"Venezuela's Threat" plus "do you know SF INDYMEDIA.ORG?" (recommended site)

[Karen]

INDYMEDIA NETWORK
Venezuela's Threat
by ZNet Saturday, Mar. 04, 2006 at 7:36 PM

Chavez is viewed as a threat, as a "virus" that might "infect" others.

By Gary Olson

Here is today's multiple choice question: Who recently provided 1.15 million gallons of low-cost heating oil to thousands of poor and working class families in seven East Coast states, including 25,000 people in Philadelphia, and did so with the words,"No one should be forced to sacrifice food, shelter, or medicine to stay warm" ?

a.) King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia b.) Felix Rodriquez c.) George W. Bush d.) Oprah Winfrey e.) 10 major U.S. oil companies.

The correct answer is "b" and Rodriquez is the CEO of Citgo, a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA). On behalf of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, he also distributed free heating oil to dozens of homeless shelters from Maine to Delaware.

Venezuela, with the largest oil deposits outside the Middle East and the world's fifth largest oil producer, also sold oil at far lower costs to fifteen poor nations in the Caribbean and Central America. Even Native Americans in Maine were recipients, and Chief Bill Philips of the Micmac tribe thanked Pres. Chavez: "He is a fellow Native from the Americas, and we appreciate Chavez trying to bring low-cost heating oil for our elderly."

The 10 U.S. oil companies did not respond to requests to help the poor. Just one of them, Exxon, reported record profits of $36 billion in 2005.

Can the twice democratically-elected Chavez be the same fellow that Pat Robertson wants the CIA to assassinate, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has likened to Adolf Hitler; and official and semi-official types have placed on the White House "enemies list," labeled a "red devil," as "lethal as Osama bin Laden," and a "madman"? Further, the U.S. supported a unsuccessful military coup against Chavez in 2002 and Condoleeza Rice has called the Venezuelan government a "major threat to the region."

Assuming for the moment that preventing Pennsylvanians from freezing to death hasn't prompted this venomous rhetoric, what could account for it? Perhaps the answer lies in some evil deeds done by Pres. Chavez back in Venezuela. What mischief has he been up to there?

The challenges are daunting in Venezuela where 80% of the population is poor and some 1 million children scratch out a bare subsistance in the major cities. After four decades of indifferent upper-class rule, Chavez, a 51-year-old former army paratrooper, was elected president in 1998 and again in 2004.

According to Washington-based economist Mark Weisbrot, "The tangible improvements for those living in Caracus' poor barrios have been noticed in the rest of Latin America, a region with the most outrageously unequal income distribution in the world." Here are a few highlights of his tenure:

* For the first time time, universal health care is official state policy and peasants are living longer due to accessible health care. * Elementary schools are providing three free meals a day to all students, drawing some million new students to school. * misiones (missions/government projects) are extending vital social services like literacy training, food subsidies, and rudimentary health care to the poor. * Indigenous Venezuealans, homosexuals and women are now protected in the constitution. * Land reform is redistributing idle land to landless peasants.

* Operation milegro (miracle), a joint venture with Cuban doctors, has restored eyesight to thousands of blind people in the region.

Venezuelan elites, who despise Chavez and call him a "monkey," have tried mightily to sabotage the economy for eight years but it grew at a respectable nine percent in 2005, the highest in the hemisphere.

Venezuelan oil has made this possible but only Chavez acted on the clearly subversive and radical notion that his country's vast resources should be used to benefit the country's people and even those beyond its borders.

Oil was nationalized in 1976, but according to all accounts the oil bureaucracy operated as a "state within a state," refusing to function on behalf of the citizens. The system remains imperfect but Chavez finally excercised effective control over PSVSA in 2001. State oil profits were over $25 billion last year and the petrodollars are now staying home in the form of high social spending, faithfully reflecting social ownership of this natural resource. Something must be working because his approval rating stands at 77%, the highest in the Americas.

And of course this begins to explain why Chavez is viewed as a threat, as a "virus" that might "infect" others. An alternative development model where the citizens, not private U.S. foreign investors, are the primary beneficiaries of government policy is feared by U.S. elites. As Latin American expert Prof. Rosa Maria Pegueros observes, from Washington's perspective the real threat is that if Chavez succeeds, he may "create an eqalitarian society that has the power to resist United States hegemony." Who knows where this virus may appear next. To help it spread, I'm filling my tank at the Citgo station from now on.

Gary Olson, Ph.D. is chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian College in Bethlehem,PA. Contact:[email protected]

www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-02/27olson.cfm

[Speak2Truth]

This does raise the question: If Chavez really is trying to help the poor with all sorts of free stuff, why aren't Mexico's and El Salvador's poor fleeing to Venezuela instead of the United States?

And why are Venezuelans fleeing to the United States?

Venezuelans fleeing Chavez keep heading for U.S. | www.azstarnet.com ®

It's not hard for Chavez to win high approval ratings by having brute squads bully dissenters. Just think - Saddam Hussein had a 100% approval rating.

[sambacat]

"Just think - Saddam Hussein had a 100% approval rating." Well, we sure took care of them didn't we! I am sure most of the 100's of 1,000's of Iraqis the U.S. has killed (over 1 million) in the name of ridding them of a "bad" leader would rather be alive under Hussein than dead under our occupation.

[Speak2Truth]

"Just think - Saddam Hussein had a 100% approval rating." Well, we sure took care of them didn't we! I am sure most of the 100's of 1,000's of Iraqis the U.S. has killed (over 1 million) in the name of ridding them of a "bad" leader would rather be alive under Hussein than dead under our occupation.

Aside from the rather ridiculous number that "we" presumably killed - how are you so sure they'd rather live under Saddam? Given that they are now free to elect their own government, that the government is no longer starving or gassing entire villages to death, not wreaking environmental warfare to wipe out the Iraqi Kurds... are you so sure they'd rather go back to that?

According to UNICEF, Saddam was, through starvation and deprivation of medicine, killing over 5,000 Iraqi children a month. They didn't count adults. Plus, he used other extreme measures to brutalize his people into submission. And, while starving his own people to death, Saddam used the Oil for Food money to build new palaces with gold fixtures. Hm.

I find it hard to believe the people of Iraq would have wanted that to continue. If death comes today, let it be so that others may live tomorrow rather than in submission to ongoing brutality.

The massacres of innocents could have continued under that Socialist regime - but it is over now. All those who would have been killed by Saddam's brutality this month are instead alive. Same for next month...

Under a Socialist tyrant like Hugo Chavez or Saddam Hussein, it's a very dangerous thing to express opposition. Hence the high approval ratings.

[phooph]

Although difficult to accurately quantify, a ballpark tally of deaths by Saddam can be found here:
Saddam Hussein killer file
Has a great timeline of Saddam's life and rise to power. Check out 1981 when the Reaganites embraced this killer and supplied him with weapons.

As for Gulf War II deaths of Iraqis here are some possibilities:
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iraq Body Count

The current government of Iraq is massively corrupt and running under Shari'ah law, not friendly to western values.

Chavez was elected in a relatively legitimate election. Just because he is a socialist doesn't put him in the same category as Saddam. (Sweden is a socialist country. So is that economic jewel of Asia, Singapore.) America loves to hate Chavez because he ended the sweetheart oil deals that his predecessors set up for their personal enrichment, that of US oil companies, and the country's loss. Chavez may be an egomaniac but he is nowhere near being like Saddam. He was rescued from a US backed coup attempt by popular support.

Aside from the rather ridiculous number that "we" presumably killed - how are you so sure they'd rather live under Saddam? Given that they are now free to elect their own government, that the government is no longer starving or gassing entire villages to death, not wreaking environmental warfare to wipe out the Iraqi Kurds... are you so sure they'd rather go back to that?

According to UNICEF, Saddam was, through starvation and deprivation of medicine, killing over 5,000 Iraqi children a month. They didn't count adults. Plus, he used other extreme measures to brutalize his people into submission. And, while starving his own people to death, Saddam used the Oil for Food money to build new palaces with gold fixtures. Hm.

I find it hard to believe the people of Iraq would have wanted that to continue. If death comes today, let it be so that others may live tomorrow rather than in submission to ongoing brutality.

The massacres of innocents could have continued under that Socialist regime - but it is over now. All those who would have been killed by Saddam's brutality this month are instead alive. Same for next month...

Under a Socialist tyrant like Hugo Chavez or Saddam Hussein, it's a very dangerous thing to express opposition. Hence the high approval ratings.

[phooph]

One notes that Judge Parra supported a coup against Chavez. What do you think would happen to those who engaged in and supported a coup in the US?

Bush was one of the most unpopular presidents in US history and the damage done by his administration will be with us for decades. People attending Bush political rallies during the 2004 campaign wearing T-shirts quoting the Constitution were bullied and even arrested. There were mass arrests of people protesting Bush policies during the Republican convention (oddly very under-reported by the liberal media). If some had organized and attempted a coup what do you think should have been the response by the Bush administration?

There are those who hate Obama enough to support a coup and are certain he will be a disaster for the country. What should happen if they initiate one?

In both cases, where would coup supporters go to escape prosecution and how would you view countries that gave them asylum?

This does raise the question: If Chavez really is trying to help the poor with all sorts of free stuff, why aren't Mexico's and El Salvador's poor fleeing to Venezuela instead of the United States?

And why are Venezuelans fleeing to the United States?

Venezuelans fleeing Chavez keep heading for U.S. | www.azstarnet.com ®

It's not hard for Chavez to win high approval ratings by having brute squads bully dissenters. Just think - Saddam Hussein had a 100% approval rating.

[Speak2Truth]

What do you think would happen to those who engaged in and supported a coup in the US?

Apparently, they are now running the US. Let's see what happens to them!

Obama continues paying lawyers to fight off anyone trying to examine the documents that would show whether he is legally President. Think about it.

Bush was one of the most unpopular presidents in US history

Even if true, that's merely a measure of the effectiveness of negative rhetoric. It is no reflection whatsoever on his performance as President. In contrast, no matter what wrongs are committed by Obama, as long as the mass media give him glowingly positive press coverage he will be "popular".

Stalin, Hitler, Castro and other leftists perfected this technique.

and the damage done by his administration will be with us for decades.

That's a meaningless statement - unless you're talking about his failure to secure our southern border. Otherwise, he seems to have done a fairly good job within the framework of his duty.

People attending Bush political rallies during the 2004 campaign wearing T-shirts quoting the Constitution were bullied and even arrested.

But not because they were actual supporters of the Constitution. Our Constitution ensures we can "peaceably assemble" not "disruptively assemble". I saw a lot more protestors who should have been arrested.

There are those who hate Obama enough to support a coup and are certain he will be a disaster for the country. What should happen if they initiate one?

A coup is an illegal taking of power. If the Citizens of the US remove the guy who is apparently illegally in office and who is forcing anti-Constitutional agendas on the US, in order to replace him with a person who would restore Constitutional obedience to the Administration, then those persons should be praised as heros.

They would not be committing a coup. They would be removing a coup.

In both cases, where would coup supporters go to escape prosecution and how would you view countries that gave them asylum?

They would not have to go anywhere. Consider the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, in which the Citizens of that town rose up against their political servants and police, used military rifles and dynamite, to force their public servants out of office. They were actually upholding the Constitution and committed no crime. They were therefore not punished.

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee
As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort Against Corrupt Government Officials.
The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

The highest law of our land requires public servants to obey a strict set of rules. It empowers The People to use whatever force is necessary to compel that obedience or to remove the public servants. That is the Law.

[Speak2Truth]

Phooph - there are major problems determining the "civilian" deaths in Iraq. For starters, all insurgents are "civilians", even Al Qaeda. When a little boy is shot for carrying an RPG over to an insurgent stronghold, he is a "civilian" death. When an old woman is used as a body shield by an insurgent who is spraying our troops with an AK-47, both the insurgent and the old woman become "civilian" deaths. When insurgents set off a bomb in a bus, it's a bunch of "civilian" deaths, including the schmuck wearing the bomb vest.

What is horribly lacking, perhaps because of the utter stupidity of persons trying to craft this particular impression, is any understanding of who killed the civilians and why.

US and Iraq forces are killing "civlians" who attack with AK-47s, RPGs and roadside bombs. Some US and Iraqi military are killed by those "civilians" as well.

When the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq was killed he was another "civilian" death.

I'm having a real hard time finding a count of enemy SOLDIERS killed by Americans in Iraq, perhaps because there haven't been any since the fall of Saddam's regime.

As for Venezuela - I've seen expressions of alarm at Chavez's rapid arms buildup.

U.S. Alarmed by Chavez's New Missiles
Newsmax.com - U.S. Alarmed by Chavez&#39s New Missiles

[Braggi]

Phooph - there are major problems determining the "civilian" deaths in Iraq. For starters, all insurgents are "civilians", even Al Qaeda. When a little boy is shot for carrying an RPG over to an insurgent stronghold, he is a "civilian" death. When an old woman is used as a body shield by an insurgent who is spraying our troops with an AK-47, both the insurgent and the old woman become "civilian" deaths. When insurgents set off a bomb in a bus, it's a bunch of "civilian" deaths, including the schmuck wearing the bomb vest. ...

No, you're full of it. Sorry. That's not how it works.

Civilian deaths are usually calculated by hospitals. Morgues are no longer allowed to give their tallies to media sources so actual death tolls are usually estimates based on hospital deaths and eye witness accounts. Dead Iraqi freedom fighters (as Ronald Reagan would have called them) are counted as insurgents. Most of them never make it to a hospital.

-Jeff

[Speak2Truth]

Civilian deaths are usually calculated by hospitals. Morgues are no longer allowed to give their tallies to media sources so actual death tolls are usually estimates based on hospital deaths and eye witness accounts.

And roving interviews in Sunni neighborhoods asking people how many family members may have been killed in the conflict. However, there is notorious sloppiness in this.

I reiterate - a soldier shoots a 12 year old boy sent out to retrieve RPGs to bring over to holed-up insurgents. Civilian death. Saddam's fedayeen hang 20 people to force 100 more to go fight the Americans, all of whom get killed. 120 civilian deaths. And the hospitals surely count them as well as folks caught in the crossfire or victimized by Islamist bombs (they were caught wiring a school building under construction with explosives to bring it down on the kiddies on the first day of school)...

Truly, to claim there is a large number of "civilian deaths" is a con job, concealing the true nature of who is getting killed and why and by whom.

Let's not forget - Sunni civilians, former Saddam adherents who have joined sides with the US military, killed fighting off Al Qaeda, are also civilian deaths. NONE of them is a military death.

I would like for you to show me an official death tally that includes a breakdown of actual civilian bystanders, insurgents, Al Qaeda, who each was killed by, etc. Is that information available?

More "civilian" deaths...

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090606..._mi_ea/ml_iraq

Something else to consider...

https://www.seattlepi.com/national/1...vilians08.html

Also leading to inexact, often exaggerated body tolls is the obvious ideological tilt of many Middle Eastern news organizations and even the anti-war Body Count group itself, which uses casualties to influence public opinion, critics say.

Dead Iraqi freedom fighters (as Ronald Reagan would have called them) are counted as insurgents. Most of them never make it to a hospital.

I doubt Ronald Reagan would have called them freedom fighters when they fight to gain power to oppress others. The Iraqis fighting on OUR side are clearly freedom fighters - they fight for the freedom to elect their own government, to create their own laws by mutual consent, for self-determination, to avoid Islamist or Socialist oppression.

[Speak2Truth]

Regarding Venezuela - I think the most obvious indicators of the threat posed by Chavez would be his close alliance with Fidel Castro and with Iran's President. The old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies. Castro attained and held power on the platform that he is America's enemy. The Islamist regime in Iran is certainly no friend of ours either. Chavez has openly stated he is an enemy of the US. Together, they will likely continue working to cause problems for the US.

A couple of the links below are admittedly right-wing web sites but I think we could, if we wished, do some digging to get corroboration.

A history of Venezuela, Chavez's ties to Saddam, Castro
Venezuela's Fall From Grace

Chavez Consolidates Power With Castro Agents
Chavez Consolidates Power With Castro Agents

Venezuela's U.N. Ambassador Resigns to Protest Chavez's Tyranny
Venezuela's U.N. Ambassador Resigns to Protest Chavez's Tyranny

Defector: Chavez gave - $1 million to al-Qaida
Venezuelan leader endangering region with increasing ties to terrorism,
supported by Castro
Defector: Chavez gave
$1 million to al-Qaida

So, how much of a threat does Chavez pose? Clearly, he is our enemy.