Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Chavez Government Probes U.S. Funding

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Chavez Government Probes U.S. Funding
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:05 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

One thing that I feel I have been able to accomplish on this board is to at least fully bring out into the open those posters who are driven by extreme cynicism and bitter antiAmericanism, those who see the CIA hidden behind every tree, always acting in bad faith and then lying about it, and those who explain everything, everywhere in U.S.-centric terms -- even, in dbee's case, high-handedly rejecting the views my Venezuelan friend emailed me several days ago because they can not be reconciled with what he thinks ground conditions in Venezuela must be like (per his cherished "documentary," no doubt).

I have also discovered that it is entirely pointless to reason with those who hold such worldviews.

In any case, the most decisive factor in the problematic U.S.-Venezuelan relationship today is Chavez and his groupies and their undeniably confrontational, indeed puerile, attitudes towards international affairs.

Don't just ask Washington, however. You can get that from the Mexican and Peruvian govts as well, each of which have dealt with a Chavez tantrum in the last year...

I don't know about Dbee, maybe you are right. But I thought the same thing. It's not that I think you made it up, but how is anyone supposed to take an anonymous email from one person seriously. It really wasn't even worth posting. I am sure Dbee, or anyone who hates America, could very easily find one person who doesn't live in America anymore to write an email just like that about America. Actually, I was surprised you posted it in the first place.

Again, don't take this criticism as anything but a criticism of an anonymous email posted by someone we don't know on an ESL website.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:

laogaiguk wrote:

I don't know about Dbee, maybe you are right. But I thought the same thing...

You can certainly take it or leave it.

I am sure that had it been a view that coincided with the Chavez groupies' version of ground conditions in Venezuela, it would have been celebrated here rather than being summarily dismissed as "a misguided individual" because his or her views do not coincide with the anti-U.S. position...

But, in any case, on the nature of the source, I believe In_Seoul has established the precedent of citing unattributed sources here. I have done nothing new.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject:

By the way, Laogaiguk: what is your response to this post and the allegation that the (always acting in bad faith) United States has been covertly intervening in the affairs of the (always acting innocently and in good faith, indeed in the interests of the law-abiding international community) Chavez regime?

Gopher wrote:

If the U.S. govt, particularly the W. Bush Administration, is covertly funding political opposition in Venezuela for the express or implied purpose of destabilizing or overthrowing Chavez's govt, then Congress needs to examine these claims and consult the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence (Oversight) to see whether (a) there was a valid presidential "finding" on alleged operation(s) and (b) said oversight committees endorsed the finding.

And if these two conditions were met, then it would be a legal operation, at least according to the U.S. Constitution. (International law, particularly the OAS and its bedrock principle of non-intervention, might reach another conclusion, but that is a different point.)

If these two conditions were not met, then Congress needs to (a) determine whether alleged intervention actually occurred and (b) air this matter publicly.

But people like Chavez and his groupies on this board need to be just as prepared to accept that it is possible -- dare I say "likely"? -- that there has been no such intervention. If there had, given the intense polarization and partisan issues driving an oppositionist, investigative press, we would almost certainly have seen something besides Chavez's allegations by now.

This is difficult, I know, because Chavez and his groupies believe that any negative allegation about the United States must be true. And they do not require any evidence, thank you very much.

And, finally, since we are investigating each other anyway, I believe there were multiple allegations that Chavez covertly intervened in Bolivian and Peruvian elections (to name only the most recent two allegations). I believe Chavez has also hosted and/or met with Hamas and the Iranian govt and is dramatically increasing his military budget on the pretext of unsubstantiated and exaggerated allegations that the U.S. is preparing to invade Venezuela but, in reality, we do not know for certain what he is up to.

dbee wrote:

Any foreign government that tries to interfere in another countries [sic] democratic election should be stopped in their tracks.

Indeed, dbee.

But is Chavez prepared to declassify and publish his files and diplomatic correspondence to clear the air on these allegations? Is he prepared to put it all on the table and let the chips fall where they may in the court of international public opinion...?

What does he have to lose besides the moral high ground that he has claimed for himself, right...?

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject:

I don't see anything wrong about posting an email recounting an "on the ground" opinion. It all is part of "information" and necessary for a truly informed person to make any kind of assessment. I think it much more relevant than all those "Made in Middle America" sources that Gopher quotes or reads......... I believe we should read as much as possible, be sceptical of the sources and make up our own opinions based on ALL that. I do find it disingenious for Gopher to claim again and again (insert topic) that said govt won't publish all their internal and classified info. , therefore they are suspect and lower than good old America. Fact is Gopher, America too contains a wealth of classified materials, a wealth of govt dealings even never recorded and winked, nudged. This is the nature of the beast and your "put down" of other govts in this regard, is unwarranted. In any case, the CIA is not responsible for everything but I can tell you -- they do keep busy and their main task regarding foreign govts is to not only obtain information but also counter espionage, destabilization. I suggest, they are doing their job, especially in regards to Venezuela. I myself, do not hold up Chavez as a leader of high regard. You can't take anyone seriously who continually has disregard for norms of civilized behaviour within his own country. I reject tyrants and Chavez is the worst, in the sense that he uses populism, trite messages to incite some, demonize others.... (but again, this could be Bush!!!). I find the best leaders , lead quietly and without the flash of the camera or the big press conference or even bigger stick... DD

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

dbee wrote:

Any foreign government that tries to interfere in another countries [sic] democratic election should be stopped in their tracks.

Why, you don't care about my opinion. I didn't come here to comment on the thread, I just thought Dbee could use some back up on that one point. I like it when others do the same for me.

But if you must know, I think Chavez should be taken down (not necessarily in a violent way if possible). I don't like the guy and he isn't helping South America get out of the rut it's in.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject:

ddeubel wrote:

I do find it disingenious for Gopher to claim again and again (insert topic) that said govt won't publish all their internal and classified info. , therefore they are suspect and lower than good old America.

I have done this before.

Here...

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/

http://foia.state.gov/SearchColls/Search.asp

(notice, with this last ref, they already have Freedom of Information Act dox on Katrina available...)

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Can you, Ddeubel, point to anything at all that is comparable anywhere else in the world, least of all Chavez? Have you even seen Gleijeses's (a well known covert ops scholar at Johns Hopkins) comments on the issue in his Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa 1959-1976?

And, while you are at it, please explain how citing this fact is "disingenous"?

ddeubel wrote:

Fact is Gopher, America too contains a wealth of classified materials, a wealth of govt dealings even never recorded and winked, nudged. This is the nature of the beast and your "put down" of other govts in this regard, is unwarranted.

Absurd. "Unwarranted"? Show me how I am wrong, then.

And I do not "put other govts down," as you allege. I merely explain how the debate is terribly slanted against the U.S., where everyone else, apparently on "a hanging mission," keeps their hands and cards below the table while at the same time picking apart each and every one of Washington's cards, which, sooner or later, end up face up on the table.

And for the record: I have always accepted that critics rightly challenge America's historical claims to being exceptional or morally right in each and every of its interventions abroad.

But rather than stopping at a new narrative that places all nations, morally at least, on a level field (Stalin had legitimate security interests just as the U.S. had legitmate security interests, and this, partly, led the two postwar superpowers to get tangled in misunderstanding and mistrust and then engage each other in a Cold War with its own consequences), these critics go overboard in their criticism, which becomes extremely bitter and indeed venemous.

Why must the pendelum swing so far to the other side?

According to their revisions, for example, no longer is America no better or worse than any other nation-state: America is always the worst; America is depraved. America, revisionist critics tend to allege, always acts in bad faith, virtually fabricating the Cold War out of whole cloth in order to cynically justify permanent military spending and virtual world-wide slavery, while even Stalin becomes a well-meaning, misunderstood leader (indeed, maliciously mischaracterized by an aggressive, baleful, and lying U.S.) who just wanted to secure his own country in a hostile world. Or, according to William Blum in another narrative, even the North Korean state becomes a passive victim of unilateral U.S. militarism and expansionism -- indeed, "bullying" -- and North Korea really had nothing to do with starting that war, etc. Absurd.

It goes on forever, in subSaharan Africa, and in other places like Chile, for example.

So I clarify here that my motive is not to defend the U.S. so much as I question a steep trend which places (and with obvious relish in many cases) Washington in the worst depths of the world's dirtiest gutters while celebrating people like Chavez, the defiant and heroic resister of the Great Satan...and this is not to defend the U.S. but to simply point out that the factual record does not support such a blatantly partisan trend.

ddeubel wrote:

In any case, the CIA is not responsible for everything but I can tell you -- they do keep busy and their main task regarding foreign govts is to not only obtain information but also counter espionage, destabilization...

Again, you show that you are wholly unaware of the details of what even "intelligence" is. Here you equate counterintel with covert operations ("destabilization" is the anachronistic word you use). But you do not even understand the differences that exist between intelligence-gathering, collation, and analysis, counterintelligence (an FBI function, if you must know), and covert operations, or how the latter even come about in the U.S., do you?

I ask again: does anyone have anything at all besides assertion or (cynical, anti-U.S.) analogy to back up Chavez's assertion that the U.S. has been running covert ops against him since he came to power? (Note that he has also made similar allegations against the Vatican, but they seemed to disappear. Note also that people like dbee have no interest whatsoever, conversely, in considering the allegations the Colombians and Peruvians, for example, have made that it is actually Chavez who is running covert ops -- or trying to but failing miserably -- in their electoral processes?)

So, as someone I know says: "If you want to convince me, then convince me." The allegation that the U.S. has launched covert op after covert op aimed at overthrowing the Chavez regime, since his rise to power, has been thrown down for us to consider. How did you come to accept this allegation as the truth? How did you arrive at this conclusion? And how do you know this?

And I really do not expect you to answer these and other questions. You tend to shy away from such issues when directly presented to you.

Last edited by Gopher on Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total

dbee

Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:28 am Post subject:

Quote:

It really wasn't even worth posting. I am sure Dbee, or anyone who hates America...

wtf ??

dude, I don't hate America ... my point of view isn't all that different from Chomsky's. Who I might add is infinitely more eloquent and informed in expressing his point than I might be. Does Chomsky hate America ? Does critizing the US government mean that you hate America ? If so, then you are setting free speech and democracy back to pre-American constitution days ...

Quote:

I am sure that had it been a view that coincided with the Chavez groupies' version of ground conditions in Venezuela, it would have been celebrated here rather than being summarily dismissed as "a misguided individual" because his or her views do not coincide with the anti-U.S. position...

... like I've previously stated Gopher. Once these accusations are stated by a 'trusted' third party, such as Amnesty, or established human rights organizations, then I'll start to take them seriously... There's nothing wrong with quoting third parties on message boards (although I do object to the manner in which your friend stated his opinion), what's important is the context. You can tell us what your friend (who is obviously anti-chavez and living in a different country), presents as biased, third or fourth hand information. But you can't present that as factual in a reasonable argument. It's the context, not content, that I disagree with ...

Quote:

But people like Chavez and his groupies on this board need to be just as prepared to accept that it is possible -- dare I say "likely"? -- that there has been no such intervention. If there had, given the intense polarization and partisan issues driving an oppositionist, investigative press, we would almost certainly have seen something besides Chavez's allegations by now.

Well, lets see now. US navy vessels and aircraft were spotted on radar inside Venezualan national territory during the coup attempt. This was later confirmed - on the record - by a retired US intelligence officer. The plane used to transport Chavez to an off-coast prison, was an American military aircraft. CIA documents have been discovered which show that the American government knew about the coup in the weeks and months before it was going to happen. And the US government was the world's first government to recognize the new illegal government of Pedro Carmona. Indeed, they recognized the government so quickly, that many other nations weren't even aware of the coup attempt at that stage. And who gave Carmona asylum after his coup attempt failed ? ... Columbia. The American government's key strategic ally in the region.

Please present your evidence that Chavez interferred with the elections in Bolivia and Peru ...

Quote:

Gopher you are falling into the trap that you accuse others of landing themselves in. I don't consider Americans a rouge people or America a rouge nation. But the path that a very small number of men are leading the United States down, is the wrong one. You however seem to be happy to overlook any of your governments faults. Even to the point of farce.

Regardless of whatever anyone here thinks of Chavez. I think it behoves us all to respect his mandate from 59% of the Venezualan population. You may not like the guy, but calling him undemocractic is just plain false. And many of the critisims that have been pointed at him on this thread, are no different to the things he's been saying about Bush at the UN.

I think there's an irony there in accusing Chavez of being non-democratically elected, meanwhile it's Bush that didn't even win his first election, and only won the second because he'd started a war. When's the last time a war time president hasn't been returned to office ?

The only difference between an elected, democratic leader and a tyrant - is an election. And Chavez's day of judgement will come. Until that day however, anyone who believes in the democratic process should give Chavez the benefit of the doubt. Even if they abhorr his personal style of politics...

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:52 am Post subject:

dbee wrote:

Well, lets see now. US navy vessels and aircraft were spotted on radar inside Venezualan national territory during the coup attempt.

Great. You are finally getting more specific. But I have questions that I would like you to answer, because I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. I feel that you are still trapped in others' baseless assertions and have no specific evidence to cite whatsoever.

You use the passive voice here. Please clarify, if you know, who "spotted" these ships and aircraft, how they knew these were U.S. Navy ships and aircraft, how and why they associated these overt military platforms with an alleged covert operation, and, of course, please name the ships or at the very least tell us what class of ships we are talking about, and what there specific orders were, and who signed them. Given your use of "aircraft," and not helicopter or plane, it could be anything from a carrier to a destroyer.

Again. Please be specific. That is, if you can.

dbee wrote:

This was later confirmed - on the record - by a retired US intelligence officer.

Whose name and rank would be...? And in which forum did this alleged retired officer (was he NIS, MID, CIA, DIA, NSA, or FBI, by the way?) speak?

I really hope you are not talking about Phillip Agee, incidentally.

dbee wrote:

The plane used to transport Chavez to an off-coast prison, was an American military aircraft.

What plane? What prison? How do you know it was a U.S.-flag plane?

dbee wrote:

CIA documents have been discovered which show that the American government knew about the coup in the weeks and months before it was going to happen.

Which CIA documents exactly? Can you cite them by author and date? Are you referencing operational cables from various Caribbean stations to Langley? If you are referencing an alleged task force's memoranda and planning dox, please say so, and please also name the task force (e.g., PBFORTUNE, TP/AJAX, BELT, etc.)

dbee wrote:

And the US government was the world's first government to recognize the new illegal government of Pedro Carmona. Indeed, they recognized the government so quickly, that many other nations weren't even aware of the coup attempt at that stage. And who gave Carmona asylum after his coup attempt failed ? ... Columbia. The American government's key strategic ally in the region.

Very interesting indeed.

However, circumstantial evidence like this does nothing for the case you are stating.

dbee wrote:

Please present your evidence that Chavez interferred with the elections in Bolivia and Peru...

I referenced others' allegations, not a case of my own. Please note that there was much diplomatic turbulence between Lima and Caracas in the midst of its elections. Same in Bolivia when Morales was campaigning.

The allegations are all over the press. Google it if you are not informed.

But, as I have said, your ignorance in these allegations (and the diplomatic bickering that went on between these govts) is unsurprising, as you have no interest in such allegations. You are only interested in those allegations which indict the U.S. govt of egregious misdeeds.

And thanks for clearing up that you merely swallow hook, line, and sinker, and then repeat Chomsky's line. But many of us already know what Chomsky thinks. Do you have anything original to add or are you just another of his intellectual slaves...?

Last edited by Gopher on Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 am; edited 1 time in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:02 am Post subject:

dbee wrote:

...I'm pro-American, but anti-American government...

Also, I have done my best to expose this as a nondistinction. Perhaps people would prefer to hear an authority on the subject, one of the founders of modern cultural anthropology (from Columbia, NYC)...

RuthBenedict wrote:

Society in its full sense as we have discussed it in this volume is never an entity separable from the individuals who compose it...no civilization has in it any element which in the last analysis is not the contribution of an individual. Where else could any trait come from except from the behavior of a man or a woman or a child...?

From her conclusion, Patterns of Culture.

You cannot separate "the American people" from "the American govt," then, anymore than you could separate any people from its larger society or govt. We are all tied up in it together -- indeed, we make it what it is in a million different ways every day.

For better or for worse and in one way or another, then, all of us Americans are involved and complicit in our govt's actions at home and abroad.

dbee

Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 am Post subject:

Quote:

You cannot separate "the American people" from "the American govt," then, anymore than you could separate any people from its larger society or govt. We are all tied up in it together -- indeed, we make it what it is in a million different ways every day.

... Gopher, you're in such murky territory here that I'm surprised you're unaware of it yourself. Distinction between a government and it's people has for a long time now, been one of the founding principles of free thought, stretching back since before the enlightenment era. All the great political thinkers of the last 100's of years, have been the ones who have espoused this distinction, Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Jeffereson. You might even go so far as to say that the American consitution was the seminal document in this field. As it very clearly states that the government is very much a serperate entity from the people, and bound in servitude to them by laws and even beholden to armed resistance, should the need arise ... hence the NRA etc...

On the other side of the fence, you basically line up all the rogues of the last 100's of years. Most of them ruling over totalitarian states, the defintion of which states that there is no distinction between the government and it's people. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin all held this point of view.

As for your other accusations. I'm sure that a man of your intel experience will understand that in any covert operation, the idea is to keep the details outside of the public realm. It will all be revealed some 50-100 years in the future when the documents become declassified. But as to my humble efforts in this regard ...

Quote:

Whose name and rank would be...? And in which forum did this alleged retired officer (was he NIS, MID, CIA, DIA, NSA, or FBI, by the way?) speak?

... his name was Wayne Madsen. He'd spent the 80's working for the NSA and then worked for Navy intelligence during the 90's. As for the prison, it's a well documented fact that there is a prison off the Venezualan coast used to keep sensitive prisoners. Indeed, it was Chavez's second stay there, the other time happening much earlier in his career. I don't see what's so controversial about that. The radar sightings, were caught by the Venezualan army. The attribution of it being an American military aircraft were from Chavez himself and from others who saw a US military plane land at the prison. The attribution of the CIA documents ... dated 6 April 2002 ... came from Democracy Now. A New York based radio station that has recieved many prestigious journalism awards in the states and interviewed people such as Bill Clinton and others...

Also Gopher, with regards to your 'circumstancial evidence' diatribe. Circumstancial evidence is allowed in a court of law, and may be used to push the verdict of the accused beyond the point of reasonable doubt. There's nothing wrong with circumstancial evidence Gopher, and in the public arena, when talking about CIA or other government sponsored covert ops - circumstancial evidence often all people have to go on. But I think when thrown in with all the other circumstancial evidence, such as the asylum in Colombia, and the super-fast international recognition that a day-old illegal government had received from the US government. Then it points to a conclusion that any fair minded person would accept.

Quote:

And thanks for clearing up that you merely swallow hook, line, and sinker, and then repeat Chomsky's line. But many of us already know what Chomsky thinks. Do you have anything original to add or are you just another of his intellectual slaves...?

... what I said was the "my point of view isn't all that different from Chomsky's". Just because what you might not agree with what I'm saying, doesn't mean you can put your own words into mouth ...[/quote]

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:43 am Post subject:

dbee,

I respect your words very much and spoken with sober second though, on your side. Gopher doesn't wholeheartedly swallow the present administration's hook but he has been biting.....He is, in my opinion, one of those people who though sceptical, just are so infused and inculcated with the notion of patriotism and NEVER but rally around the commander in chief (which is Bush's constant modus operandae)). He just won't jump ship and will try to get some sleep amid the torturing and screams.....

In particular I pay hommage to your lines...

Quote:

I shake my head at present, at the farce of Bush and ilk. Finally watched the "War Tapes" last night and cringed at how these fairly well intentioned guys, regular guys a la Steve Earle, were duped into fighting for the economic machine of the upper strata of corporate America. Forget Lay, this tops it all. Lay never killed anyone except by default......

In the movie, one of the characters says, "A good American is one who loves his country and is always sceptical of its government." Bang on.....

And Gopher....what about the recent CIA payments for "combatants" from Pakistan. Guys who needed the cash and Americans who needed some guilty types....so farcical and utterly destroys your notion of the CIA as a clean and patriotic institution which doesn't partake in illicit things.....

I do think we have to return, as I mentioned before, to Judge Marshall's notion of an America of laws and not of men.........America as you mentioned dbee, has always been a land where there was a big (and indeed so valuable) difference between the whole and its parts, the govt and its people.........

DD

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:19 am Post subject:

dbee wrote:

Gopher, you're in such murky territory here that I'm surprised...

Actually, you can take it up with Benedict and most anyone else in cultural anthropology. I do not have time to educate you on the totality of their views and conclusions.

dbee wrote:

...in any covert operation, the idea is to keep the details outside of the public realm. It will all be revealed some 50-100 years in the future when the documents become declassified...

This is the crux of your "proof"? Pathetic.

In Latin America and Caribbean affairs, we knew about PBSUCCESS, the Bay of Pigs, Chile, and the Contras virtually overnight. There were hearings and testimony.

I can tell you the facts of the case like who commanded the PBSUCCESS task force and what its exact mission was; which ships supported the Cuban strike force and the number on the tails of each U.S. Navy aircraft that was instructed, in the end, to attempt to cover the strike force; the name of the Chilean "Track II" task force and how many "deep cover" operators were working in Santiago and their names; and who exactly attempted to manage the Contras...

You can say nothing comparable about Chavez's unsubstantiated allegation which you and others lap up with such glee.

This is because you have nothing but suspicion, rumor, innuendo, and hearsay to "back up" your emotionally-derived conclusions.

dbee wrote:

... his name was Wayne Madsen. He'd spent the 80's working for the NSA and then worked for Navy intelligence during the 90's.

Was he on the supposed task force that attempted to overthrow Chavez? Was he even in active service at the time? If not, how does he know anything about this?

dbee wrote:

As for the prison, it's a well documented fact that there is a prison off the Venezualan coast used to keep sensitive prisoners.

How is this related or how does this prove U.S. involvement?

dbee wrote:

Indeed, it was Chavez's second stay there, the other time happening much earlier in his career. I don't see what's so controversial about that.

ditto

dbee wrote:

The radar sightings, were caught by the Venezualan army. The attribution of it being an American military aircraft were from Chavez himself and from others who saw a US military plane land at the prison.

And you are taking them at face value. Pathetic. Have they published this data? Have you seen it? No better than the mindless patriotic drone you allege others in the U.S. of being with respect to taking "official information" at face value.

dbee wrote:

The attribution of the CIA documents ... dated 6 April 2002 ... came from Democracy Now. A New York based radio station that has recieved many prestigious journalism awards in the states and interviewed people such as Bill Clinton and others...

Link if for us to see, then.

dbee wrote:

Also Gopher, with regards to your 'circumstancial evidence' diatribe. Circumstancial evidence is allowed in a court of law, and may be used to push the verdict of the accused beyond the point of reasonable doubt.

Wrong. Go back to law school, because you did not get good information. Circumstantial evidence is never decisive proof of anything.

Lacking conclusive, direct evidence, you simply lack a case.

dbee wrote:

...when talking about CIA or other government sponsored covert ops - circumstancial evidence often all people have to go on.

Just because it is all that people like you have to go on does not mean that that is all that there is to go on.

But then you have never read Immerman, Gleijeses, or Cullather -- indeed, you summarily dismiss them above -- so how would you even appreciate this point?

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:

ddeubel wrote:

He is, in my opinion, one of those people who though sceptical, just are so infused and inculcated with the notion of patriotism and NEVER but rally around the commander-in-chief (which is [W.] Bush's constant modus operandae [sic]). He just won't jump ship and will try to get some sleep amid the torturing and screams...

Please be advised: the correct plural for "modus operandi" is "modi operandi."

Your constant allegation that I am mindlessly caught up in patriotism fails to acknowledge that, even if it were so (and, in my case at least, it is not), you and posters like dbee are equally mindlessly caught up in oppositionism and antiEstablishmentism.

ddeubel wrote:

And Gopher....what about the recent CIA payments for "combatants" from Pakistan...

You are changing the subject from this thread. I accept this as tacit admission that you are unable to answer the questions I posed to you above and also, like dbee, you have no evidence at all to cite that backs up your and Chavez's emotionally-driven claim that CIA attempted to overthrow him via covert action...

I know that your m.o. is to keep attn focused on U.S. depravity. So this means you must constantly hurl new and improved allegations to distract us from the fact that you cannot back up the original allegations -- in this case, Chavez's coup allegations. But, for once, stay on point, please.

ddeubel wrote:

Guys who needed the cash and Americans who needed some guilty types...so farcical and utterly destroys your notion of the CIA as a clean and patriotic institution which doesn't partake in illicit things...

Whose notion of "the CIA as a clean and patriotic institution..." are you talking about and why are you attributing this view to me?

You are the best traducer of others' views on this board, usually for failure to actually grasp someone else's perspective. On top of that, you have invented facts as you go on several occassions.

Do you have any direct evidence to cite on the allegations this thread raises, ddeubel?

And do you know how many times Chavez has bitterly denounced "coup plots" in the last several years, from Venezuelan exiles in the Dominican Republic, from the Vatican, and from the United States?

Ever hear of the boy who cried "wolf!"?

Last edited by Gopher on Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:03 am Post subject:

On Chavez-style diplomacy...and we are way beyond mere dramatics...

Quote:

Chavez suspends diplomatic, trade ties with Colombia

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez said Friday diplomatic and commercial relations with Colombia would be suspended until it apologized for paying bounty hunters to snatch a senior rebel from inside Venezuela.

"I've ordered all agreements and business with Colombia to be paralyzed," Chavez said in a speech before Congress.

Chavez said the move includes freezing a July agreement to build a $200 million natural gas pipeline from Venezuela to Colombia's Pacific coast, which would allow Venezuelan fuel to be more easily shipped to the United States and Asia.

Chavez's announcement came a day his government recalled Venezuela's ambassador to Colombia after that country acknowledged that it sent police and bribed local authorities to capture Rodrigo Granda, a leader in the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

"With much pain I have called back the ambassador in Bogota and he will not return until the Colombian government offers us apologies," Chavez said.

Chavez's statements came hours after Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos defended Colombia's decision to pay bounty hunters as "an absolutely legitimate and necessary instrument in the fight against terrorism."

"From any point of view, it is unjustifiable that high Colombian officials are bribing Venezuelan authorities," Chavez said to rousing applause in the national assembly.

The director of Colombia's National Exporters' Association, Javier Diaz said the row was not likely to harm economic relations between the two nations.

"We have had these sorts of disputes often in the past, but commercial relations were never affected, and the governments overcome their differences," he said. "Only the projects that the two presidents have been working on together will be affected, like the gas pipeline."

According to Venezuela's Interior Minister Jesse Chacon, the December 13 capture of rebel Granda in Caracas was a clear "violation of sovereignty."

Chacon said the abduction was planned by Colombian authorities and that Colombian police entered Venezuela ahead of time to coordinate Granda's "kidnapping."

Five Venezuelan National Guard troops and three army officers have been detained for involvement in the kidnapping of Granda.

Investigators say Granda was turned over to authorities December 14 in the Colombian border city of Cucuta, Chacon said. It was there that Colombian authorities originally said they nabbed Granda.

But after days of pronouncements by Venezuelan officials -- including Chavez -- that the Colombian police were lying, Colombia on Wednesday acknowledged it paid bounty hunters an unspecified sum for the capture.

Venezuelan officials have said four Colombian police officers were detained in an area frequented by Granda days before his capture. The four were suspected of taking photographs of military installations in the city of Maracay, but were later released without charges.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/suspends.htm

Quote:

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia -- The influence of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro on Bolivia's left has become a central issue in the country's fractious election battle, pitting the Indian-led Movement to Socialism (MAS) against various conservative candidates.
The elections, scheduled for December, were called in June when violent protests organized by MAS and other leftist groups paralyzed the country and forced the resignation of then-President Carlos Mesa.
Beginning his presidential bid last month, center-right front-runner Jorge Quiroga accused MAS leader Evo Morales of being an "agent for Venezuela's brazen interference in the internal affairs of Bolivia."
Mr. Quiroga charged that Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro had a "regional plan" to "destabilize" South America.
Mr. Morales lashed back by accusing Mr. Quiroga of "following orders from [President] Bush."
Charges of Venezuelan interference are based in part on a meeting last month in Caracas between Mr. Morales and Mr. Chavez. The talks also were attended by Felipe Quispe, the extremist head of the Pachakutec Indigenous Movement (MIP).
While MAS and MIP cooperated in the sometimes-violent protests that have ousted two Bolivian presidents since 2003, Mr. Quispe and Mr. Morales are rivals for the support of Indian constituencies in the high Andes. Yet, shortly after their return from Venezuela, Mr. Morales named a one-time close aide to Mr. Quispe, Alvaro Garcia Linera, as his running mate.
In accepting the nomination, Mr. Garcia vowed to campaign for full nationalization of Bolivia's oil and gas resources and for a new constitution favored by MAS.
While he recently has become known as a socialist opinion leader and television pundit, Mr. Garcia faces legal charges involving past activity with the terrorist Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army (EGTK).
One of the leading conservative candidates, businessman Samuel Doria Medina, once was kidnapped by the EGTK, which obtained a $5 million ransom negotiated through the London firm Control Risks.
Some of the money is thought to have gone to finance leftist parties in Bolivia, as well as the 1996 armed takeover of the Japanese Embassy in Lima, Peru, by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement...

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050831-094718-1622r.htm

Quote:

AP , CARACAS
Tuesday, May 02, 2006,Page 7

Relations between Venezuela and conservative-led Peru have spiraled downward amid President Hugo Chavez's repeated endorsement of a leftist Peruvian presidential candidate and references to his opponent as a thief.

Venezuela said on Sunday it would not match Peru's decision to immediately recall its ambassador. Peru's government complained of Chavez's "persistent and flagrant" interference in its internal affairs ahead of a presidential runoff election likely to be held late this month or early next month.

"We have given instructions to our ambassador to stay in Lima," Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez told Venezuela's state TV broadcaster, but he said the envoy was told to be wary of further "provocations."

Peru's Foreign Minister Oscar Maurtua on Sunday said his country was left with no choice following Chavez's remarks.

taking a stand

"It's a shame, but a stand of this nature had to be taken," Maurtua told RPP radio.

Maurtua said Peru was not breaking diplomatic relations with Venezuela, but that the withdrawal of its ambassador was a "very serious" expression of repudiation of Chavez's remarks.

The escalating spat comes as Chavez, flush with petrodollars, has increasingly championed ideological allies in other nations' elections while trying to increase his influence in the region and reduce that of Washington.

Chavez has pledged to use the wealth of the world's fifth-largest oil exporter to eliminate poverty and social injustice -- a "revolution" beginning at home but intended to spread across Latin America, whose misfortunes he frequently blames on US "imperialism."

Chavez's emphatic support of nationalist Peruvian candidate Ollanta Humala had already caused a diplomatic flap with Peru, which briefly recalled its ambassador in January after Chavez praised Humala and called the then front-runner, Lourdes Flores, "the candidate of Peru's oligarchy."

Humala's likely rival in a runoff, Alan Garcia, last week called Chavez a spoiled child for criticizing Lima's signing of a free-trade pact with Washington.

Chavez responded by calling Garcia a "thief," threatened to withdraw Venezuela's ambassador if Garcia is elected and added, "Long live Ollanta Humala!"

Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo issued a protest, but Chavez kept up his criticism on Saturday in Cuba, where he signed a trade pact with Bolivia and Cuba.

`alligators'

Chavez referred to Toledo and Garcia as "alligators from the same water hole."

Garcia on Sunday attributed Chavez's recent comments to "perhaps an excess of alcohol."

Garcia said he was not taking issue with Chavez's governing style, which he indicated was inept and corrupt, but that he simply wanted the Venezuelan leader "not to meddle any more in our affairs."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/05/02/2003305746

Quote:

Chavez says Venezuela may break off diplomatic relations with Israel

Associated Press
08/09/2006

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez said Venezuela is likely to break off diplomatic relations with Israel after both countries recalled their top envoys amid strong differences over the military offensive in Lebanon.

"(The Israelis) have also recalled their ambassador and most likely the next step will be to break diplomatic relations. I have no interest in maintaining diplomatic relations, nor office, nor commerce, nor anything else with a state like Israel," Chavez said Tuesday night in a televised speech, without elaborating.

Last week, the Venezuelan leader, who has called Israel's attacks on Lebanon a "genocide" and compared it to another Holocaust, recalled Caracas' top envoy, the charge d'affaires, in protest. Israel responded Monday by ordering its ambassador home for consultations citing Chavez's "one-sided policy" and "wild slurs."

Chavez on Tuesday stood by his decision to withdraw his top diplomatic representative in Israel.

While Chavez has said until recently that his government enjoyed good relations with Israel, he has sharply criticized U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and accused Washington of being behind Israel's offensive in Lebanon.

In the past year, Chavez has called home Venezuela's ambassadors in Peru and Mexico after accusing both countries' leaders of subservience to the U.S. government.

http://www.shalomdc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=191320

Quote:

Mexico Reevaluates Venezuela Relations
The Associated Press
Sunday, September 17, 2006; 3:16 AM

MEXICO CITY -- Mexico said Sunday that it is reevaluating its diplomatic relations with Venezuela after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez accused the Mexican government of stealing its country's recent presidential election.

Chavez said last week that his government had not recognized the victory of Mexican ruling party candidate Felipe Calderon because of concerns about alleged election irregularities.

Chavez apparently expanded on his allegations Saturday when interviewed by CNN at the Nonaligned Movement summit in Havana. According to a CNN anchor, Chavez again accused Mexico's conservative National Action Party of stealing the election, and said Calderon's campaign had "destroyed" the opportunity for good relations with Venezuela.

Attack ads by the National Action Party compared leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to Chavez, calling the candidate "a danger for Mexico."

"The Mexican government rejects completely the judgments expressed about the Mexican electoral process and its results," Mexico's foreign ministry said in an e-mail to reporters. "Even though false, they constitute an inadmissible intervention in the internal affairs of our country."

"The Mexican government is evaluating the level of relations it will maintain with the government of Venezuela for the rest of this administration," it continued.

Mexican President Vicente Fox hands power to Calderon on Dec. 1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700093.html

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:52 am Post subject:

dbee wrote:

Quote:

It really wasn't even worth posting. I am sure Dbee, or anyone who hates America...

I didn't say you were Wink

I would have said, "I am sure Dbee, or anyone else who hates America..." I just meant you could easily find an email saying the same thing about America. So could someone who hated America. Sorry for the confusion.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe