Err...what?

Well, when Iran was a US ally, we sold arms to Iran including the excellent F14 fighter.
As for Iraq, they bought all the Russian crap weapons: BMP, T54s, MIGs, etc... for their military.
During the Iraq-Iran war the USA properly gave military help to Iraq.
This included satellite help and perhaps lots of other things that I'm sure is still classified as secret.

I think I can smell the point you are trying to clandestingly get to...or not.
Let me save both of us a lot of time:
I have no qualms about selling weapons (non nuclear, non bio weapons) to other nations that will further our national interest.
My only caveat is weapons sent during a time of war gives the offended nation a causi belli for war.
When the Russians shipped weapons into Vietnam to kill US soldiers, I say the USA would have been justified in striking any Russian ships bearing arms or striking land routes in Communist China.

The US revenge for Vietnam didn't occur until the Russians invaded Afghanistan but this turned out to be short-sighted because the Afghans are the some of the scummiest most decadent culture on this planet and letting the Russians crush these scum would have done the world a great favor.

I don't follow his reasoning either...
He is way to emotional and overdoes the hyperbole and strawman arguments to distraction.
I think he still needs to sit down and organize his own thoughts before he tries to take others on in a debate.

HeHeHe! Yes, this is partially true.
But I do think Pinochet was a uber-stud and anything he did to kill communists was a good thing to do.
Communist are killers and thieves. This is not me talking, this is history talking.
So when dealing with communists, it is best to strike them first before they do the same to you.
And communist don't play by the rules so I don't begrudge the Pinochet's of the world using extreme methods to kill communists.

And which "lies" would you be referring to?
I wonder if you even know what the world means.

Ignores?
I read your posts on Chavez and they can be summed up as follows:
'Chavez is not that bad because his predecessor was worse.'

Sorry if that argument was less than compelling for me.
I could reduce Venzeula's inflation rate to less than 1% in one day by taking a baseball bat to their printing presses.
Inflating the currency is the coward's way of raising taxes on the people and it hits ALL the people including the poor that Chavez claims to support.

I don't think Felix has any moral issues with exporting murder, political instability, or anything else, as long as this benefits his interests.

Felix, am I right? Despite bringing up the atrocities committed by communists, you really don't mind atrocities that politicians commit, as long as they benefit you in some way, for example, by keeping the United States rich and powerful.

Am I right?

I don't know what you mean by "exporting murder" or exporting "political instability" so your question is unanswerable.
So before your next post, why don't you take a breath and realize people can't read your mind.
Then perhaps you could pose questions that people might understand.

But it is true I don't cry when bad people get their come-uppance. Assuming that is your enigmatic point.
And I consider communist to be lower than snail scum so I have no empathy towards them when they receive justice.
My empathy is saved for only those who deserve it.
And terrorists are even lower scum than communists...
Self-defense is justification for violence. And when the communists come, anything a person does to protect their property and their lives is justifiable to me. Got it? I don't hink I can express myself in simpler terms.

I keep a loaded .38 in my bedroom. If someone comes into my house to steal my TV...they will get shot by at least 3 hollow point bullets. Afterwards, the only mourning I will doing is to mourn my ruined carpet. And since my carpet is brand new, I might cry for losing my lovely target. But no tears for the thief... And certainly no tears for communists who meet untimely ends.

It is true I don't mind attrocities against communists and terrorists.
But I have no idea what you mean about me benefiting.
Am I suppose to guess your meaning?

Your constant hyperbole distracts from message and makes your posts close to unreadable.
You are way too emotional to have a rational debate with.
You need to leave your emotions at the door and bring your logic...

I will keep my question simple and hypothetical, and see if that gets us anywhere.

Would it bother you if an entire communist family, including grandparents and small children, was murdered by a US funded death squad because the mother was trying to organize a union in the factory where she works?

Assume the murders took place primarily because unionization is against the commercial interests of the US corporation that owns the factory, and the government that ordered the executions holds power solely because of their enforcement of policies that increase the power and wealth of the United States.

Assume that if the woman had succeeded, more unionization would take place, and the price of some goods that you regularly purchase would have increased.

I have nothing against unions engaged in collective bargaining as long as the govt does not interfere in the process on either side.
If people are killed soley for trying to unionize, then I would consider this a crime.
The USA would have ZERO responsibility for their deaths. It is not a crime to give foreign aid to other govts...
With regard to foreign policy, I think it is better to support the lesser of two evils. My position is a right-wing dictator is preferable to a communist regime (aka a left-wing dictator).

The second assumption is absurb and since your question relies on this assumption, your question becomes moot...

I suppose people would pay a greater price for those goods then.

I will respond point-for-point first, and add commentary at the end of this post.

If by "to emotional" you mean "too free of sociopathic tendencies," then I agree, and thank you for pointing that out.

If you could point out examples of my hyperbole or direct me to a strawman argument, your statement might mean something other than "I'm confused!"

I'm sorry that you cannot follow arguments across more than two posts. Reading is hard.

I think you're right, and his latest post seems to confirm that.

You are seriously arguing that the US, in directly funding and giving mandate to death squads that kill people, is not answerable for those deaths? Is that right?

I let this go the first time because I thought you'd just made a typo. But it's now clear that you think "absurb" is actually a word. I don't know what that word means. But perhaps you mean absurd?

If you're going to start analyzing arguments using logic, you should know how logic works. Absurbities are not properties of logical systems.

And the assumption is not absurd in the first place. Perhaps you could expand on how the assumption is absurd and we'll all have a better idea of where you're coming from.

It is impossible to prove a negative and only a fool will try.
So when ask to prove a negative I will rightly point out that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion...not I.
This is logic 101.

The source for the reduced poverty in the Chavez regime is Chavez.
Newspapers that publish unflattering news of Chavez are closed down.
I doubt the credibility of the Chavez regime to give out real numbers.

1. I said before the first thing I would do is take a baseball bat to their money printing presses. That will get inflation down to less than 1%.
2. Then I would stop spending money supporting terrorists groups in neighboring countries.
3. Then I would allow for a free media.
That would be a good start.

A meaningless question.
Chavez is going to do what all left-wing dictators do.
But free markets and rule of law improves all economies.

You made numerous assertions regarding Chavez and his policies. If any of them are to mean anything, you need to prove they are true. So far, you haven't.


I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you're legitimately not that smart. But a while ago, I gave you this:

This is an analysis of the VE economy undertaken by the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. This source is not even close to being linked to Chavez or his regime. The information clearly illustrates the reduction of poverty in VE under Chavez's watch.

Another broad generalization that doesn't logically hold. And another sweeping assertion that isn't possible to prove.

Felix, you seem to have the problem of equating every socialist movement to Pol Pot or Stalin, Allende was not Pol Pot or Stalin.
Your lies are that poverty hasnt gone down and that Chavez is a dictator. You also lie about Chavez closing all the media that is against him.

Tsk. Tsk... Such bad manners you have.

OK, I will do so in the future.

People that pull the triggers are the ones who are the killers.

If you are going to dwelve into typos, punctuation, or other grammatical mistakes then all you will accomplish is distract from the argument. I think such an approach is petty but if it makes you feel good then do it if you like. I don't think you will impress anyone with such pettiness...

After that long lecture you misspell absurdities.
You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.
As a word hack, I know my house is made of glass...ergo I don't throw stones at others typos and mispellings.
Based on your mispelling, perhaps you should adopt a similar stance.

And I don't recall ever claiming absurdities are a property of logical systems.
So why falsely claim that I did?

If you say so.
I could not relate your assumption to the real world so I dismissed it and the question which dependeding on.
I found your assumption to be analogous to the question, "How many angels can sit on the point of a needle".
Such questions are a waste of time and I see no value in answering such questions.

I could but your name calling and grammatical pettiness is sucking all the fun from the debate.
So I'm becoming apathetic to your questions.

The bottom line is: if I enjoy an exchange of ideas, I engage.
If I don't, then I'm content to sit on the sidelines.
I have nothing to prove. I realize my views of foreign policy are not mainstream and won't be mainstream in my lifetime.
I'm happy to defend my views with those who ask out of pure curiousity.
However, I find your attitude to be quite hateful and that is not condusive to any debate.

This is exactly correct.

It's not petty when you're misspelling words fundamental to the structure of debate. Misspelling the word 'absurd' calls into question your ability to even understand the word. Do you not see that?

Ok. I mused earlier on whether you were being deliberately obtuse or are just not smart. I now know the answer. Cheers.

Absurbities are not properties of logical systems because absurbities don't exist. I was taking a dig at you. That you can't comprehend it says more than you know about the levels at which we're debating.

You have to prove your assertions re: Chavez and his regime. You can't just enter an actual debate and then leave when you realize you have to back up what you say.


How are your views on foreign policy not mainstream? Given what you've said, it sounds like your entire knowledge base consists of what was transmitted to you via American media and public education. You've regurgitated some of the most mainstream positions possible re: communism, Chavez, dictators, etc..

Then find someone else who enjoy discussing typos and grammatical mistakes.
I'm not interested in dwelving in such petty topics. And I will not waste my energies in such petty topics.
It takes two parties to engage in a debate and only one party to leave to end a debate.
I declare you the winner of the "typo" debate and I exercise my right to leave this debate. You win.
Good luck... And if you would just leave me alone in these forums, you will have my silent appreciation.

More bad manners...
Such bad manners only demeans yourself....Not me.

Yes that pattern of yours has been quite clear in your last several posts.
I'm not interested in engaging in mutual mud-slinging.
You can play by yourself. You are just not worth the effort.
I'll defend my views with anyone as long as it is fun.
Ad hominen attacks and petty digs are not fun for me...

I am leaving this debate with you.
Ad hominen attacks are boring to me.
I had seen glimmers of intelligence in you which I thought would make you an interesting debating partner.
But your poor manners and petty digs are tiresome and dsitract* what could have been an interesting exchange.
*I left this typo intact as a gift to feed your ego. Enjoy!

All good generals must know when to give battle and when not to.
You are just not fun to engage with.
Please respect my request not to respond to my posts on these forums.
Goodbye...

If you do not see how repeatedly calling somebody's argument 'absurb' effects the legitimacy of your position, that is unfortunate.

I guess here's our fundamental disconnect. I think that debates should be about mutually offering points--based in logic and backed up with evidence--from different sides of a topic. Fun is secondary.

A lawyer does not get to tell a judge "Your Honor, I will no longer argue this case. This is no longer fun for me. Goodbye."

I am probably just holding the standard for debate too high. Sometimes I forget that this is the innernetz.

I originally thought the same, until it became clear that you are not interested in a debate. I am not interested in propagandizing or throwing around unsupported opinions. I am interested in revealing propaganda for what it is. Hence this long, drawn out exchange that has nothing to do with the OP.

The only reason I post here is to sharpen my argumentation skills. That is fun for me. I like using my brain and thinking things through. I am not out to get you; but if I see you post something I disagree with in the future, I will respond. Cheers.

Well drat, I've been doing my best to acquire some sociopathic tendencies, guess I'm going to have to practice more.

I'm actually surprised Felix doesn't realize how often the US funds death squads with the intent of protecting its economic interests, but I have no reason to believe he is pretending ignorance, so I'll let it slide, especially since he isn't willing to kill off a family of commies simply because they ARE commies.

It's a start, anyway.

Whilst I don't particularly appreciate Felix tone as a means towards changing peoples minds, I share his disgust at the commie sympathizers.

That people still think it's civilized and tasteful to defend Chavez and other human rights violators just because they're 'left wing' and 'exotic' is sickening.

lol...yes I'm a bomb thrower.

I was going to ignore this absurd thread and did so for about a couple of weeks but I changed my mind.
Seeing that the OP was a "true believer", I felt free to be as extreme as I wanted because afterwards, he was still going to be a "true believer" anyways. So I figured I might as well have some fun...aka throw some verbal bombs.

As poker players we are taught to play the odds.
And based on history, the odds are when communists get into power, they are going to kill a lot of people and steal a lot of property. Chavez is moving towards commmunism in baby steps. If he ever gets enough power where he doesn't need to worry about another coup, then the dead bodies in the streets will be plentiful. Killing Chavez and his supporters for just wanting to steal other people's property is enough reason to justify a Pinochet-like dictator to clean house in Venzeuala. Chavez would have already killed a lot more people but the previous coup put the fear of god in him so he is talking baby steps towards a left-wing dictatorship. He knows if he moves too fast, it will force another coup and if he gets captured (again), he will be a dead man. It is the classic case where a frog will jump out of boiling water but if you put a frog in cool water and then slowly heat it up...you can have boiled frog for dinner.

CHAVEZ IS A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he is.
What you fail to understand is there is a difference between a dictator that has a hammer-lock on power and feels 100% safe to do whatever he wants and a dictator that realizes if he moves too fast he will get lead posioning in the brain.

Chavez has experienced one coup already and if there is a second coup, Chavez will die.
Chavez knows this. Hence his caution into moving towards marxism.

WikiLeaks cables: Oil giants squeeze Chávez as Venezuela strugglesAmerican diplomats say president is now desperate to attract foreign partners after nationalisation frightened many away
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...vez?intcmp=239

Here are the more juicier excerpts:
Broke?
Did not Red-China and the USSR prove that marxism works?
Poor Chavez...I guess he is just unlucky.

No body wants to invest money in Venezuela's oil company when they know Chavez can "nationalize" their investment. All that oil and Chavez still has to beg for foreign investment...pathetic.

Chavez is looking for charity not investors.
No one with a brain will invest a dime in Ven oil unless they can make money.

Nationlization works well...once.
Then no body want to play with you any more.

This is like the old joke that is you put marxist in charge of deserts then they would run out of sand.

This entire thread makes me want to vomit. From posters defending Chavez to Felix_Nietzsche hoping that a Pinochet like dictator comes in and just starts killing people.

How many more people have to have starve, suffer, get robbed, and murdered before you people realize that Hugo Chavez is one of the worst leaders walking on this planet right now.

This is a man who tried to violently takeover the government in a coup d'eta in the early 90's. They should have left in prison to rot for the rest of his life. A man, who from the very beginning has idolized himself and grabbed more and more power at every opportunity he gets the chance.

Chavez places no importance on Rule of Law, Democracy, or people's rights. Since Chavez has been in power, he has shut down TV stations, nationalized more and more companies, and jailed political opponents just for being political opponents.

How some of you could defend Chavez and buy into his constant ******** bewilders me every single day.



The Economist
Towards state socialism: A wave of nationalisation promises scarcity and decline

NYT: Venezuela, More Deadly Than Iraq, Wonders Why

NYT: Criticism of Chávez Stifled by Arrests

I could go on... but what would be the point? You guys would still praise him for saying FU to the Big Bad United States. Blaming the United States for a coup that arose from a situation where Chavez's supporters started openly murdering opposition protesters in the streets.

I disagree with you on many of your assertions regarding Chavez, but I won't argue them, because it doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that you are correct to point out that the issue doesn't have to be an either or situation. Either Chavez or a Pinochet. That's something it's easy to forget in this debate.

If the Venezuelan people, freely, knowledgeably, and by a fair and democratic process, wish to elect someone other than Chavez in 2012, well and good. And if they truly want Chavez for president again in 2012, while I think it's probably a bad idea, I respect their right to elect their leaders as they see fit. What I don't support is the right of any other country to override the wishes of Venezuela's majority to impose their own wishes on the country.

There are very few circumstances under which I would support outside interference that imposes a government upon a people after they have freely and by a majority chosen their own. This is not one of those circumstances. Should it ever become one, the one country that should not interfere is my own country. Too much bad history there. America needs to stay out of it. In fact, even if Chavez is or becomes the world's worst dictator, the US still needs to stay out of it, because Chavez would have to work awfully long and hard to top Pinochet.

13th apostle, Crime was touched in the first post, that is my biggest criticism to Chavez.
However Im curious as to why there are no New York times articles that describe the situation in Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador , Honduras, Jamaica or Trinidad and Tobago.
But I insist nobody is defending Chavez crime performance ITT.

On the nationalizations thing, I already stated my opinion, nationalizing natural resources = good, nationalizing food = bad.

I want to know what is exactly that I posted that you disagree with so strongly given that your posts just seems to be a longer version of my criticism of Chavez itt.