Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If foreign investment is not operating for the good of the host country by exploiting their oil resources for only the profit to the investors then it should be nationalized. Colonial exploitation is a gross form of grand theft and should be punished.
I support Hugo Chavez in his efforts to free his country for economic domination by anyone including US “private” capital. Viva Chavez! All of South America needs to do this. I think we need to do this in our own country and can start by letting our increasingly inefficient corrupt banking system collapse instead of backing it up with taxes and inflation. Time to fix our own house before “fixing” the neighbors.
BTW - The Monroe Doctrine was bad policy in the 1800's and worse policy now.
Last edited by GregW; 09-10-2008 at 06:10 AM..
Reason: added line of text
Just like we copied the SR-71 from them, LA class attack subs from them,Aircraft carriers from them, stealth technology from them all of successful aircraft designs started on a Russian drawing board.
Uhmmm Nope They are great designers of fighter planes but suck at bombers. They couldn't make a quiet sub to save their lives until Israel stole the secrets and sold them to the USSR.
You have proof of course to back up we stole the vertical launch system from Russia?
Back on topic. That ship is a floating turd compared to our aegis class cruisers.
So are landmines and tactical nuclear wheapons.
The Soviet naval doctrine was to cut off atlantic shipping while their ground forces over-ran Europe. If you choose to call that "defensive" then you have a curious mental process lol.
If foreign investment is not operating for the good of the host country by exploiting their oil resources for only the profit to the investors then it should be nationalized. Colonial exploitation is a gross form of grand theft and should be punished.
I support Hugo Chavez in his efforts to free his country for economic domination by anyone including US “private” capital. Viva Chavez! All of South America needs to do this. I think we need to do this in our own country and can start by letting our increasingly inefficient corrupt banking system collapse instead of backing it up with taxes and inflation. Time to fix our own house before “fixing” the neighbors.
BTW - The Monroe Doctrine was bad policy in the 1800's and worse policy now.
I agree with you on the Monroe Doctrine.
I think you are overlooking Chavez establishing himself as dictator for life in exchange for some of the positive things he has done. I personally don't care what he does, it isn't my business...but if you were a venzuelan living there...you would do well to have some concerns over the totality of his actions.
There were things that needed changing in Venezuela, it's just that he changed a lot more than just that. Are you still boasting of the "democracy" they have there? What happens when things aren't so rosy on oil revenues, can they hold elections and remove Chavez? Not now.
Just like we copied the SR-71 from them, LA class attack subs from them,Aircraft carriers from them, stealth technology from them all of successful aircraft designs started on a Russian drawing board.
Uhmmm Nope They are great designers of fighter planes but suck at bombers. They couldn't make a quiet sub to save their lives until Israel stole the secrets and sold them to the USSR.
You have proof of course to back up we stole the vertical launch system from Russia?
The Soviets developed and deployed "cruise" missiles and other anti-ship missiles in the 1960s, long before the US even thought of the idea.
In the 1971 Pakistani Civil War, India was successful in using its Soviet made Osa-class missile boats with its SS-N-2B against Pakistani ships, sinking two destroyers and a minesweeper.
The US didn't even have anti-ship missiles then. The Kynda and Kresta-class cruisers used vertical launch systems in the late 1960s, and they also used vertical launch systems for their surface-to-air missiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
Back on topic. That ship is a floating turd compared to our aegis class cruisers.
What moron would compare a Kirov-class cruiser to an Aegis-class cruiser?
They don't perform the same missions. That's like saying a Volkswagen VW is a turd compared to Kenworth. No kidding, VWs aren't intended to haul trailers.
The Soviet naval doctrine was to cut off atlantic shipping while their ground forces over-ran Europe. If you choose to call that "defensive" then you have a curious mental process lol.
No, that was not Soviet naval doctrine, that was the Brookings Institute and Tom Clancy's misguided notion of Soviet naval doctrine.
You can't understand Soviet military doctrine reading Tom Clancy books.
In other words, here's how NewYoCA's foreign policy goes down:
Venezuela has their own oil, and a free democratic election, but they don't elect "my man". So NewToCA says, no, Venezuelan oil belongs to America, and we'll just bulldoze 26-million Venezuelans off the economic edge of the earth, "which is fine with me" (tell me that is not what we did to Cuba), until we force Venezuelans to elect a Mobil-Exxon lapdog in their free deomcratic election, who will use the oil to benefit NewToCA, instead of the people who own it. If this is not NewToCA's official foreign policy, I challenged him several times to correct me, which he declined to do, instead calling it "spin" that does not interest him. I have no doubt that the plight of people "does not interest him", nearly as much a few cents at the pump for unleaded for his SUV. That's the kind of American he is. . . that we are. . . that people hate . . . that people want to kill. . . . even if they have to become terrorists. . . . whom NewToCA is now really scared of.
Again with the spinning statements, you probably should just post for yourself instead of paraphrasing others, your accuracy is rather inconsistent (to be charitable).
Developing alternative energy sources drives down prices via lower market demand, and makes the producer countries (Venezuela in this case) poorer. How is this stating "this oil is ours"?
Rather than expending so much effort trying to negatively paraphrase me, you should reevaluate your support for leaders who try to convert democratic countries into dictatorships:
But in this, as in so many other things, Mr Chávez was mistaken. The constitutional “reform” was not about Mr Bush at all. It was about whether oil-rich Venezuela would remain a democracy, or adopt what was in reality a substantially new constitution of quasi-totalitarian character that could have allowed Mr Chávez to remain president for life. His defeat was narrow (by just 1.4%), but profound in its import. It almost certainly heralds the beginning of the end of Mr Chávez's Bolivarian revolution and its influence in Latin America.
Although in some ways they threaten democracy, the likes of Mr Chávez and Mr Morales may well have ended up broadening it, since they represent groups who have previously felt excluded. Their mistake lies in clinging to an old-fashioned socialism, involving the centralisation of political power and state control of the economy. Most Venezuelans—and most Latin Americans—clearly have no enthusiasm for this. It was not so much Mr Chávez who was defeated in the referendum, as his bankrupt philosophy. That is good news for Latin America, and especially for its poor.
No, that was not Soviet naval doctrine, that was the Brookings Institute and Tom Clancy's misguided notion of Soviet naval doctrine.
You can't understand Soviet military doctrine reading Tom Clancy books.
Soviet military doctrine centered heavy around an armed conflict in Europe as opposed to say some sort of distant armed action like in Africa, South America etc. The naval role in that could therefore be called "defensive" only if it supported defensive land operations. If their navy helped to blockade, intercept etc. in the event of offensive land operations then I don't see how you can word twist that into "defensive".
Please describe your views, I'm curious to hear you communicate them as opposed to saying "no it's not" to everyone here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
