chicot

So it's the liberal media's fault?

Despite Clinton being a "pervert and hedonist" ( ), I think it's almost certain there was (and still is) more respect for him in the rest of the world than there is for the current holder of the office.

In fairness, this attitude goes both ways. I seem to remember Cuba spurning US help when they were hit by a hurricane a year or so ago.

He hardly needs to say to the US "look, I have oil". Considering they're one of the largest importers of Venezuelan oil, I would imagine them to be well aware of the fact.

Nevertheless, they did in fact offer aid. And, in this case at least, there may be quite a few Americans who agree with what Chavez is saying.

How about oil from the evil communist dictatorship of Venezuela led by Chavez the prick? From the link posted in the other thread: "Venezuela's government, which has had tense relations with Washington, offered humanitarian aid and fuel. Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledged a $1 million donation for hurricane aid." Link

Don't think you'll get too many takers for that. You'd really have to be on the lunatic fringe of the anti-war movement to think this is acceptable.

The problem with the current Iraqi army is that it's inexperienced and underequipped. Most of it is made up of people who have never seen combat. It is also heavily infiltrated by the insurgency. Many of the soldiers have distinctly ambivalent feelings towards the US and that doesn't help much with motivation - there have been thousands of desertions and at least one or two occasions when battalions have actually started fighting on the side of the insurgents. The experience is all on the other side - it's almost certain that a significant number of the insurgents are soldiers who lost their jobs when Bremer took the crazy decision to disband the Iraqi army. Unlike the current Iraqi army, these are likely to be battle-hardened from experience gained in the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf war (and it's sequel). At the moment there's quite an unreal situation in Iraq due to the US presence. Everyone is playing hardball because they know the US will catch them if they fall. If the US was to leave or, at the very least, set a deadline for leaving, then it would help concentrate the minds of the leaders of the various communities to sort out their differences. They would have to come to some sort of agreement because the alternative would be unthinkable. In any event, in a few of the provinces, the situation is so bad it could hardly get any worse. You've also got to take into account what effect a US withdrawal would have on the insurgency. I know the media likes to paint the insurgency with a one size fits all description but that just isn't the case. There are at least some insurgents who, while quite happy to attack the US military, would draw the line at killing fellow Iraqis. Some elements of the insurgency would stop fighting. Even ex-Baathists would have to start thinking seriously about the endgame and think about what will emerge in Iraq. The support that the insurgency draws from the Sunni community due to the occupation would also decrease. Of course there would still be the nutjobs like Zaqawi and his ilk who just like blowing stuff up, but without the presence of the Americans as a common enemy, many of the homegrown insurgents would quickly turn on them. Frankly I think the US plan to impose it's vision on Iraq is destined to fail. Unless the US plans to stay for ever, as soon as it leaves whatever system is in place is likely to fall. Now that can either happen now or later on when thousands more Iraqis and Americans are dead and billions more dollars have been spent.

Well, the Sunnis are involved in all the wrangling over the constitution. It's also likely that they'll vote in large numbers in the referendum on the constitution.

Changing your tune, aren't you? I thought you always insisted that the Shia and the Kurds were suitably grateful and that the Sunnis were the only problem.

I know full well the problems some have with Carter, which is why I linked to the other organisation monitoring the Venezuelan elections. It seems to me that those who are crying foul over the results have little more to go on than unsubstantiated complaints by opposition supporters, the same sort of complaints that they rubbished when they were heard in Florida. Personally I prefer to listen to what the independent observers who were there monitoring the process have to say, rather than to those with such an obvious axe to grind. I think a more likely answer to the question of why Chavez continues to win elections is to be found in accounts like these: Terrible goings-on in Venezuela The thing is when you provide things like education, healthcare, the prospect of a better life to people who previously had nothing, they tend to appreciate that and support you for it. Strange but true.

I see. So "Jimmah" Carter is such a demonic figure that not only him and his organisation must be disbelieved but even anyone that dares to mention him must likewise be disbelieved. Fair enough.

Here's a link to a press release from the Organisation of American States which had observers monitoring the recall referendum: oas link

I'm not sure that an article by a Venezuelan opposition supporter is exactly unbiased. Would you accept at face-value accusations of vote-rigging by Bush coming from Gore or Kerry supporters? In fact, much of that article sounds remarkably similar to the allegations over the Florida result. "Chavez now brags that the referendum results are irreversible and permanent and pledges that Venezuela's communist revolution, which is bankrupting his nation and reducing its citizenry to poverty, will now intensify. " Yep, that certainly seems like a really objective opinion to me. Reducing the citizenry to poverty?! Yeah, there was no poverty in Venezuela before Chavez

Hardly typical. If he was a typical South American dictator he'd use the country's wealth to enrich himself and his cronies, while leaving most of the population living in abject poverty. He'd also make sure he gave US multinationals a cut of the action, thus ensuring he kept the US onside. He would not invest massively in social programs such as healthcare, education, etc ... I can understand you not liking Chavez - I think his anti-American rhetoric is over the top myself, though it could well be a reaction to US hostility towards his government. However, I think you just might have a somewhat different opinion of him if you were a Venezuelan peasant.

Your point works the other way as well. It's a bit rich to complain about the left casting doubt on Bush's election and then do exactly the same with regards to Chavez.

Huh? It seems to me you're still saying that the only problem with assassination is that you wouldn't get away with it. Are you saying that if you could get away with it, it would then be a good idea?

Are you basing that on anything other than your personal dislike of the man, Minnie? Can you point to a report by an unbiased source that suggests that any of his election victories were fixed? It's pretty indisputable that Chavez has substantial support among the poor in Venezuala (of which there are a great many). He doesn't need to fix elections.

? So assassination is ok as long as you can get away with it

He also seems to have a strange definition of a "dictator" since Chavez was democratically elected.

I think they must have been taking advice from you since the officers involved in the shooting are now on holiday I'm not sure that the ones that fired the shots are actually to blame at all. It may well have been those higher up the chain of command. As I said, I don't have a problem with a shoot-to-kill policy but they have to have a bit more to go on than they had in this case. Wasn't there a reasonable similar incident in New York recently when a Sikh family was wrestled to the ground? I remember reading that they received a very public apology and stated that there were no hard feelings towards the police.

Actually Dr K's link does the job: The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket. "He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."

With the usual caveat of "if the reports are to be believed", he only ran to board the train and when the police identified themselves (on the train), he walked towards them whereupon one of them grabbed him, pinned his arms behind his back and wrestled him to the ground. Another fellow then came up and pumped 8 or so shots into him. I'll try and dig up a link when I've got a minute (I'm at work ).

No, they aren't perfect. No one is. I don't have a problem with a shoot-to-kill policy in principle but it has to be based on good intelligence. It's pretty clear that the police didn't have much of a clue even about who Mr de Menezes was, let alone anything else. Not identified because the officer who needed to do so was taking a leak?! If these reports are true, the level of incompetence was staggering. Before taking the drastic measure of pinning someone to the ground and shooting him eight times in the head, the police have to have more to go on than the fact that he was seen coming out of the same block of flats as a suspect.

It's completely different. Terrorists are expected to kill people, that is why they are terrorists. There's not much point protesting because the terrorists aren't likely to pay much attention. The police, however, are expected to protect the public. They are not expected to murder innocents.