I agree with Chavez - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

'THE DEVIL CAME TO THE UN YESTERDAY... It Still Smells of Sulphur here... Bush, I have the feeling you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare... We need a psychologist to analyze Bush... YANKEE IMPERIALISTS GO HOME... Maybe we need to move the United Nations out of USA'...

We don't have his full speech yet (and this guy is a hero to the left?) but I do agree with one aspect of these little teasers. Guess which one?

I'm trying to figure out why we are in the U.N. again. Its corrupt, incompetent, and expensive.

We need a reformed version consisting of only true free republics, something Venezuela won't be for much longer.

As a side note I find this photo hilarous.

roachboy · 09-20-2006, 08:15 AM

i am not at all sure that this thread is worthwhile as a place for debate about huge chavez.
we'll see if it moves away from a truly pathetic op.

either way, as an effort to rescue this from ustwo's no-labor, no-thought opening here is the text of chavez's un speech, which was easy peasy to find.

Quote:

"United Nations Speech," Sept. 15, 2005
Hugo Chavez

Your Excellencies, friends, good afternoon:

The original purpose of this meeting has been completely distorted. The imposed center of debate has been a so-called reform process that overshadows the most urgent issues, what the peoples of the world claim with urgency: the adoption of measures that deal with the real problems that block and sabotage the efforts made by our countries for real development and life.

Five years after the Millennium Summit, the harsh reality is that the great majority of estimated goals ? which were very modest indeed ? will not be met.

We pretended reducing by half the 842 million hungry people by the year 2015. At the current rate that goal will be achieved by the year 2215. Who in this audience will be there to celebrate it? That is only if the human race is able to survive the destruction that threats our natural environment.

We had claimed the aspiration of achieving universal primary education by the year 2015. At the current rate that goal will be reached after the year 2100. Let us prepare, then, to celebrate it.

Friends of the world, this takes us to a sad conclusion: The United Nations has exhausted its model, and it is not all about reform. The XXI century claims deep changes that will only be possible if a new organization is founded. This UN does not work. We have to say it. It is the truth.

These transformations ? the ones Venezuela is referring to ? have, according to us, two phases: The immediate phase and the aspiration phase, a utopia. The first is framed by the agreements that were signed in the old system. We do not run away from them. We even bring concrete proposals in that model for the short term. But the dream of an ever-lasting world peace, the dream of a world not ashamed by hunger, disease, illiteracy, extreme necessity, needs ? apart from roots ? to spread its wings to fly. We need to spread our wings and fly.

We are aware of a frightening neoliberal globalization, but there is also the reality of an interconnected world that we have to face not as a problem but as a challenge. We could, on the basis of national realities, exchange knowledge, integrate markets, interconnect, but at the same time we must understand that there are problems that do not have a national solution: radioactive clouds, world oil prices, diseases, warming of the planet or the hole in the ozone layer. These are not domestic problems. As we stride toward a new United Nations model that includes all of us when they talk about the people, we are bringing four indispensable and urgent reform proposals to this Assembly: the first; the expansion of the Security Council in its permanent categories as well as the non permanent categories, thus allowing new developed and developing countries as new permanent and non permanent categories. The second; we need to assure the necessary improvement of the work methodology in order to increase transparency, not to diminish it. The third; we need to immediately suppress ? we have said this repeatedly in Venezuela for the past six years ? the veto in the decisions taken by the Security Council, that elitist trace is incompatible with democracy, incompatible with the principles of equality and democracy.

And the fourth; we need to strengthen the role of the Secretary General; his/her political functions regarding preventive diplomacy, that role must be consolidated. The seriousness of all problems calls for deep transformations. Mere reforms are not enough to recover that ?we? all the peoples of the world are waiting for. More than just reforms we in Venezuela call for the foundation of a new United Nations, or as the teacher of Simon Bolivar, Simon Rodriguez said: ?Either we invent or we err.?

At the Porto Alegre World Social Forum last January different personalities asked for the United Nations to move outside the United States if the repeated violations to international rule of law continue. Today we know that there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The people of the United States have always been very rigorous in demanding the truth to their leaders; the people of the world demand the same thing. There were never any weapons of mass destruction; however, Iraq was bombed, occupied and it is still occupied. All this happened over the United Nations. That is why we propose this Assembly that the United Nations should leave a country that does not respect the resolutions taken by this same Assembly. Some proposals have pointed out to Jerusalem as an international city as an alternative. The proposal is generous enough to propose an answer to the current conflict affecting Palestine. Nonetheless, it may have some characteristics that could make it very difficult to become a reality. That is why we are bringing a proposal made by Simon Bolivar, the great Liberator of the South, in 1815. Bolivar proposed then the creation of an international city that would host the idea of unity.

We believe it is time to think about the creation of an international city with its own sovereignty, with its own strength and morality to represent all nations of the world. Such international city has to balance five centuries of unbalance. The headquarters of the United Nations must be in the South.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are facing an unprecedented energy crisis in which an unstoppable increase of energy is perilously reaching record highs, as well as the incapacity of increase oil supply and the perspective of a decline in the proven reserves of fuel worldwide. Oil is starting to become exhausted.

For the year 2020 the daily demand for oil will be 120 million barrels. Such demand, even without counting future increments- would consume in 20 years what humanity has used up to now. This means that more carbon dioxide will inevitably be increased, thus warming our planet even more.

Hurricane Katrina has been a painful example of the cost of ignoring such realities. The warming of the oceans is the fundamental factor behind the demolishing increase in the strength of the hurricanes we have witnessed in the last years. Let this occasion be an outlet to send our deepest condolences to the people of the United States. Their people are brothers and sisters of all of us in the Americas and the rest of the world.

It is unpractical and unethical to sacrifice the human race by appealing in an insane manner the validity of a socioeconomic model that has a galloping destructive capacity. It would be suicidal to spread it and impose it as an infallible remedy for the evils which are caused precisely by them.

Not too long ago the President of the United States went to an Organization of American States? meeting to propose Latin America and the Caribbean to increase market-oriented policies, open market policies-that is neoliberalism- when it is precisely the fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. : The neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus. All this has generated is a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on his continent.

What we need now more than ever Mr. President is a new international order. Let us recall the United Nations General assembly in its sixth extraordinary session period in 1974, 31 years ago, where a new International Economic Order action plan was adopted, as well as the States Economic Rights and Duties Charter by an overwhelming majority, 120 votes for the motion, 6 against and 10 abstentions. This was the period when voting was possible at the United Nations. Now it is impossible to vote. Now they approve documents such as this one which I denounce on behalf of Venezuela as null, void and illegitimate. This document was approved violating the current laws of the United Nations. This document is invalid! This document should be discussed; the Venezuelan government will make it public. We cannot accept an open and shameless dictatorship in the United Nations. These matters should be discussed and that is why I petition my colleagues, heads of states and heads of governments, to discuss it.

I just came from a meeting with President Néstor Kirchner and well, I was pulling this document out; this document was handed out five minutes before ? and only in English ? to our delegation. This document was approved by a dictatorial hammer which I am here denouncing as illegal, null, void and illegitimate.

Hear this, Mr. President: if we accept this, we are indeed lost. Let us turn off the lights, close all doors and windows! That would be unbelievable: us accepting a dictatorship here in this hall.

Now more than ever ? we were saying ? we need to retake ideas that were left on the road such as the proposal approved at this Assembly in 1974 regarding a New Economic International Order. Article 2 of that text confirms the right of states to nationalizing the property and natural resources that belonged to foreign investors. It also proposed to create cartels of raw material producers. In the Resolution 3021, May, 1974, the Assembly expressed its will to work with utmost urgency in the creation of a New Economic International Order based on ? listen carefully, please ? ?the equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest and cooperation among all states regardless of their economic and social systems, correcting the inequalities and repairing the injustices among developed and developing countries, thus assuring present and future generations, peace, justice and a social and economic development that grows at a sustainable rate.?

The main goal of the New Economic International Order was to modify the old economic order conceived at Breton Woods.

We the people now claim ? this is the case of Venezuela ? a new international economic order. But it is also urgent a new international political order. Let us not permit that a few countries try to reinterpret the principles of International Law in order to impose new doctrines such as ?pre-emptive warfare.? Oh do they threaten us with that pre-emptive war! And what about the ?Responsibility to Protect? doctrine? We need to ask ourselves. Who is going to protect us? How are they going to protect us?

I believe one of the countries that require protection is precisely the United States. That was shown painfully with the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina; they do not have a government that protects them from the announced nature disasters, if we are going to talk about protecting each other; these are very dangerous concepts that shape imperialism, interventionism as they try to legalize the violation of the national sovereignty. The full respect towards the principles of International Law and the United Nations Charter must be, Mr. President, the keystone for international relations in today?s world and the base for the new order we are currently proposing.

It is urgent to fight, in an efficient manner, international terrorism. Nonetheless, we must not use it as an excuse to launch unjustified military aggressions which violate international law. Such has been the doctrine following September 11. Only a true and close cooperation and the end of the double discourse that some countries of the North apply regarding terrorism, could end this terrible calamity.

In just seven years of Bolivarian Revolution, the people of Venezuela can claim important social and economic advances.

One million four hundred and six thousand Venezuelans learned to read and write. We are 25 million total. And the country will ? in a few days ? be declared illiteracy-free territory. And three million Venezuelans, who had always been excluded because of poverty, are now part of primary, secondary and higher studies.

Seventeen million Venezuelans ? almost 70% of the population ? are receiving, and for the first time, universal healthcare, including the medicine, and in a few years, all Venezuelans will have free access to an excellent healthcare service. More thatn a million seven hundred tons of food are channeled to over 12 million people at subsidized prices, almost half the population. One million gets them completely free, as they are in a transition period. More than 700 thousand new jobs have been created, thus reducing unemployment by 9 points. All of this amid internal and external aggressions, including a coup d?etat and an oil industry shutdown organized by Washington. Regardless of the conspiracies, the lies spread by powerful media outlets, and the permanent threat of the empire and its allies, they even call for the assassination of a president. The only country where a person is able to call for the assassination of a head of state is the United States. Such was the case of a Reverend called Pat Robertson, very close to the White House: He called for my assassination and he is a free person. That is international terrorism!

We will fight for Venezuela, for Latin American integration and the world. We reaffirm our infinite faith in humankind. We are thirsty for peace and justice in order to survive as species. Simon Bolivar, founding father of our country and guide of our revolution swore to never allow his hands to be idle or his soul to rest until he had broken the shackles which bound us to the empire. Now is the time to not allow our hands to be idle or our souls to rest until we save humanity.

bit from here: http://info.interactivist.net/articl.../09/17/1610258

samcol · 09-20-2006, 08:20 AM

Yes, the UN is a total failure. Personally I don't think reforming it as a group of free republics is really the answer either. A 'free republic' is so subjective that this body will just end up being like a democracy, the majority countries bullying the minority group of countries around.

Also, Being held accountable to ther countries in the world is a bad idea because none of them have as many freedoms as we do in the United States. If there's no accountabilty or policing ability of this group of nations it's just chit chat anyway. World government is bad.

The_Jazz · 09-20-2006, 08:24 AM

OK, then we don't include the constitutional monarchies like the UK, Tongo and Norway?

Seriously, though, who decides what's a "true free republic"? And what are the criteria? Does Russia qualify? How about China?

The UN exists as a place for saber-rattling and shoe pounding up front and constant discussion in the back rooms. Expecting it to actually accomplish anything is a little foolish.

stevo · 09-20-2006, 10:46 AM

the lady in the background looks like she's laughing. Is it because of what he's saying or does she have somehting else playing on her ipod?

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

the lady in the background looks like she's laughing. Is it because of what he's saying or does she have somehting else playing on her ipod?

Maybe he's not wearing pants.

Rekna · 09-20-2006, 11:10 AM

Hero to the left Ustwo? If you can say that then I think it is fair for me to say the Pat Robertson is a hero to the right.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Hero to the left Ustwo? If you can say that then I think it is fair for me to say the Pat Robertson is a hero to the right.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-01.htm

Perhaps calling him a hero to the left was a bit strong, but I think it is safe to say he is admired by a lot of them.

Rekna · 09-20-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-01.htm

Perhaps calling him a hero to the left was a bit strong, but I think it is safe to say he is admired by a lot of them.

Maybe a few but I haven't heard of many people from the left in the USA praising this guy. You made the claim now please prove to me that there is widespread support for this guy amoung the left in the USA.

stevo · 09-20-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Maybe he's not wearing pants.

why can I not stop laughing?

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-20-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Maybe a few but I haven't heard of many people from the left in the USA praising this guy. You made the claim now please prove to me that there is widespread support for this guy amoung the left in the USA.

Cindy Sheehan?

Charlatan · 09-20-2006, 02:39 PM

This thread, so far, has been little than a platform to bash an international politician with snippy asides. If this doesn't change I am moving this thread to nonsense or closing it completely.

ironman · 09-20-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

because none of them have as many freedoms as we do in the United States.

Would someone care to let me know which are these "freedoms" you US citizens brag so much about all the time? I live in Guatemala, i'm guatemalan, and every time i travel to the US for whatever reason or i meet some US citizen abroad, they always talk about this "freedoms", and believe me, no one that i've talked to can tell me what are this freedoms and how are they any different to those i enjoy here in Guatemala.
Please, enlight me and all those in this forum that are not US citizens, with all the details about these "freedoms" .

dc_dux · 09-20-2006, 02:49 PM

The UN remarks of two other leaders, both moderate muslims, who are still our nominal allies in the war on terror, are food for thought as much or more so than Chavez:

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf:

While we confront terrorism, our strategy must seek to eliminate this phenomenon comprehensively. We cannot do so unless we understand and address the root causes of terrorism today. How are terrorists able to find willing recruits even among educated youth and democratic societies? The reasons are clear. Across the Muslim world, old conflicts and new campaigns of military intervention have spawned a deep sense of desperation and injustice. Each new battleground involving an Islamic state has served as a new breeding ground for extremists and terrorists. Indiscriminate bombings, civilian casualties, torture, human rights abuses, racial slurs and discrimination only add to the challenge of defeating terrorism.

Jordan’s King Abdullah:

There can be no just global order when aggression and occupation are permitted to take the place of international law. When these occur in a region as strategic as the Middle East the shockwaves run worldwide. Our youth are asking, where is the justice, where is the will of the global community? We must answer them by establishing a lasting peace, based on the international legality we have pledged to uphold.

These are only snips...I havent seen the full text of the speeches to see the context of the above, but it should be far imporant to Bush and the American people that we understand the concerns of our allies rather than worry about the rantings of a paper tiger enemy.

ASU2003 · 09-20-2006, 03:49 PM

roachboy, that happens to be his speech from 2005...

I don't have a problem with the UN. I would rather have them talk amongst themselves rather than start wars over every little thing. Even though the resolutions aren't very effective, it helps see where the other countries are coming from.

And then you have our great media. I'm surprised CNN actually broadcasted the US, Iran and Venezuelan speeches. All three of the leaders have good things to say, but behind the scenes they have major problems.

The one thing I agree with Chavez on is this:
"Chavez called for reform, saying the U.S. government's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month." I'm not sure if Israel would have stopped their campaign even if a resolution had passed, but this could have been prevented and Hezbollah dealt with in other ways.

What freedoms do we have in the US? We can disagree with each other, but hardly ever turn to violence to settle our differences. I can go where I want to when I want (unless it is private property, which more and more of this country is). I can say and write whatever (but unless 50.1% of people think the same as you, it won’t change much). I can read whatever books I want or get whatever news I want (unless it is censored or illegal, the news is biased and opinionated and doesn't show everything a lot of the time, then you have to look on-line for first hand stories from multiple sources with nothing to gain from lying.) I am free to pay a bunch of taxes. And we are free to own certain guns and women are free to control when they give birth in some states. We won't be killed for believing a different religion from someone else, or for not believing any religion at all. But, I'm not sure how this is any different from Guatemala.

Rekna · 09-20-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Cindy Sheehan?

First, where has she supported him? I'm not claiming she hasn't but I haven't seen where she has. Second claiming Cindy Sheehan represents the majority of liberals is like claiming Ann Coulter represents the majority of conservatives.

roachboy · 09-20-2006, 04:11 PM

asu: crap. my bad. i bit the wrong text. here's today's speech.

[[[you are correct again sir. i am not trying to find this any more]]]

ASU2003 · 09-20-2006, 05:29 PM

That is still the 2005 one.

It is hard to find the 2006 one. I watched it on CNN today (freedom of speech is a good thing), and it is missing some of the things he brought up today (the devil comment, Lebanon, and poverty).

dc_dux · 09-20-2006, 07:37 PM

The speeches are on the UN site....video or text (pdf)
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/gastatement20.shtml

roachboy · 09-21-2006, 06:12 AM

3s the charm.

Quote:

September 20, 2006
Address to the United Nations
Rise Up Against the Empire

By HUGO CHAVEZ

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

souce: http://www.counterpunch.org/chavez09202006.html

ironman · 09-21-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

roachboy, that happens to be his speech from 2005...
What freedoms do we have in the US? We can disagree with each other, but hardly ever turn to violence to settle our differences. I can go where I want to when I want (unless it is private property, which more and more of this country is). I can say and write whatever (but unless 50.1% of people think the same as you, it won’t change much). I can read whatever books I want or get whatever news I want (unless it is censored or illegal, the news is biased and opinionated and doesn't show everything a lot of the time, then you have to look on-line for first hand stories from multiple sources with nothing to gain from lying.) I am free to pay a bunch of taxes. And we are free to own certain guns and women are free to control when they give birth in some states. We won't be killed for believing a different religion from someone else, or for not believing any religion at all. But, I'm not sure how this is any different from Guatemala.

So they are the same freedoms we have this side of the border and there goes samcol's reasoning...

fastom · 09-21-2006, 11:58 PM

Some Americans would still think they were free if serving a life term in a solitary confinement cell. Nobody notices any erosion of freedom?

Chavez is right, too bad there aren't leaders like him in every country.

Bill O'Rights · 09-22-2006, 06:16 AM

He's just a South American Al Sharpton.

shakran · 09-22-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This thread, so far, has been little than a platform to bash an international politician with snippy asides. If this doesn't change I am moving this thread to nonsense or closing it completely.

Well alright, let's see if I can give it a go. Were Chavez's words strong? Yeah, and if I were in his shoes I wouldn't have said them in quite that manner.

But his sentiment is understandable.

You can't piss off the world with imperialist policies and illegal, immoral, and unwarranted invasions without expecting some of the world's leaders to get a little upset.

While he used unfortunate language, it's about damn time that someone stepped up and named the pink elephant in the room for what it is.

President Bush has done more damage to this country than any other president, ever. Our international reputation is at an alltime low. The fact that a world leader is pissed off enough to call him the devil is simply more evidence of that.

ratbastid · 09-22-2006, 07:00 AM

I'm torn about this (to return to the intent of the OP, devoid of its Chavez-trolling). Despite how the US has behaved in the last few decades, you can't just operate unilaterally without serious consequences. There has to be some sort of meeting place for nations, something with some authority and the wherewithal to back up what it says.

Right now, it doesn't look like the UN is that body.

Now, the question of "why" is an interesting one. Notice that the ENTIRE UN was screaming for an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah last month. But with American backing, Israel kept right on.

In the Regan administration, the US started withholding its dues to the UN as a means of political leverage. IMO, that was the beginning of the end for the UN. Prior to that, UN resolutions literally created and dissolved nations (Israel, anyone?). Once Regan started flexing his imperialist muscles, UN power was dissolved in the face of American hegemony.

Look at where we are now: we recess-appoint a blatantly anti-UN ambassador to the UN. We scoff at the united voices of ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. America has displayed nothing but contempt for the UN and the international community, has worked to undercut UN power. And now we complain that the UN is powerless!

shakran · 09-22-2006, 07:11 AM

Rat, you're right that the UN certainly has problems, but dissolving it is not the answer. Then we just have to start a NEW group all over again instead of building on what we have already. The real answer is that the UN needs to, for want of a better phrase, grow a pair. It's time for the world's nations to unite against the USA in the name of justice, and INSIST that we stop with the imperialist bullshit. If the entire world got together as a unified front, they could stop Bush from starting any more wars. The UN needs to realize that it must work for the good of the planet even if it means going against the USA.

ObieX · 09-22-2006, 07:52 AM

If anyone wants to see him giving the speech you can go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-c5PPIEziA

I wonder if that is the official UN translator for english that you hear through those extremely old-fashioned earthingamajigs

ratbastid · 09-22-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Rat, you're right that the UN certainly has problems, but dissolving it is not the answer. Then we just have to start a NEW group all over again instead of building on what we have already. The real answer is that the UN needs to, for want of a better phrase, grow a pair. It's time for the world's nations to unite against the USA in the name of justice, and INSIST that we stop with the imperialist bullshit. If the entire world got together as a unified front, they could stop Bush from starting any more wars. The UN needs to realize that it must work for the good of the planet even if it means going against the USA.

I like to hope that coudl happen, though it certainly didn't work when the whole world united against us and Israel recently.

Honestly, the only future I can see in international politics is for the US to implode on itself. It's the fall of Rome and I can hear the Visigoths approaching over the horizon.

Seaver · 09-22-2006, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Once Regan started flexing his imperialist muscles, UN power was dissolved in the face of American hegemony.

Look at where we are now: we recess-appoint a blatantly anti-UN ambassador to the UN. We scoff at the united voices of ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. America has displayed nothing but contempt for the UN and the international community, has worked to undercut UN power. And now we complain that the UN is powerless!

The UN has only been as powerful as the independent nations that support it. They need to realize that the UN is not a government over governments, after they realize that I may regain support for it.

Quote:

The real answer is that the UN needs to, for want of a better phrase, grow a pair. It's time for the world's nations to unite against the USA in the name of justice, and INSIST that we stop with the imperialist bullshit. If the entire world got together as a unified front, they could stop Bush from starting any more wars. The UN needs to realize that it must work for the good of the planet even if it means going against the USA.

Yes, for the good of the world the UN needs to realize that N. Korea and Iran must be able to produce nukes!

The UN is out-dated, it needs to either be dissolved or have MASSIVE reforms done unto it. Fresh, 2001-2 model weapons found in Iraq paid for by the oil-for-food deal (as well as contributions found to the son of Kofi Anan) show how high the corruption goes. The UN has no legitimacy to anyone anymore. Iran has been given deadline after deadline to stop refining nuclear material... and they only get more deadlines.

The only power the UN has is when America and Britain force it into action. Remember Kosovo? What you don't remember is Dutch military forces were not allowed to prevent the wholesale slaughter of Bosnians, just a few miles from their position because they did not want to offend. Remember Rawanda? Remember Darfur? Oh wait, that's still going on with UN just watching and eating popcorn.

Instead they decry Israel and force a ceasefire. Only they're only sending 19 tanks... quite a force indeed.

Bill O'Rights · 09-22-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

It's the fall of Rome and I can hear the Visigoths approaching over the horizon.

Hold your thundering horses.
Let's see what we can accomplish in two more years. Hopefully we can restore some dignity and respect to the White House. If, after six years time, we are still held in such contempt be the global community, then I'd say that we we're going to have to re-evaluate our role within that community.

ratbastid · 09-22-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Hold your thundering horses.
Let's see what we can accomplish in two more years. Hopefully we can restore some dignity and respect to the White House. If, after six years time, we are still held in such contempt be the global community, then I'd say that we we're going to have to re-evaluate our role within that community.

Thing is, I don't see that the people who are at the wheel for the next two years see any problem with how things are now. As a result, I have no faith that anything will change, at least for the current administration's term.

Yesterday while I gave blood, the Red Cross showed me Fox News. Fox News showed a poll they were running on their website that had 94% of people saying "the US should stop funding the UN". Now, that's obviously worded in a way that has bias in it--the US doesn't "fund" the UN, it pays dues to the UN just like every other nation, though we're more than $1bn in arrears on that. And it was on Fox News, so the demographic is anything but scientifically selected. But it points to the sentiment that America is Right and the Rest of the World is Wrong that is at the very core of why people chose to do what they did on 9/11 and why we continue to be reviled in all corners of the globe.

roachboy · 09-22-2006, 09:28 AM

it is beyond strange to me that there would be any kind of convergence between the american far right's john birch society-based dislike of the un and what chavez is saying above. that the united nations has been from the outset IN PART an instrument of neocolonial domination is self-evident--as is the simple fact that this is not ALL the united nations is or can be.

the un plays and has played fundamental roles in the gathering and co-ordination of information. it has and will continue to play an important role in improving health standards globally. it has done and still does important work with refugee populations. it has done and still does important work on environmental issues, on educational issues, etc.
it is clearly better that the un exists and functions--with all its faults--than it would be were there no such body.

it seems ridiculous that people attack the un for the problems it encounters with peacekeeping missions. for example, many of the conservative types who trot out versions of this line live in constant fear of "world government"--which is a central concern of the old bircher opposition to the united nations (which was usually looped through some fucked up backwater claims derived from "the protocols of the elders of zion")--so they would oppose expansion of any military capability originating with the un--but then these same people attack the un for being less than a fully operational governmental organization because of these problems.

but none of this moves in anything like the direction chavez outlines: within the existing un, the consequence of chavez's arguments would at the least be the abolition of permanent member status within the security council.
i am nto sure whether i would favor abolishing the security council outright--but in principle it is a problematic institution simply because it is the arm within the un that most obviously makes it an instrument of neocolonial domination.
abolishing all permanent membership would be an improvement.
there is no reason for the double-tiered set up, no reason why the permanent members of the security council should effectively have double representation, particularly one that supercedes the work of the general assembly.
the actions of the bush administration since 2001 have clearly demonstrated that the united states should be held to account by the international community for its actions--there is no basis for allowing the u.s. to function as if it were not part of the world community. abolishing at the least the permanent membership of the security council would be a step toward this end--abolishing the security coucil altogether as a cold war relic...i dunno.

but abolishing the un itself seems stupid. supporting such an abolition simply means that you do not know much about what the un does.

dc_dux · 09-22-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

....the un plays and has played fundamental roles in the gathering and co-ordination of information. it has and will continue to play an important role in improving health standards globally. it has done and still does important work with refugee populations. it has done and still does important work on environmental issues, on educational issues, etc.
it is clearly better that the un exists and functions--with all its faults--than it would be were there no such body.

BRAVO! I would only add that UN peacekeeping efforts, while certainly not always successful, have contributed to peace and stability in many regions.

The only other recommendation I would consider is to have some sort of weighted voting system in the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the various sub-groups, etc. There is too much influence by tin-pot dictators.

ubertuber · 09-22-2006, 09:53 AM

Yeah, I question most polls. You just can't trust their ability to word and administer the questions in an unbiased way, not to mention the ridiculousness of trying to extrapolate and weight samples of a couple thousand to the whole US. The only thing a poll tells you for sure is what those particular people thought about that particular question on that particular day. Anything larger than that is some sort of extrapolation, which is another word for speculation, even if it is educated.

We've seen this in exit polls - that's when I really started to pay attention to these things.

pan6467 · 09-22-2006, 09:04 PM

Just a side note.... all those people complaining and talking about Chavez's support for Iran and hatred for Bush, are not buying gas from Venezuala's national oil company Citgo? Right?

You are all boycotting the Citgo brand and even if it is more expensive going to some other gas? Right?

Or am I the only one not going to Citgo?

09-20-2006, 08:24 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	OK, then we don't include the constitutional monarchies like the UK, Tongo and Norway? Seriously, though, who decides what's a "true free republic"? And what are the criteria? Does Russia qualify? How about China? The UN exists as a place for saber-rattling and shoe pounding up front and constant discussion in the back rooms. Expecting it to actually accomplish anything is a little foolish. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-20-2006, 10:46 AM	#5 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	the lady in the background looks like she's laughing. Is it because of what he's saying or does she have somehting else playing on her ipod? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

09-20-2006, 02:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	This thread, so far, has been little than a platform to bash an international politician with snippy asides. If this doesn't change I am moving this thread to nonsense or closing it completely. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-20-2006, 02:49 PM	#14 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The UN remarks of two other leaders, both moderate muslims, who are still our nominal allies in the war on terror, are food for thought as much or more so than Chavez: Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf: While we confront terrorism, our strategy must seek to eliminate this phenomenon comprehensively. We cannot do so unless we understand and address the root causes of terrorism today. How are terrorists able to find willing recruits even among educated youth and democratic societies? The reasons are clear. Across the Muslim world, old conflicts and new campaigns of military intervention have spawned a deep sense of desperation and injustice. Each new battleground involving an Islamic state has served as a new breeding ground for extremists and terrorists. Indiscriminate bombings, civilian casualties, torture, human rights abuses, racial slurs and discrimination only add to the challenge of defeating terrorism. Jordan’s King Abdullah: There can be no just global order when aggression and occupation are permitted to take the place of international law. When these occur in a region as strategic as the Middle East the shockwaves run worldwide. Our youth are asking, where is the justice, where is the will of the global community? We must answer them by establishing a lasting peace, based on the international legality we have pledged to uphold. These are only snips...I havent seen the full text of the speeches to see the context of the above, but it should be far imporant to Bush and the American people that we understand the concerns of our allies rather than worry about the rantings of a paper tiger enemy. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-20-2006 at 02:59 PM..

09-20-2006, 04:11 PM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	asu: crap. my bad. i bit the wrong text. here's today's speech. [[[you are correct again sir. i am not trying to find this any more]]] __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-20-2006 at 05:33 PM..

09-20-2006, 08:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Yes, the UN is a total failure. Personally I don't think reforming it as a group of free republics is really the answer either. A 'free republic' is so subjective that this body will just end up being like a democracy, the majority countries bullying the minority group of countries around. Also, Being held accountable to ther countries in the world is a bad idea because none of them have as many freedoms as we do in the United States. If there's no accountabilty or policing ability of this group of nations it's just chit chat anyway. World government is bad.

09-20-2006, 11:10 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Hero to the left Ustwo? If you can say that then I think it is fair for me to say the Pat Robertson is a hero to the right.

09-20-2006, 03:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	roachboy, that happens to be his speech from 2005... I don't have a problem with the UN. I would rather have them talk amongst themselves rather than start wars over every little thing. Even though the resolutions aren't very effective, it helps see where the other countries are coming from. And then you have our great media. I'm surprised CNN actually broadcasted the US, Iran and Venezuelan speeches. All three of the leaders have good things to say, but behind the scenes they have major problems. The one thing I agree with Chavez on is this: "Chavez called for reform, saying the U.S. government's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month." I'm not sure if Israel would have stopped their campaign even if a resolution had passed, but this could have been prevented and Hezbollah dealt with in other ways. What freedoms do we have in the US? We can disagree with each other, but hardly ever turn to violence to settle our differences. I can go where I want to when I want (unless it is private property, which more and more of this country is). I can say and write whatever (but unless 50.1% of people think the same as you, it won’t change much). I can read whatever books I want or get whatever news I want (unless it is censored or illegal, the news is biased and opinionated and doesn't show everything a lot of the time, then you have to look on-line for first hand stories from multiple sources with nothing to gain from lying.) I am free to pay a bunch of taxes. And we are free to own certain guns and women are free to control when they give birth in some states. We won't be killed for believing a different religion from someone else, or for not believing any religion at all. But, I'm not sure how this is any different from Guatemala.

09-20-2006, 05:29 PM	#18 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	That is still the 2005 one. It is hard to find the 2006 one. I watched it on CNN today (freedom of speech is a good thing), and it is missing some of the things he brought up today (the devil comment, Lebanon, and poverty).

09-20-2006, 07:37 PM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The speeches are on the UN site....video or text (pdf) http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/gastatement20.shtml __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-21-2006, 11:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Some Americans would still think they were free if serving a life term in a solitary confinement cell. Nobody notices any erosion of freedom? Chavez is right, too bad there aren't leaders like him in every country.

09-22-2006, 06:16 AM	#23 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	He's just a South American Al Sharpton. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

09-22-2006, 07:00 AM	#25 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm torn about this (to return to the intent of the OP, devoid of its Chavez-trolling). Despite how the US has behaved in the last few decades, you can't just operate unilaterally without serious consequences. There has to be some sort of meeting place for nations, something with some authority and the wherewithal to back up what it says. Right now, it doesn't look like the UN is that body. Now, the question of "why" is an interesting one. Notice that the ENTIRE UN was screaming for an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah last month. But with American backing, Israel kept right on. In the Regan administration, the US started withholding its dues to the UN as a means of political leverage. IMO, that was the beginning of the end for the UN. Prior to that, UN resolutions literally created and dissolved nations (Israel, anyone?). Once Regan started flexing his imperialist muscles, UN power was dissolved in the face of American hegemony. Look at where we are now: we recess-appoint a blatantly anti-UN ambassador to the UN. We scoff at the united voices of ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. America has displayed nothing but contempt for the UN and the international community, has worked to undercut UN power. And now we complain that the UN is powerless!

09-22-2006, 07:11 AM	#26 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Rat, you're right that the UN certainly has problems, but dissolving it is not the answer. Then we just have to start a NEW group all over again instead of building on what we have already. The real answer is that the UN needs to, for want of a better phrase, grow a pair. It's time for the world's nations to unite against the USA in the name of justice, and INSIST that we stop with the imperialist bullshit. If the entire world got together as a unified front, they could stop Bush from starting any more wars. The UN needs to realize that it must work for the good of the planet even if it means going against the USA.

09-22-2006, 07:52 AM	#27 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	If anyone wants to see him giving the speech you can go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-c5PPIEziA I wonder if that is the official UN translator for english that you hear through those extremely old-fashioned earthingamajigs __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-22-2006, 09:28 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is beyond strange to me that there would be any kind of convergence between the american far right's john birch society-based dislike of the un and what chavez is saying above. that the united nations has been from the outset IN PART an instrument of neocolonial domination is self-evident--as is the simple fact that this is not ALL the united nations is or can be. the un plays and has played fundamental roles in the gathering and co-ordination of information. it has and will continue to play an important role in improving health standards globally. it has done and still does important work with refugee populations. it has done and still does important work on environmental issues, on educational issues, etc. it is clearly better that the un exists and functions--with all its faults--than it would be were there no such body. it seems ridiculous that people attack the un for the problems it encounters with peacekeeping missions. for example, many of the conservative types who trot out versions of this line live in constant fear of "world government"--which is a central concern of the old bircher opposition to the united nations (which was usually looped through some fucked up backwater claims derived from "the protocols of the elders of zion")--so they would oppose expansion of any military capability originating with the un--but then these same people attack the un for being less than a fully operational governmental organization because of these problems. but none of this moves in anything like the direction chavez outlines: within the existing un, the consequence of chavez's arguments would at the least be the abolition of permanent member status within the security council. i am nto sure whether i would favor abolishing the security council outright--but in principle it is a problematic institution simply because it is the arm within the un that most obviously makes it an instrument of neocolonial domination. abolishing all permanent membership would be an improvement. there is no reason for the double-tiered set up, no reason why the permanent members of the security council should effectively have double representation, particularly one that supercedes the work of the general assembly. the actions of the bush administration since 2001 have clearly demonstrated that the united states should be held to account by the international community for its actions--there is no basis for allowing the u.s. to function as if it were not part of the world community. abolishing at the least the permanent membership of the security council would be a step toward this end--abolishing the security coucil altogether as a cold war relic...i dunno. but abolishing the un itself seems stupid. supporting such an abolition simply means that you do not know much about what the un does. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-22-2006 at 09:33 AM..

09-22-2006, 09:53 AM	#34 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Yeah, I question most polls. You just can't trust their ability to word and administer the questions in an unbiased way, not to mention the ridiculousness of trying to extrapolate and weight samples of a couple thousand to the whole US. The only thing a poll tells you for sure is what those particular people thought about that particular question on that particular day. Anything larger than that is some sort of extrapolation, which is another word for speculation, even if it is educated. We've seen this in exit polls - that's when I really started to pay attention to these things. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-22-2006, 09:04 PM	#35 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Just a side note.... all those people complaining and talking about Chavez's support for Iran and hatred for Bush, are not buying gas from Venezuala's national oil company Citgo? Right? You are all boycotting the Citgo brand and even if it is more expensive going to some other gas? Right? Or am I the only one not going to Citgo? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"