|
Post by james on Sept 1, 2008 16:44:28 GMT -8
www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=12183Katrina survivors seek Venezuela's support Associated Press CARACAS -- Some survivors of Hurricane Katrina say they aren't getting enough attention from the Bush administration, so they're turning to Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez for help. Ishmael Muhammad of the New Orleans Survivor Council has visited Venezuela three times to seek funding and forge ties. He says the group hopes to raise $45,000 for a center to house 50 people as they rebuild their homes. He says the community knows the Venezuelan government ``could use it for political propaganda, but they're OK with that.'' Venezuelan Congressman Francisco Torrealba says his government is trying to secure funding. Friday is the third anniversary of Katrina's landfall in Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by duncan175 on Sept 2, 2008 1:22:50 GMT -8
Chávez is a clever **** shame he doesn't complete his job at home before he helps other parts of the world.
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 2, 2008 1:30:32 GMT -8
Chávez is a clever f**k*r shame he doesn't complete his job at home before he helps other parts of the world. I like Chavez big time. I suppse he thinks he has got to have links with other countries for support as the USA want rid of democracy in his country,so they can control the oil and gas,thus putting the country back to the poverty,the free education and health and the houses he is buliding for the poor. They have already tried sevarel times to get rid of him as they cant do it by voting,he wins landslides everytime.
|
|
|
Post by duncan175 on Sept 2, 2008 2:14:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by peacenik on Sept 2, 2008 3:13:43 GMT -8
it wil be "interesting" should Chavez sometime decide to ask, say, Russia, to put ballistic missles in Venezuela as a "defensive shield" against any possiible U.S. aggression . . . he can now use "Poland" as his template . . . back in the 60's when Fidel's Cuba had Russia putting missle bases there, it was viewed as totally unacceptable intrusion into our hemisphere and too near a threat-danger to the U.S. security . . but now that Bush has promised missles on Polish soil, that principle has probably been abbrogated . . . so much has gone "topsy-turvy" since those days in the sixties when there were clear "good guys and bad guys" - there still are, "good guys and bad guys" (the existence of "terrorists" is proof of this . . .but the rest has all turned into a mess of "gray area", neither black or white, and unclear as to "good or bad").
|
|
|
Post by peacenik on Sept 2, 2008 3:15:37 GMT -8
and now i'm reminded of an old Harry Belafonte song from his "Live At Carnegie Hall" album (from 1959? ?) -- "Matilda . . . Matilda . . . she take me money and run Venezuela . . now the chorus . . . . . . "
|
|
|
Post by duncan175 on Sept 2, 2008 4:24:11 GMT -8
i can't see chavez wanting nukes
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 2, 2008 4:45:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 2, 2008 4:52:33 GMT -8
One thing about Chavez is he never took away the rich people's money of huge homes,they still have them. Remember one rich woman talking to John Pilger looking over to the slums,she said the poor had cardboard and woodl for house,now they are getting bricks,concrete for their houses,its a disgrace she said.
He is rightly wanting to protect his country,but i dont see him getting nukes. But you can never really tell. I believe the US want him dead,like they did with the democractly elected Allendez in Chile,who was murdered and overthrown by the CIA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2008 16:46:32 GMT -8
it wil be "interesting" should Chavez sometime decide to ask, say, Russia, to put ballistic missles in Venezuela as a "defensive shield" against any possiible U.S. aggression . . . he can now use "Poland" as his template . . . back in the 60's when Fidel's Cuba had Russia putting missle bases there, it was viewed as totally unacceptable intrusion into our hemisphere and too near a threat-danger to the U.S. security . . but now that Bush has promised missles on Polish soil, that principle has probably been abbrogated . . . so much has gone "topsy-turvy" since those days in the sixties when there were clear "good guys and bad guys" - there still are, "good guys and bad guys" (the existence of "terrorists" is proof of this . . .but the rest has all turned into a mess of "gray area", neither black or white, and unclear as to "good or bad"). Does anyone have the faintest idea why NATO (ie Bush) should even want to put a defensive shield right on Russia's border? In a post-Cold War time when anyone with any sense would prefer to see the remnants of the Old Guard in Moscow calming down and being less paranoid? Or have "our" generals nothing better to do than deploy weapons around the place to antagonise the Bear, so they too can all get back to playing war games like it should be? Must be so much more fun than trying to get a grip on this hearts-and-minds stuff (never taught that in basic training!), or wondering how to stop Iraqis shooting at your troops, themselves and everyone else - far too hard on the brain! Cold War is Us v Them - very simple.
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 2, 2008 17:19:37 GMT -8
it wil be "interesting" should Chavez sometime decide to ask, say, Russia, to put ballistic missles in Venezuela as a "defensive shield" against any possiible U.S. aggression . . . he can now use "Poland" as his template . . . back in the 60's when Fidel's Cuba had Russia putting missle bases there, it was viewed as totally unacceptable intrusion into our hemisphere and too near a threat-danger to the U.S. security . . but now that Bush has promised missles on Polish soil, that principle has probably been abbrogated . . . so much has gone "topsy-turvy" since those days in the sixties when there were clear "good guys and bad guys" - there still are, "good guys and bad guys" (the existence of "terrorists" is proof of this . . .but the rest has all turned into a mess of "gray area", neither black or white, and unclear as to "good or bad"). Does anyone have the faintest idea why NATO (ie Bush) should even want to put a defensive shield right on Russia's border? In a post-Cold War time when anyone with any sense would prefer to see the remnants of the Old Guard in Moscow calming down and being less paranoid? Or have "our" generals nothing better to do than deploy weapons around the place to antagonise the Bear, so they too can all get back to playing war games like it should be? Must be so much more fun than trying to get a grip on this hearts-and-minds stuff (never taught that in basic training!), or wondering how to stop Iraqis shooting at your troops, themselves and everyone else - far too hard on the brain! Cold War is Us v Them - very simple. Wasting trillions on false security for votes.
|
|
|
Post by duncan175 on Sept 2, 2008 23:39:10 GMT -8
or wondering how to stop Iraqis shooting at your troops, themselves and everyone else - far too hard on the brain! that is a little harsh they have worked on this and found the most effective way to stop Iraqis shooting you is to pay them ;D
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 3, 2008 1:31:42 GMT -8
or wondering how to stop Iraqis shooting at your troops, themselves and everyone else - far too hard on the brain! that is a little harsh they have worked on this and found the most effective way to stop Iraqis shooting you is to pay them ;D Your on form today.LMAO ;D
|
|