and loved ones of those who perished in a ball of fire in that passenger plane above a sun drenched beach on October 6, 1976 have a right to see him prosecuted for homicide. To try him in the United States for immigration violations makes a mockery of their pain and is an affront against the war on terrorism.

José Pertierra is an attorney. He represents the government of Venezuela in Washington, D.C.

I guess they must make a public trial..... if Venezuela presents evidence that the guy was involved in blowing up a plane no point to hide him.... the damage from hiding him is far greater than any advantage of protecting this bustard.....

Originally Posted by Garry

Venezuela leader was elected and stayed the army coup because peoples of Venezuela supported him openly... He did not order murdering anybody but avoided political repressions when he won the coup.... Hence I do not see any parallels. If you see point me please

Your statements have border implications then Venezuela.

All natural resources belong to soverieng nations on whose territory they are located.

That's nice that you believe that. I however believe that what I own belongs to me.

In Venezuela it is written in their consitution. Others may own lisences to develop reserves and extract oil.....

To the extent that the oil is on public land, but they do not have the right to steal from one individual to benefit another.

This laws are similar to US.... you also have

How is it relevant what laws the US has? Is US law perfect? I think not.

Abnormal means more than a normal return on investment assumes.

You've got a formula for that? Because otherwise the normal ROI I’d expect would be the would be based on what people are willing and able to pay.

Now prices are $60 per barrel... do you think that extracting oil costs that much?????

No, it doesn't matter how much it costs. I'm willing to sell you something. You're willing to buy it. You don't like the price walk or get an ethanol car. Don’t give me a sob story. You’re not forced to by gas.

Common may in Venezuela must see profit from his country's natural wealth....

Why? They deserve to take money from some else because they just happen to live in the same area?

BP was paying only pennies to Iranian Government insulting local people who felt robbed...

How did they get access to the oil? Oh yeah, the government sold them the rights or the land was purchased from the people who owned it.

Iraq had not relation to September 11th.

Did I say that? No.

At least no evidence was found till now.... so the use of this event by your government to support its nation building deams is called lyeing to electorate or at least manipulating electorate giving wrong information....

Hind sight is so clear. Everyone who was wrong in the past must be a liar.

Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda....

That is flat false. You can do a search on this very site to find articles I posted that refute that claim.

but you are correct that making his people poor he was creating base for extremism... but this extremism against him

So bin Leaden is only an extremist against SA? Wouldn’t that be great.

and his brutal rulling not against US.... no terrorists act againt US started from Iraq.

You mean except the attempt to assassinate the President of the United States and the Iraqi government’s, at a minimum, complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing.

I also don't think that Pakistan deserves an invasion....

I had pictured you as the warmonger type too.

it is just impossible to see it on democratic path anywhere soon.

I disagree.

So Musharaf is not bad at all.....

As compared to liberal representative government, he is that bad, but we have other options at the moment besides war.

Yes. In 1991 moving to Bagdad would have been right move.... and supported by many Iraqis. Especially when he started using chems against people and killing thousands of Kurds and Shias...

Supported by you? Most liberal have a selective memory about the 1991 war, which have far more opposition to it then this one.

In 2003 weak Iraq did not represent any threat to US nor its allies.

I disagree, but that is beside the point. You're arguing that we should only be concerned with ourselves. Who cares how many people are murdered over there just as long as he's not bothering us, heh? History has shown us the fault of that thinking.

Liberating his people is impossible by removing Saddam's regime only.

Is that what we did? Oh wait, Saddam is gone and we're still there.

Because this people now are on a stage where only two alternatives are available - some kind of dictatorship or chaos....

That's a false choice.

Originally Posted by Garry

Venezuela leader was elected and stayed the army coup because peoples of Venezuela supported him openly... He did not order murdering anybody but avoided political repressions when he won the coup.... Hence I do not see any parallels. If you see point me please



Common may in Venezuela must see profit from his country's natural wealth.... BP was paying only pennies to Iranian Government insulting local people who felt robbed... that is why BP and other companies lost everything in Iran

Hey, ****ing idiot! I have a family member that was almost MURDERED by one of Chavez's death squads so SHUT THE **** UP! "Avoided political repression"? Look at Miraflores! For how many years have you lived in Venezuela? Oh ya, you don't know ****.

"Common may in Venezuela must see profit from his country's natural wealth...."
Look at FY2005 budget.

Get a ****ing education then come back to the forum if not shut up and learn.

If I recall didn't Chavez's approval ratings fall into single digits a couple years ago? The region would be vastly better off if Mr. Chavez as to meet with a tragic accident.

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

Hey, ****ing idiot! I have a family member that was almost MURDERED by one of Chavez's death squads so SHUT THE **** UP! "Avoided political repression"? Look at Miraflores! For how many years have you lived in Venezuela? Oh ya, you don't know ****.

"Common may in Venezuela must see profit from his country's natural wealth...."
Look at FY2005 budget.

Get a ****ing education then come back to the forum if not shut up and learn.

I am sorry for your brother. And I appologize if I need to....

Yes I did not live in your country and just had short visits twice - once in 2002 and in 2003. In 2002 it was after the coup and I heard all the stories from different people about shoot demonstration and troops arresting Chavez then and people gathering to bring him back.

What I understood is that your country is deeply split. I also understood that poor majority is following the populist policy of Chavez despite opposition dominance in mass media..... and the reason for that is powerty sees their chance in Chavez. I was told and later read about many violence from both sides Chavez supporters and anti-Chavez demonstrators in 2002 it was many violence. Political assasinations are from both sides (Danilo Andersen....) What I consider no repression is that as far as I heard of nobody officially convicted for the coup..... may be I missed something recent.

Nonetheless I believe that the must be resolved by Venezuelians internally without US millitary intervention......

Originally Posted by Wraith601

The region would be vastly better off if Mr. Chavez as to meet with a tragic accident.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...1&d=1122554319

That image is rubbish, so-called allies like Saudi Arabia, India, Colombia, Tunisia have put ZERO troops in operations on the war on terror, even today India is making deals with Castro for Oil off the USA's Gulf coast