I think that someone is controlling the war.

Pavil, the anger against Venezuelas’ Chavez is not because he may be a dictator a socialist or an evil man,. But because he has become a danger to the oil barons on our nation operating in that country.

You know the say so “you are we us or against us” and that include having all the oil in Venezuela in the hands of Exxon Conoco and only they have the right to managed and take the profits.

Now that Chavez wants to nationalized the oil and used part of the revenue for the poor he is tagged, dictator and evil, perhaps evil to Exxon, Conoco, but not to the people that are benefiting from the revenue but occurs Exxon, Conoco only care about profits.

This is from CNN.

Exxon,Conoco is leaving Venezuela because they can not get what they want.

Exxon, Conoco say no to Venezuela plans

money.cnn.com...

Chavez's high profile showdown with oil companies has drawn the cheers of the poor majority that overwhelmingly reelected him in December, largely because the former soldier has used billions of dollars in oil revenues to finance social programs.

I guess when you are an oil producing country and do not give up to foreign demands on your natural resources you most be an evil country
and a nation of interest in the war against terror.

Hi when I first created the topic I felt that it had to have some serious intent but I did not want to turn this topic into a "Bash bush pro bush" or a "bash US promote dictatorships" or a "bash democracy and spread propaganda and claim you know the truth" kind of topic. I feel that the truth is open ended. Yes, Hugo Chavez wants exxon out of his country, and I can see why. It would be immensely dumb of Bush to let people think we're only in Venesuela for oil, because if we did let Exxon take oil their and cause a civil war because of it, people would think they would have undeniable proof of the civil war there being an "oil war."

I feel that my topic was created NOT about the war, but about Bush. Bush is being manipulated, his tactics, his methods, and all of my thoughts have seemed to be confirmed in the news paper the last few days... they were saying that Cheney is the main guy. That concludes my one fact that I have been digging at for a bit-- that Bush is not behind it-- and that they feel that Cheney should be the head of staff.

I know that Bush is a moral president and that he has morals and that he reads the bible every day. But it isn't Bush that's the problem, it's the Congress. The congress is the small group of people controlling the government and then there is probably another seat that oversees the Congress as part of a check and balance, leaving option for conspiracies afoot.

Marg, I have to commend you, usually when you talk about patriotism, people don't know what they are talking about. You sound like you understand something.

That something is that our country was lead to a total lie from the European media. The Un passed a resolution to get us into horrible wars and they made their news media focus on us being demons or evil people. The European nations spread too much propaganda and they got a lot of people against us in the war. That, is the most simple truth.

What happen to congress is very simple, our congress is lobbied day in and day out by powerful interest groups that have billions upon billions of dollars to play around and pay for the bills that congress pass.

One of the very important person in our politics liked to corporate America is Cheney.

But do not under estimate the Mr. Bush because he is after all from a long line of oil mans.

See the war we are fighting and for war, is nothing more than oil control.

Originally posted by marg6043
Pavil, the anger against Venezuelas’ Chavez is not because he may be a dictator a socialist or an evil man,. But because he has become a danger to the oil barons on our nation operating in that country.

So you have nothing to say about Chavez shutting down a popular televison station? Is that proper for a democratic / socialist society?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by marg6043
Pavil, the anger against Venezuelas’ Chavez is not because he may be a dictator a socialist or an evil man,. But because he has become a danger to the oil barons on our nation operating in that country.

So you have nothing to say about Chavez shutting down a popular televison station? Is that proper for a democratic / socialist society?

And you have nothing to say about elitist corporations owning the radio and TV stations in America; feeding us all the pro war propaganda and lies while our precious military personnel are sacrificed to corporate interests?
Is that proper for a democratic/republic society?

Originally posted by whaaa


And you have nothing to say about elitist corporations owning the radio and TV stations in America; feeding us all the pro war propaganda and lies while our precious military personnel are sacrificed to corporate interests?
Is that proper for a democratic/republic society?

Considering that I was responding to a statement that Chavez was not a dictator, no I don't have anything to say about "elitist corporations", which BTW for the most part, are publicly traded stocks than anyone can own, that are free to broadcast in America without the government shutting them down arbitrarily. Should the US government just shut down radio and TV stations that they deem "anti government" or not in the publics interest like in Chavez's Venezuela? You are comparing totally different situations and making some connection. That you are willing to silence viewpoints that you don't agree with is disturbing to me.

So whaa, are you in support of Chavez shutting down that TV station?
I noticed you didn't answer that question.

I am not in favor of anyone, Chaves included, shuting down any type of media that is supposed to inform the public on anytype of information, except child porn. The www is probably the only thing currently keeping us from total tyranny.

Transparency in government, corporate endeavors and anyother Enterprise that takes, taxes and uses, public money should be the order of the day.

"I don't pay taxes to buy lies"

[edit on 29-6-2007 by whaaa]

Thank you for the reply. More often then not all we ever get in these conversations are answering a question with another question.

For the Record, I feel the radio and TV are not propaganda and for the most part do not lie. Much of the "news" we hear is actually from opinion/editorial related people, not "hard objective news" per se. I don't expect them to be objective in that sense, I expect them to present their viewpoint. Just beacause you disagree with someone's viewpoint doesn't necessarily make them a liar or a manipulator of the truth.


Anyhow, back to topic.

If someone is behind the scenes "controlling the war" they are doing a very poor job of it. For example, if the PTB wanted to ignite a full blown civil war amongst the Shia and Sunni in Iraq, it wouldn't be as hard as it has been. I don't seen huge pipelines of oil being sucked out of Iraq and into other's hands.

It's just a war, like every other war, nothing goes according to script all the time.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pavil]

Originally posted by pavil
That you are willing to silence viewpoints that you don't agree with is disturbing to me.

How did you reach this erroneous conclusion?

Originally posted by whaaa

How did you reach this erroneous conclusion?

Since we were discussing Chavez's shutdown of media in Ven., I thought you were suggesting that the media you quoted in the U.S. should be. I have misinterpeted your statement.

My Apologies.

whaa said it all: Politics is just an entertainment for the people. Decisions are made behind the scenes.

My $.02, Maverickhunter.
Cheney did hold the neoconservative viewpoint that America needed to use military strength for America's security in the world and for its "global responsibilities". Iraq provided a perfect testing ground for that viewpoint.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (and others like Cheney's Scooter Libby) were in charge of the Iraq "test". Rumsfeld made decisions on war plans, and, unfortunately, post-war plans (or lack thereof). These people believed that the war would be short, requiring little troops, and that these troops would be out in a few months. And this is why they had no good post-war plans. Contrary to how much these people said no one could predict the post-war realities, there were many people who did but were either ignored or told they were wrong.

America did win the Iraq War, but lost the country afterwards. Bush should be told to stop calling for victory, as our great military achieved victory. Catastrophic incompetence in post-war planning is what he's really up against.
You know, it's a little like South Park and the underwear gnomes. The gnomes sang about taking underwear, then there's silence, then singing about how they would make money. They had the beginning and wanted the end, but the middle was missing to achieve the end.

Of course, a pliant Congress and press didn't help the situation. In the run up to the war, the US has gotten a taste of living in a dictatorship--no discussion, no debate, just this is how it is, how it is going to be.

Just as families build myths to make life easier/understandable (daddy--or mommy--is just resting, children--instead of daddy or mommy passed out drunk, for example), nations create myths/conspiracies to try to comprehend what is going on. I wish I could indulge in conspiratorical thinking on Iraq, but I can no longer do so. Iraq is, sad to say, incompetence of the highest order. Iraq today is the child of incompetence bred with an authoritarian leadership that likes secrecy.

Bush, who would make a great president of a fraternal organization, seriously, will go down in history as a president who could not rise to the level of leadership required of a powerful country. And Cheney will be viewed as a vice-president who yielded the most power, having lead his country into a victorious war with a disastrous outcome.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The US government is a government of the people by the people and for the people.

The people want the troops home NOW
The government/corporations want them to stay

Result: People mean nothing

The people believe Bush had prior knowledge of 911
The government refuses to achnowledge claims

Result: People mean nothing

The people have issued subpheonas demanding explanations of prewar intel, and spying on citizens
The government refuse to answer questions.

Result: People mean nothing

People want answers for curroption in whitehouse
The government refuses to stamp out curruption

Result: People mean nothing



How exacltly is this government for the people Grady?
And Chavez is a bad leader I agree,
But corerct me if im wrong, but I remember a FOX news channel abusing a young man who was speaking up during an interview about Bush and his connections to Osama, and about the Iraq war.
In turn, wouldnt you say that the media in the USA is ALSO attempting to stamp out any comments conflicting with the whitehouse?

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Maverick, I should add to my above post, that in another culture those three men would have taken his life after remorse over his dishonorable actions, and Cheney, as an elected official, would resign.

As time separates them from the glare of their actions, history will look at their humanity and judge them to be men of dishonor, weak and pathetic.

James Madison wrote about factions. Corporate governance and oligarchy were over 150 years ahead in the future when Madison spoke of the culprit. Paine spoke of a free America being an American free to trade with all nations. Everyone has a right to be made at a corporation or business or somebody, understandably. The scale has changed but the idea remains: For the people, by the people