Hugo Chavez-Comments

[DJ]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

rodbolt,

I have no doubt that the people of VE are very nice. I've heard very nice things about South Americans.

However, their so called "democractically" elected leader could learn some simple manners.

If he wants "dailogue" he shouldn't call the person he wants dialogue with-"the devil".

What would your reaction be?

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

DWJ
about the same as Chavez's when Bush and a few others called him "Hitler" and some other deragatory words.
I dont agree with either Chavez's behavoir nor Bush's. they look like a couple of grade school brats at recess.

but I fear thats why bush wont speak with Chavez or matmoud, I think he is afraid they will speak better english than he can.
Chavez's copmments were entirely out of line and in my opinion cemented in front of the world the fact he is a fool.
however it still does not excuse our presidents behavoir.
even if insulted first you dont ACTUALLY have to insult back.
in fact by smiling and continuing a civil discourse you can make your opponent look like a fool.

 

[DJ]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

I think he is afraid they will speak better english than he can.

I have the same speech issues that our President has. I sometimes have a "disconnect" between my mind and my mouth. In many instances, it has saved me. Does that make me an idiot?

Oratory ability is no sign of intellegence, in my opinion. In a politician, I'd rather hear what's on their mind, instead of nationally broadcast lies, as in our last President. I heard a comedian make the remark that President Bush suffers from truth-"turets".

I think that we agree that Chavez' comments were way out of line, in that world arena. Our Presidents comments were most likely, off the cuff, and an overactive media picked it up.

Unfortuneately, we can't see the real Chavez, as you have. Thus, it just adds fuel to fire of America haters.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

I am serious, why didnt anyone in the UN have some balls and yank him off the podium.

Just more proof that the UN is truly pathetic.

I also would like to know what countries reps applauded when he called GWB the devil. Perhaps their funding could be revoked.

Chavez can hold any opinions he wants and I dont care, but allowing him to use the UN as a publicity stunt is really in poor taste.

Ken

 

[crunch]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

I am serious, why didnt anyone in the UN have some balls and yank him off the podium.

Just more proof that the UN is truly pathetic.

I also would like to know what countries reps applauded when he called GWB the devil. Perhaps their funding could be revoked.

Chavez can hold any opinions he wants and I dont care, but allowing him to use the UN as a publicity stunt is really in poor taste.

Ken

I can't agree with you more, as a private person.

But in the world of real politics, we have to take the lumps and persevere

Of course you know why there are so many counties that talk "sh*t about us don't you?... why we are so constantly critisized?

It's easy once you really think about the motives... think Japan in the late 1930's... think Russia in the 50's.. it's fear.

For the first time in history, there is a county that could, without all that much trouble, defeat the rest of the world combined... no contest... hands down.... and they know that.

We are the only county in the world that has, and it’s the real deal, working ICBM’s in any meaningful numbers... Russia don’t, China don’t, India don’t, UK has a few, Pakistan don’t, yadda, yadda, yadda.

We have the industrial infrastructure to support a Blitzkrieg like Germany never thought of, we have the tech to over run this planet in weeks, and declare a Pax-Americana, and if you don’t submit?... vaporized... large, self lite parking lot.... billions dead?

So what? Germany, Japan, Russia... a bit squeamish are you?

And that is what they don’t understand, we have no desire to make a Pax-Americana, no desire to take over the world... hell, who wants it? But they fear us because we could.

 

[DJ]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

For For the first time in history, there is a county that could For the first time in history, there is a county that could, without all that much trouble, defeat the rest of the world combined... no contest... hands down.... and they know that.

We are the only county in the world that has, and it’s the real deal, working ICBM’s in any meaningful numbers... Russia don’t, China don’t, India don’t, UK has a few, Pakistan don’t, yadda, yadda, yadda.

We have the industrial infrastructure to support a Blitzkrieg like Germany never thought of, we have the tech to over run this planet in weeks, and declare a Pax-Americana, and if you don’t submit?... vaporized... large, self lite parking lot.... billions dead?
[/quote]For the first time in history, there is a county that could, without all that much trouble, defeat the rest of the world combined... no contest... hands down.... and they know that.

We are the only county in the world that has, and it’s the real deal, working ICBM’s in any meaningful numbers... Russia don’t, China don’t, India don’t, UK has a few, Pakistan don’t, yadda, yadda, yadda.

We have the industrial infrastructure to support a Blitzkrieg like Germany never thought of, we have the tech to over run this planet in weeks, and declare a Pax-Americana, and if you don’t submit?... vaporized... large, self lite parking lot.... billions dead?
d, without all that much trouble, defeat the rest of the world combined... no contest... hands down.... and they know that.

___________________________________________


Unfortunately, we NO longer have the industrial might that we used to have. Basically we have-NONE. Our foundries are closed, or closing. We don't own our own seaports and NOT ONE steel company, in the US is US owned.

We've gelded our industrial base via the EPA and let foreign corporations do the part assembling while turning our backs.

We are a "Paper Tiger" and the rest of the world knows it. Actually, they view us the Same as the Soviet Union, of the sixties. Military might with NOTHING to back it up. Industrial might-gutted. For different reasons-true.

We have missiles, yes. Do they work? I doubt it.

We've let our government overun our own power as an industrial giant. We are hereby-Vulnerable.

But, who cares?

 

[crunch]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Yes, other counties own this and that.... ever heard of Nationalization? The infrastructure is here, the resources are here, the tech is here, but you are right in a way... it won't last forever.

 

[crunch]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

and next time, do the quote /reply thing... your copy/paste distorted things.

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Hey teacher, I know, I know- Gawd wanted him to say those things so we could all get right before we die.

 

[Kwas]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments


Charlie Rangle grew a pair. In a speech this morning he said:

(paraphrase) Don't come to my country and criticize my president, don't come to my district and criticize my president.

 

[Gone]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Hugo is a hero in his country because he is socializing everything and making the people more dependent upon his being in office. They don't realize the slaves to the system that they are becoming. They'll wake up one day but it will be a while.

Charlie doesn't have much to say about it, the UN people are all untouchables in his district. The best he and all of us can hope for is that the UN HQ gets moved and we cease to be members (and payers).

CD

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Isn't the UN considered Internatioal or neutral ground?
CD, I agree, as long as the trough is full he will most likely stay in power......JK

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

careful painting VE with the socialist brush, trust me capitalism is alive and well down south.
not all or even most like the socialist movement.
we hope the elections in december will correct some things.
thats one thing they do understand is markups,intrest and proffit/loss.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

It really is no suprise to me that alot of people hate us......JK

First and foremost, by you American Liberals. The Hugo Chavez's of the world are just following (parroting) your lead.

 

[txswinner]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

The bad part about a democracy is sometimes the wrong person gets elected!

 

[--GQ--]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

I am serious, why didnt anyone in the UN have some balls and yank him off the podium.

Just more proof that the UN is truly pathetic.

I also would like to know what countries reps applauded when he called GWB the devil. Perhaps their funding could be revoked.

Chavez can hold any opinions he wants and I dont care, but allowing him to use the UN as a publicity stunt is really in poor taste.

Ken

I can't agree with you more, as a private person.

But in the world of real politics, we have to take the lumps and persevere

Of course you know why there are so many counties that talk "sh*t about us don't you?... why we are so constantly critisized?

It's easy once you really think about the motives... think Japan in the late 1930's... think Russia in the 50's.. it's fear.

For the first time in history, there is a county that could, without all that much trouble, defeat the rest of the world combined... no contest... hands down.... and they know that.

We are the only county in the world that has, and it’s the real deal, working ICBM’s in any meaningful numbers... Russia don’t, China don’t, India don’t, UK has a few, Pakistan don’t, yadda, yadda, yadda.

We have the industrial infrastructure to support a Blitzkrieg like Germany never thought of, we have the tech to over run this planet in weeks, and declare a Pax-Americana, and if you don’t submit?... vaporized... large, self lite parking lot.... billions dead?

So what? Germany, Japan, Russia... a bit squeamish are you?

And that is what they don’t understand, we have no desire to make a Pax-Americana, no desire to take over the world... hell, who wants it? But they fear us because we could.

This maybe hard for you to swallow. Take it with a glass of water or any form of controlled substance of your choice and you'll be find tomorrow morning.

Russia has roughly 8,000 active ICBMs. Most of which has target destination USA . The new ss27 missiles are impossible to shoot down.

Riddle me that, Batman !

 

[bekosh]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Russia has roughly 8,000 active ICBMs. Most of which has target destination USA . The new ss27 missiles are impossible to shoot down.

Actually Russian & US ICBMs were detargeted in 1994. However, they could be retargeted quickly. This was mainly to prevent accidental launch.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/detarget/index.html
and from Bill Clinton...

1. `I was proud to go to Russia and sign an agreement where we agreed that for the first time in decades we would no longer even point our missiles at each other.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of Atlanta, May 3, 1994.

2. `* * * there are no nuclear missiles pointed at us from the Soviet Union [sic], but there are other countries trying to develop nuclear programs.'--President Clinton, Remarks at the Small Business Person of the Year Announcement, Old Executive Office Building, May 4, 1994.

3. `And now, for the first time, our nuclear missiles are no longer targeted at Russia, nor theirs ours [sic].'--President Clinton, Remarks on CNN Telecast, `A Global Forum with President Clinton,' May 4, 1994.

And Russia "only" has about 1100 launchers (ICBM, SLBM & bombers) with 5500 warheads.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/stockpil.htm

And from what I read here the Topal-M does do some things to aid in penetrating ABM systems, short boost phase and terminal maneuvers. But that doesn't make it "impossible" to shoot down, just harder. It is still a ballistic missile.

Here's a good site on missile defense if you feel like reading.
www.missilethreat.com/

 

[--GQ--]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Bekosh, your data is as of 2002. Since Putin took office, their nuclear forces increased sharply. Below is accurate data as of 2004 from "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."

"Russia has approximately 7,800 operational nuclear warheads in its arsenal. This includes about 4,400 strategic warheads, a decrease from last year due to the withdrawal of nearly 70 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational non-strategic nuclear weapons--3,400--remains unchanged from last year" (see July/August 2003 Bulletin).

 

[bekosh]

Re: Hugo Chavez-Comments

Bekosh, your data is as of 2002. Since Putin took office, their nuclear forces increased sharply. Below is accurate data as of 2004 from "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."

"Russia has approximately 7,800 operational nuclear warheads in its arsenal. This includes about 4,400 strategic warheads, a decrease from last year due to the withdrawal of nearly 70 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational non-strategic nuclear weapons--3,400--remains unchanged from last year" (see July/August 2003 Bulletin).

You said 8000 ICBMs. The site I quoted, yes from 2002, lists 709 ICBMs, 332 SLMBs & 78 Bombers with a total of 5500 warheads. Those are just the strategic weapons accountable under the START treaty.
That compares with the 4400 strategic warheads from your 2003 quote. The reduction is from the elimination of launchers & warheads under the START treaty.

The other 3400 in you quote is an estimate of tactical weapons. The NTI site that I quoted has estimates of between 3000 & 10000 tactical warheads. There are no "official" counts because tactical weapons are not counted under any arms control treaty.

No official Russian data exist on current substrategic (tactical) nuclear weapon stockpiles or deployments. Because there are no treaties requiring information exchange on tactical nuclear weapons between the US and Russia, there are no "baseline" figures for estimates.

Our numbers aren't actually that far apart. We just needed to clarify the apples and oranges.8)