@all,
i watched the venezuelan president at the UN give his speech. yeah, he was a lil bit upbeat about Bush being the devil, but he raised some salient points that need to be discussed. he decried the fact that the leaders of global democracy are nothing but hipocrites. he noted the most undemocratic ritual, A.K.A the veto vote of the UN which made it possible for the israeli-lebanese/hezballa war to continue even when the whole world (except israel, US and UK) wanted it to cease.
he decried the american propaganda of spreading democracy in the middle east and asked "what kind of democracy do you spread with marines and bombs?" the injustice of israel/lebanon crisis, the iraqi instability, palestinian problems etc.

the question now is, is America spreading democracy (as they say) or is it 21st century imperial expansion?

give ur thots,
toshmann

As much as I dislike the speech of Hugo Chavez, he was right on some points and issue, he also stated the USA was sponsoring coup to out seat him in Venezuela. no one is speaking about this issue and I kind of think that was one of the reason he was speaking in outrage. USA is a good country, its the policies that people disagree with, you cant rule the world, let people deal with their internal issues. If indeed USA is trying to save the world, my questions are where are the American government in the 80s and 90s when Samuel Doe was killing people ruthlessly in Africa, where are they when Mugabe was doing his thing? where are the Americans when IBB and Abacha was violating peoples right by imprisonment? until they can answer all this issues, they are partial as far as i am concern.

The USin my opinion has nobody interests, it's always about US interests, democracy is not right for everybody, to the last poster there's no oil in Zimbabwe therefore of no interest to the US.

interesting how we invaded Iraq as BUSH put it in the interview he had with Wolt Blitz's based on treat, but Iran is a treat to, why can't we invade them and dish them the same justice.  As much as I don't like radicals, I kind of like the Iran president standing up for what he believes in, and he publicly challenge MR president to a debate why is Mr Bush avoiding him?  if indeed he is for peace in the world?  this are vital issues and I think USA policy makers are bias when it come to the some issues. Instead of the press to focus on the issue been raised, they are talking of the way the guy dressed without a tie, one reporter said the guy has no class because he diddidn'tre tie, this is the Iran president they were refreferring, I was like give me a break

dont forget that iran is or armed hizbullah, considering the fiasco that the invasions of both iraq and afghanistan have become the US is in no position to go and start another war. Ahmedinajad knows this and is capitalising on this

Bush has no business in governance and he is responsible for the increase in hatred against the West especially the US based on his hypocrisies and double standards.

We need more courageous leaders like Chavez and the president of Iran even though I disagree with him on the destruction of Israel.

Funny enough, a free and fair democracy brought the Hamas government into power and yet the West does not like that type of democracy, a democracy that does not take instructions from the white house or 10 downing street.

@ Afam
Hit the nail on the head couldn't have put it better myself

I think Bush advisers on middle east issues are clueless on what is going on.  and instead of the president to come out and say he made a mistake in invading Iraq he is still trying to justify his action which to me is an act of bad leadership, we do have radicals in the world, go after them and stop trying to tell people how to rule and change their culture.

What!!!!!!!!! u think the almighty USA will ever do that, maybe in another lifetime

Hmm. Another thread for U.S. bashing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not US bashing its current affairs. CNN and MSN and all this bias news casters

Maybe the current affairs should also look at the irony that while Chavez has the audacity to come into the US and lambast our President, none of his citizens dare express their opposition to him without consequences. He so much believes in the freedom of speech which he excersises without restraint, but wont extend such freedom to his people. What a hypocrite.

so it it OK, for USA to sponsored a coup in his country? where else suits him than the UN to lambast the president of USA and his policies, I really don't blame the president of Venezuela, he has big balls in my opinion, if you don't like someone say it to their face and be a hero, only a coward will hide and call another man out. people all over the world like and love USA its the irrational and one sided policies that people dislike.

We do not like George Bush, neither do we like hypocrites like Hugo Chavez who speak so much about equality on US soil and yet cannot extend it to their poor citizens.

US is not sponsoring any coup attempt.  That is just a figment of his imagination.  From the information I have, the U.S has even informed this same Chavez of 2 attempts at his life.  This is how he repays the U.S.

A man of strength is one who shows restraint in his character and demeanour.  Chavez has just shown himself to be no more than a thug in a position of honour.  Even Democrats who are always against Bush have come out to condemn this out of line maverick.  His language is condescending to the office he occupies.

He accuses Bush of being a drunk.  Unknown to a lot, Bush gave up drinking over 20 years ago.  This attests to his strength of character.  Saying Bush gained power through the influence of his Dad just shows how childish and premature Chavez is in his thinking.  So if Hillary becomes our next president, he will taunt her of becoming a President based on her husband's influence?  So what if that is the case!!!! We are waiting to see what his own kids will become in the future.

As far as I am concerned, he ridicules our country, our people and the office of our president by coming on our shores and sanying such rubbish.  Bush has shown he's got character by not even responding to such talks.  Chavez is such a low-lifer.

America role in all things has always been viewed from their own intrest, the Chavez of the world can cry out till kingdom come and things will still remain same. Continuity of common agenda is the backbone of USA, either democrat or republican i bet their goal of stopping the Chavez of their hemesphere will go on. i like Chavez though, he says what he means unlike our kiss ass leaders in Africa

as much as I dislike Chavez statement, I love his boldness to come here and say it as it is, I've learn not to believe anything i read and hear the press are bias as well when it comes to some political issues. Mr Bush was asked if he was planning on Invading Iraq before he became president and this stooge said Iraq was a treat. you don't kill Innocent people based on treat.

And how many people did Chavez killed or planned to kill when he attempted a coup d'etat to become a president?

I wish I know the answer to that, but I'm not from Venezuela. I strongly believe USA was sponsoring a coup to get the guy out of office, they are know for their funny ways. remember Libya in the late 80s. Gaddafi stood his grounds

Here is what someone had to say on another thread:

I am so sick and tired of the rest of the world. You insult us everyday. I would gladly remove all of our soilders, businesses, charities, and any other organizations that you spit on dailey. You go your way with your Chaves', Bin Landens, Kim Jongs, and whoever else you seem to want to exhalt as wise and loving people. I wish we would build a wall all the way around our country and try to forget the rest of you are out there. I'm sure you wont post this but I promise millions of Americans agree

Zane, USA

i can see that point, but its the bureaucratic policies that people are talking about, sure you can't please everyone, but you can try and be non partial

I blame the USA, but for their much vaunted attempt to respect their "international obligations", what on earth would the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinajad been doing in New York? Why don't they build another UN headquarters in their own country?
They claim the US is excercising too much veto power on the UN, well you would if your "international obligations" included paying more than 60% of UN bills, hosting hundreds of heads of states and spending trillions of dollars on aid to other countries!

Good point. exactly my point we all know UN control the UN and the whole world knows that, council men Baron Charles said it all, Chavez was not in the USA he was at the UN the council of Nations and there is freedom of speech, if you can't express yourself freely at the UN then where can you? I was also informed watching CNN with John King that said Chavez was giving oil to Harlem? Emm

I heard from the economics guy on CNN Lou Dobbs that the U.S contributes 22% to the UN yearly which is the highest and not 60% as said in one posting above.

@ Kayinsola,

thanks for the correction. It still proves the point, the US is the highest contributor to the UN. Dictators who do not make significant contributions to the UN should not attempt to use the UN as a platform to bash the US!

You all dont seem to understand the functioning of the US government, irrespective of who is in power, be it democrat or republican. The primary role of the government is to preserving the status quo. That means in any part of the world that the vital interest of the US is being threatened or is deemed to be compromised, then it is the at the sole discretion of the US to enforce whatever strategy required to normalize and maintain their interest.

i posted this thread to discuss some of the salient points raised by chavez. however many people here are busy bashing chavez. i think the US is a very selfish country (not that other nations are better). the UN is a failure. what do we achieve there. and for those who talk of foreign aid from the US, think again. wht the west gains from the 3rd world cannot be compared to the lil foreign aid they say they give. if there is massive hunger in iraq today and the west brings food to them, will it compare with all the oil they looted from iraq?

that's how it is. that US contributes the highest to the UN is no excuse for the undemocratic veto vote. why should america sponsor a coup to overthrow the president of another country. and for those talking about building a wall around US, let the US withdraw all its marines, military bases, oil companies, firms and all it's interests from other countries of the world. let's see who will cry 1st. when there's no one to buy thier great products, no corrupt politicians to put stolen wealth into their banks, no countries to buy thier weapons for war, no flights in and out of america, their great economy will collapse in 48hrs. remember the 1st few weeks after 9/11, there were terrible job losses and crash of economy wich they started building up again.thanx to iraq oil.

foreign aid my ass.

Valid points but I have to disagree with you on some points, The us had reserve oil to use for the next 50 years they are just tapping into other countries resources, and 9/11 is a total different issue. Chavez stood his ground, and to reiterate my point, he came to the UN not to United state, and all issues should be heard at the UN, and we all know USA control UN.

@toshman,

I guess you believe everything that people who oppose Bush say. Where is the proof that the U.S. is planning
a coup to topple Chavez? The guy is just trying to make himself more important than he really is.

As to the U.S. oil reserve, a new an inconclusive findings has just boosted U.S. oil reserve by another 25%. So you can add some more years to that.

You sure show you have no idea what the effect of a US withdrawal will cost the rest of the world. The US is the sole sustainer of many economies around the world today. The U.S trade deficit is basically because we buy more than we sell. If both parties decide to stop the trade, believe me, there will be a lot of countries up in flames due to economic hardship. Here's a BBC article for your perusal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303006.stm

Bleep the bbc article(i didn't read it)

let me remind you. the rest of the world, like the developing countries are used to poverty and hardship. in the event of a trade stand off btw the US and the rest of the world, both sides will suffer but the US will not have the ability to cope with horrible job losses, and rise in crime. i tell you, the american citizens cannot stand hardship. this is a country that has arguably the best economy in the world(or one of the best), the richest nation on earth, and yet the highest suicide rate. u hear of college shootings(though not only US). disgruntled citizens. hundreds of americans migrated to canada when Bush won re-election. imagine. with all their blessings they cant stand a lil hardship. when a stand off occurs, there will be chaos in that country and it will cry our fast.

what i hate most about the west is when i hear in the western press that 40/60/100s of afghans/iraqis/lebanese/palestinians have died and the next day it is forgotten. but when one british/US soldier dies it is headline news for 3-4days.
bull shit. believe me if the world economy crumbles, america will cry out 1st.

Toshman,

I agree with you that some people have conveniently shifted the focus to Chavez instead of the issues he raised.

TayoD,

It is funny how you ask for proof whenever the US is accused of anything even if obvious and at the same time you will make sometimes completely baseless statements and pass them off as facts.

The day you replied that the republicans that opposed Bush in the Article 3 of the Geneva Convention did so because they wanted to covert the bystanders because it was election time was the day I stopped taking your posts serious.

You are an unrepented and blind supporter of the US regardless of the issues on ground.

Talk about Iraq today and you will bring a whole lot of useless justifications, you may do well by contributing to jokes and rumours setcions and allow people to discuss real issues without the unnecessary distractions.

A thread came up to discuss issues raised and you turned it to US bashing, this is disgusting!!!

I’ve always liked that Chavez fellow. A person unafraid to speak his/her mind is always one after my own heart.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

Here is what someone had to say on another thread:

I am so sick and tired of the rest of the world. You insult us everyday. I would gladly remove all of our soilders, businesses, charities, and any other organizations that you spit on dailey. You go your way with your Chaves', Bin Landens, Kim Jongs, and whoever else you seem to want to exhalt as wise and loving people. I wish we would build a wall all the way around our country and try to forget the rest of you are out there. I'm sure you wont post this but I promise millions of Americans agree

Zane, USA

With all due respect, the above quote was made by one without even an elementary knowledge of how international trade and relations work. If millions of Americans agree with such baseless piffle, then millions of Americans must be quite thick.

You also present a BBC article which credits the US with sustaining the bulk of worldwide demand for goods and services. That’s fantastic. But, the US gets paid for this does she not? The international market enables the generation of considerable income for the US. That’s what makes goods and services within the US affordable for her citizens. That’s what keeps your taxes as low as they are. The moment international markets are closed to her, the US will immediately set off on a journey of implosion. She cannot survive the overcapacity that would inevitable follow. The economics of such a scenario suggest that the Great Depression of the 1930s would be nothing compared to the ‘ills’ of such a closed economy. Of that, be in no doubt.

TayoD:

As to the U.S. oil reserve, a new an inconclusive findings has just boosted U.S. oil reserve by another 25%. So you can add some more years to that.

If the findings are inconclusive, why should we go on to ‘add some more years to that’?

*The US has always had oil. However, as at the late 1990s when I conducted a petroleum-related study, findings demonstrated, quite clearly, that the US only had enough oil to sustain 13% of internal demand (what with all the SUVs, Hummers and other gas-guzzling vehicles that represent the attainment of the ‘American Dream’). Also, the US has a lot of oil that will make no commercial sense to extract. In other words, it will cost a lot more to extract and refine than to buy. Has this changed significantly? I ask because I really do not know. I however believe that if the US could successfully sustain internal demand, (a) She wouldn’t need to invade oil-rich countries, (b) She wouldn’t turn a blind eye to the despicable treatment women receive in countries like Saudi Arabia, (c) She wouldn’t have shown such an interest in the sponsorship of coups -especially in Africa (and even covertly planned an invasion of nigeria’s Niger Delta in the 1970s), (d) She wouldn’t be building a base off the coast of oil-rich West Africa, (e) She wouldn’t be aggressively pursuing alternative energy options. We all know that the US is not concerned about greenhouse effects as demonstrated by her reluctance to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (even though the US contributes about 25% of the world’s greenhouse emissions).

The US is a giant in many ways but this giant feeds off the blood and sweat of other nations. If these were withdrawn, there will be no US as we know it.

Again, I really like that Chavez fellow.