Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Devil

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Devil

    Do you guys agree that it's okay for Venezuela's Chavez to call Bush a "Devil"?

  • #2
    Do you guys agree that it's okay for Venezuela's Chavez to call Bush a "Devil"?

    Comment


    • #3
      Clearly not! The United Nations is not a place for name-calling, that individual clearly does not understand diplomacy and appears to be somewhat unbalanced to say the least.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with Houston. Love him or hate him, but give him the respect he deserves as the President of the United States. The United Nations is not a forum for name calling.

        Chevez can do that on his weekly television address, which he does anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          It doesn't take long to conduct a little investigation on this character using only news reports. This so-called "leader" appears to have achieved power by questionable means. He has managed to turn what once was "the most pro-American" country in South America (according to the Department of State) into a country divided in two sectors; one being claiming for democracy, freedom of speech and American values and another, brain-washed to favor communist regimes (this group consisting mostly of uneducated people... surprising?). The end result is hunger, violence, turmoil, poverty and the highest per-capita murder rate in the western hemisphere. What a leader indeed. Who's the devil now?

          Comment


          • #6
            What Houston wrote is correct. I am Venezuelan, and as you can read below
            the DSM-IV's diagnostic criteria for him is: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
            http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200312040939

            This show was for the dying Castro too. Chavez has strong interests in being a kind of Castro's successor and both have hundreds of business together. Finally, his show was to look for more votes for Venezuela to join the United Nations Security Council. Can you imagine this crazy guy in this group?

            As a millions of Venezuelans, I really feel shame and sorry about this situation with President Bush and US. Chavez does not represent Venezuelans' feelings about US.

            Comment


            • #7
              The remarks of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez before the United Nations General Assembly last week was no doubt undiplomatic, but certainly it is not one that anybody can readily dismiss.

              Chavez at the start of his statement said, "The devil was here yesterday, right here in this rostrum. I can still smell sulfur." Then he made the sign of the cross. It elicited giggles from the normally staid audience.

              He was referring to US President George W. Bush.

              Reports say that Chavez received a 45-second applause, compared to Bush's 15 seconds the day before. Did Chavez hit a chord that struck the hearts of many in the General Assembly hall? Definitely, and they belong to the majority of the Third World nations in the UN. In all likelihood, many of them would want their leaders to be critical of the US too, but just don't have the guts of a Chavez.

              In apparent retaliation, airport officials at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York detained for 90 minutes the Venezuelan foreign minister for no valid reason which made him miss his flight back to Caracas.

              US and UN officials called the incident regrettable.

              It was also against international law.

              Comment


              • #8
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by macyuhoo:
                The remarks of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez before the United Nations General Assembly last week was no doubt undiplomatic, but certainly it is not one that anybody can readily dismiss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                Macy,
                You can disagree with the President, the Administration, and even the American voter public. No one is arguing that here. However, and pointed out by several posters including someone from Venezuela, it was highly inappropiate for Pres Hugo Chavez to make such remarks to any poltiical leader no matter how much one disagrees with. He was contemptuous to the democratic process in general and disrespectful to the host country intentially. And by agree with Pres Hugo Chavez, you are too being contemptuous and disrepectful to the Office of the President. It shows your lack of respect for the Democratic process in this country and every other country as well.

                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chavez at the start of his statement said, "The devil was here yesterday, right here in this rostrum. I can still smell sulfur." Then he made the sign of the cross. It elicited giggles from the normally staid audience.

                He was referring to US President George W. Bush.

                Reports say that Chavez received a 45-second applause, compared to Bush's 15 seconds the day before. Did Chavez hit a chord that struck the hearts of many in the General Assembly hall? Definitely, and they belong to the majority of the Third World nations in the UN. In all likelihood, many of them would want their leaders to be critical of the US too, but just don't have the guts of a Chavez. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                It was more like giggles when Venezuelan Pres Chavez made that statement than applause, although there were some who did applause though. The UN is very corrupt, as evident with the latest escapade with the Oil for Food scandal, not transparent with its administrative process, and not at the least Democratic. At best, it is a club with Prom Queen elections based on popularity and not based on sound reasonable democratic principles, not very effective in maintaining peace as evident with the lack of authority by the UN peace troops in Lebanon as its mission is defined by what it can't do than what it can.

                And Venezuela still has the worst economy in South America with above average inflation rates, negative to stagnant GDP growth, and higher unemployment than its neighbors. Chavez is playing the same game by diverting the attention of its people to a country that does not affect it in any significant ways.

                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In apparent retaliation, airport officials at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York detained for 90 minutes the Venezuelan foreign minister for no valid reason which made him miss his flight back to Caracas.

                US and UN officials called the incident regrettable.

                It was also against international law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                This was to be expected adter the shannigan what Hugo Chavez did. Not to mention, Venezuela did the same bloody thing when it detained a State Department official and seized several diplomatic pouches a couple of months ago.

                The Best thing for the US to do is to ignore Venezuela, develop alternative fuels while maintaining a monopoly on the patents of the new technologies, and cut off all diplomatic ties. That way, US businesses in Venezuela would leave to Brazil, Chile, and Argintina while putting pressure on the Venezuela economy.
                "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                Comment


                • #9
                  Bolton scolds Foreign Minister for "street theater"

                  UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations accused Venezuela's foreign minister of "street theater" after he was briefly detained at a New York airport in an incident that strained already tense relations.

                  U.S. envoy John Bolton made no apologies on Monday when asked about the detention: "There was no incident at the airport. This was Venezuelan street theater," he told reporters.

                  "He did not request the courtesies we would have extended to get him through the airport," Bolton said.

                  "He purchased his ticket at a time and in a manner and with funding such that he was asked to go to secondary screening and he objected to that, and the first thing he did was call the press and speak to them in Spanish."

                  "This was propaganda," Bolton said. "I'm just not going to comment on that kind of non-serious performance."

                  The minister was told he could board the plane before it took off but he chose instead to return to New York City, the State Department added.

                  http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=pol...LA-USA-DETENTION.xml


                  ---------- -----------------------------------------
                  As a Venezuelan only I would like to add that this Foreign Minister is not an usual Foreign Minister. He has not finished High School, was a bus driver, union leader and the Chavez's bodyguard when Chavez was released from prison after his failed bloody coup.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I can't blame this Venezuelan now in America enjoying the comfort life for his position defending Bush. But does he represent all the Venezuelans in the US or in Venezuela? That's just his opinion. Former US Generals are now voicing stronger comments against Bush and Rumsfeld. Former Pres. Clinton has vigorously defended his Iraq policy during one TV interview when he was set up by the pro-right wing FOX station. Now let's get down the basic question: If you ask an Iraqi or any foreigner if Iran should be stopped from her nuclear program, these people would throw back the question by asking: If the US and other countries have nuclear weapons, why can't Iran also have one? See the logic? Well, the US would argue that Iran might use this nuclear weapon to help the terrorists attack us and other enemies; but what about America? Aren't we also helping our friends like Israel? It's simply and obbvioulsy double standard way of treating other countries. It's high time we change this stupid foreign policy to avoid another 9/11. Hear what the intelligence groups now say in unison? That the attack on Iraq and this Iraq War worsen terrorism? Now what can you say about this Hudson? Let's face it...it's all about oil and control of the region. It's not WMD, Saddam or any other reasons. Bush already planned the attack even before 9/11.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As an immigrant hating, Nazi worshipping fascist, let me ask you , guys, this very constructive question:

                      Is there anyway we can use the speech of Chavez against part of our own population, namely , the grass-cutting and floor-mopping Illegal Immigrants ( whom I hate so much that I wish we could put them all in concentration camps and burn them all in owens, Hitler-style)?

                      As a clever, FAIR person and immigrant-hater, I believe that the best way to destroy Immigrants is to link them to Anti-American , Anti-Bush and Anti-US-Foreign Policy sentiments.

                      Now, how we do that?

                      I think the next time Immigrant-Advocates rally a march (for majority supported Comprehensive Immigration Reform) we should send some of our FAIR guys to march along, while carrying the portraits of Osama Bin Laden, Chavez, Catsro and Saddam Hussein with them.

                      I am so clever !
                      http://i.b5z.net/i/u/1061492/i/040401292763.jpg

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Pooopster has a new ID

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
                          Now that I have to disagree with Hudson. A display of American ignorance and arrogance in the full view, on your part. What is better, a cheeky comment by Venezuelan president or arrogance? How about Bush refusing to talk with Iran? He won't stoop to negotiate with the "terrorist" state. How childish.
                          I am not saying that what Mr Chevez said was ok and a very good diplomatic move, but it DOES reflect what the rest of the world thinks about the US. You may feel offended and scoff and throw tantrums Hudson, but its still the truth.
                          Your reaction in your post is exactly how the US reacted to 9/11- arrogant unlawful outrage, breaking US constitution to enter the war.
                          Is this reasonable and mature reaction?
                          No, it isn't and yours isnt either. Where are you better than Mr Chevez? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                          As far as truth goes, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death." Compare that statement with "a 20-year-old girl named Nazira Zayn al-Din wrote a book called Unveiling and Veiling, saying she had read, understood and interpreted the Holy Koran. Therefore, she said, she had the authority and analytical skills to challenge the teachings of Islam's clerics, men who were far older and wiser than she. Her interpretation of Islam, she boldly said, was that the veil was un-Islamic. If a woman was forced to wear the veil by her father, husband or brother, Zayn al-Din argued, then she should take him to court. Other ideas presented by her were that men and woman should mix socially because this develops moral progress, and that both sexes should be educated in the same classrooms. Men and women, she said, should equally be able to hold public office and vote in government elections." The second quote comes from a 20 year old girl who usurped the reigning clerics in what is now Syria while the first quote comes from Pope Benedict XVI from a speech in Germany. There was no bloodshed, no calling for her execution, no calling for the family's execution when Nazira made those comments; but with the Pope's quote in the context of reason and faith, you had an elderly nun killed, several churches burned, and the calling for the Pope's execution by Muslims. Those actions proved the Pope was correct about Islam, to some degree. Is that truth or are you going to be offended and offer a "tantrum" again.

                          Although I am not Catholic, his mesaage as a greater whole was correct in asking faith and reason when religion is used to justify bloodsheed. Christianity has been no different than other major religions such as Confuscism, Taoism, Budhaism, etc., but has grown up, so to speak, the the modern world. But that is not the case with Islam today where Nazira would have been executed for what she said or thought. So, has Islam lost reason.

                          Second, businesses goes where one can make money in a business friendly environment. That has not been the case with Venezuela before Chavez and now. From my point of view, US economic and foreign policy should be directed at making America's business as business. US should leave Venezuela alone by not doing business there and by not having diplomatic relations. That is the right of the United States as well as other countries. Shall we talk about the EU Arms embargo to China? Or the embargo to Belarus? Or how about the Islamic countries not trading with Israel? Is that arrogance or ignorance, IP?
                          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by macyuhoo:
                            I can't blame this Venezuelan now in America enjoying the comfort life for his position defending Bush. But does he represent all the Venezuelans in the US or in Venezuela? That's just his opinion. Former US Generals are now voicing stronger comments against Bush and Rumsfeld. Former Pres. Clinton has vigorously defended his Iraq policy during one TV interview when he was set up by the pro-right wing FOX station. Now let's get down the basic question: If you ask an Iraqi or any foreigner if Iran should be stopped from her nuclear program, these people would throw back the question by asking: If the US and other countries have nuclear weapons, why can't Iran also have one? See the logic? Well, the US would argue that Iran might use this nuclear weapon to help the terrorists attack us and other enemies; but what about America? Aren't we also helping our friends like Israel? It's simply and obbvioulsy double standard way of treating other countries. It's high time we change this stupid foreign policy to avoid another 9/11. Hear what the intelligence groups now say in unison? That the attack on Iraq and this Iraq War worsen terrorism? Now what can you say about this Hudson? Let's face it...it's all about oil and control of the region. It's not WMD, Saddam or any other reasons. Bush already planned the attack even before 9/11. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                            Macy,
                            Giving Iran the ability to make nuclear fission is like giving a pyromaniac on medication a box of matches near a populated wooded forest. Sooner or later, the fire will start and a blaze will engulf a massive area. The one to blame would be the person who gave the matches, in this case the UN, not the US.

                            Second, Macy you are starting to go into outer space here with your conspiracy theories. You do realize Macy that Clinton gave a speech in July 1998 for regime change in Iraq. You do realize that there were 7 terrorist attacks toward the US before 9/11 including the USS Cole in 2000, the WTC in 1993, two embassy bombings in Africa, and several US citizens kidnapped and one killed in the Philippines in 1995. You have the US accidently bombing the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia in 1997, you have had Clinton defend and expand the no fly zones in Iraq during his tenure, and you have had six failed UN weapons inspections during Clinton's watch. You also had two domestic terrorist attacks with the Olkahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh and the Atlanta Olympic bombimg by Eric Rudolph. You had Clinton use severe tactics in a place called Waco with the Branch Dividians and David Koresh. And you had the failed US mision in Somalia when the US tried to apprehend Aideed after he killed 25 UN Peacekeepers from Pakistan and India.

                            So, from what I listed above, terrorism has been with us far longer than you realize. The new intelligence estimate did not state terrorism has worrened, just that terrorism is coming from a new group of radicals not based on religious idealogy, but political idealogy. Nothing has changed in the past 60 years or so when terrorism such as the Helsinki Massacre. It is just the faces have changed.
                            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Enough about the US...what about Canada? Many Indo-Canadians were killed in that plane bombing in 1985 by the terrorists; yet Canada did nothing. Here's more about Canada under this Bush-like Harper:



                              Harper's Taste for War

                              PM's pride tied to military muscle, U.S. approval.
                              By Murray Dobbin
                              Published: September 25, 2006

                              It is alarming for many Canadians to watch Stephen Harper, the head of a minority government with the support of fewer than 40 per cent of citizens, turn Canada into a nation of war. But that is what is happening.
                              The roots of Harper's preference for war go to the core of his view of government: maintaining a strong, war-fighting armed forces is one of the few roles that Harper believes government should have. He is fighting a war against a battle-hardened and determined enemy in one of the most the most fiercely independent nations on earth. The complexity of Afghan society confounds all but a few who would try to understand it. Yet, for Stephen Harper, understanding Afghanistan seems almost irrelevant. But it is relevant because this is a war that Canada and the West cannot win, any more than Britain and the Soviets could before us. And Canada will share disproportionately in its ultimate loss in terms of dead and wounded, billions of dollars wasted and our international reputation sullied for a long time to come. It will go down in history as one of our country's biggest foreign policy disasters.

                              Stephen Harper: The War Prime Minister
                              Stephen Harper's contempt for Canada and what it became in the decades following the Second World War is firmly on the record. Most of his comments -- his sneering dismissal of our egalitarianism and sense of community -- relate to social programs like medicare. He once declared Canada "...a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its...social services to mask its second-rate status."

                              It was not until recently that he revealed his disdain for Canada's three decades of peacekeeping. In a CBC interview conducted as Parliament resumed sitting this month, Harper showed that he relished the fact that Canadian soldiers were war-fighting, and dismissed Canada's peacekeeping history as virtual cowardice: "For a lot of the last 30 or 40 years, we were the ones hanging back." He even mused that the deaths of Canadian soldiers were a boost for the military -- cathartic after years of not being able to kill or die like real soldiers. "I can tell you it's certainly engaged our military. It's, I think, made them a better military notwithstanding -- and maybe in some way because of -- the casualties."
                              Utterly blind to how the rest of the world sees the conflict in Afghanistan, Harper told the CBC that Canada's role in Afghanistan is "...certainly raising Canada's leadership role, once again, in the United Nations and in the world community."


                              You have only to look at Harper's history and his government's "five priorities" to understand why he would get Canada and himself deeper into a conflict he cannot win. For five years in the middle of his political career, Harper was with the National Citizens Coalition, an extreme right-wing organization that was founded by an insurance company millionaire explicitly to fight public medicare. Its slogan is "More freedom through less government." It is virtually impossible for Stephen Harper to recognize Canadian leadership in any field -- such as medicare -- that he believes Canada should not be involved in. For the Conservative prime minister, the Afghanistan conflict may be literally the first time that Canada has shown real leadership in decades.
                              Dying to be proud


                              Stephen Harper can finally be proud of Canada, now that we are making war. It does not even matter to him that more question the country's commitment to the increasingly distorted mission in Afghanistan (49 per cent) than support the mission (38 per cent). Embarrassed for years about living in a socialist country, Harper can now hold his head high where it counts: in Calgary and Washington, D.C.
                              Four of Harper's five priorities following the last election reflect his "less government" imperative. Cutting taxes is critical to creating "less government" because so long as you have robust revenue (even surpluses), citizens will expect you to deliver those things they desire. Combatting crime is one of the "core" activities of Canada for Harper and all neo-cons. While priority number three, cleaning up government, is a noble cause, many experts on the effective running of government say that aspects of his huge Accountability Act will serve to paralyze the federal government. His "child care" grants were transparently designed to ensure that government would not be involved in the provision of child care at all.
                              In the secretive and tightly controlled world of the Harper government, it isn't always easy to determine who Harper is listening to for advice. But his disdain for government and his enormous intellectual arrogance suggest that bureaucrats, including civilian military officials and the diplomatic corps, are not high on his list. These are the people who would have tried to give Harper an objective analysis of how the Afghanistan conflict was going back in February when he took over as prime minister. But given that they were part of a military establishment that was responsible for the peacekeeping culture he detested, he was unlikely to listen to any cautionary advice.


                              They were part of the problem, not part of the solution.


                              'It's never enough'
                              He was much more likely to listen to those running the U.S. (whom he has admired to the point of worship for many years) and to those Canadian generals who were also rejecting the peacekeeping culture. In fact, Harper's predecessor Paul Martin had already signalled a political change.


                              Jean Chrétien warned about military demands for money: "It's never enough...They all need more and they all have plans for more." But Martin eagerly listened to the war generals and to Bay Street who also supported a stronger military integrated into the U.S. war machine. Already the seventh-highest spender in NATO at nearly $14 billion, Martin added $12.8 billion over five years. Conservatives will top that by a further $5.3 billion, putting spending much higher than at any time during the Cold War. Both Martin and Harper were bending over backwards to please George Bush.


                              U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci, in 2002, made a remarkable admission: the only order he received from the White House when he was appointed was to get Canada to dramatically increase military spending.


                              It isn't just the money, it's how it will be spent. As defence analyst Steven Staples points out: "Without billions of dollars, the military can't afford to buy the high-tech weaponry required for joint operations with the Americans, the most lethal and technologically advanced fighting force in history...Defence spending fuels military integration [with the U.S]." Harper is even more committed to the idea of fully integrated armed forces as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a formal integration agreement between the three NAFTA countries that will see huge areas of government policy "harmonized," including energy, water, drug testing, security, immigration and refugees and more.


                              But military integration is the key to other areas of continental integration -- such as open borders -- that Canadian corporations want. "Security trumps trade," Paul Cellucci said repeatedly in lobbying other political parties and Bay Street against Chrétien's refusal to increase the military budget. They won the money battle, but that's not enough. As Staples says: "Afghanistan is the proving ground for Canada-U.S. military integration." Which is partly why Harper extended the mission for two years and is so determined -- against history, against logic and in cynical betrayal of Canadian soldiers, to "win."

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X