Chavez - UN!

Sgt. Sensible

constitutionus wrote:

you do know ray "rambo" burke and bertie are responsible for the contract with shell that means they get all the oil and gas they find and get to sell it back to us at the market rate dont you? we dont even get a royalty out of it like the danes do. if thats not giving away the nations resoucres i dont know what is. hell they even get to write off all the costs for exploration againts tax. this is the worst deal the countrys ever made, not to mention borderline unconstitutional

I've often wondered about that.

bunreachtnaheireann wrote:

Article 10

1. All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution and all royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the State subject to all estates and interests therein for the time being lawfully vested in any person or body.

constitutionus

hang on does that mean the government can flog the air to a foreign multinational and we'd have to pay to breathe it? lord

Manic Moran

I'll be buggered. About the last person I would imagine to lambast Chavez for his lambasting of Bush would be Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

I can see Rangel's point of view: There's something called 'diplomatic courtesy.' Saying your piece on foreign soil is well and good (I presume the UN building counts), but to do so on your host's territory is just impolite.

NTM

lostexpectation

oh something interesting coming up when they vote for the south american place on the UNSC

venezuala vs guatemala with US and most of europe backing G and the most of south america, africa and arabia backing venezuala....

its secret vote but the above have publically pledge for Venezuala, so what we Ireland do

I wonder which country ireland is going to vote for...?

I looked for anything in ireland in the UN, didn't find much apparently on ambassador to the is man named David Cooney ever heard of him, not only did we have a seat and a vote at the time of the Afghanistan we were the chair of it!?



imagine they have to fight this hard just to get temporary seat.

Akrasia

constitutionus wrote:

hang on does that mean the government can flog the air to a foreign multinational and we'd have to pay to breathe it? lord

well, in Bolivia the IMF forced them to privatize all their water including every drop in every river lake and stream, and the water that fell from the sky as rain.

Free market enthusiasts like Milton Friedman believe that we should Privatize everything, every square inch of land on this planet, all the air, water, soil and sand.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

I'll be buggered. About the last person I would imagine to lambast Chavez for his lambasting of Bush would be Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

I can see Rangel's point of view: There's something called 'diplomatic courtesy.' Saying your piece on foreign soil is well and good (I presume the UN building counts), but to do so on your host's territory is just impolite.

NTM

would you be polite if you were speaking about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin?

Would you be polite if you were talking about the devil on a podium overlooking the river stix?

uberpixie

Akrasia wrote:

would you be polite if you were speaking about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin?

Would you be polite if you were talking about the devil on a podium overlooking the river stix?

To be fair, last I checked, Bush has said some very insulting things about Cahvez, so I don't think it's suprising that some mud gets slinged back:D.

Nice move with the low cost oil program. That will really piss off the US government while making Venezuela look very good.;)

galactus

Chavez is of the opinion that the UN has failed and he's quite right of course. What is the point in being polite?

"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"

The UN is powerless when faced with the US. Exposing the hypocrisy of the US (democracy and hegemony are not bedfellows) is entirely neccessary.

"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."

Chavez proposes moving the UN - an excellent idea.
"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."

Perhaps Ireland should join the non-aligned nations. After all, aren't we neutral?

Frederico

Strange to hear a polititian actually speak their mind without so much spin and ambiguity.

tallus

I think he's either nuts or has steel cohones. Either way I agree with Frederico, it's refreshing to see a bit of honesty, but I do think he could have gotten his point across with a bit more finesse. The "smell of sulphur" think was hillarious, don't think I have ever heard of a politiician talking like that before.

Manic Moran

uberpixie wrote:

To be fair, last I checked, Bush has said some very insulting things about Cahvez, so I don't think it's suprising that some mud gets slinged back:D.

Did Bush say anything about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country?

There are 'rules of the game.' Career diplomats spend years refining the art of how to act in host countries, openly insulting your host is simply 'bad form'

NTM

daithimac

althought the UN is in new york, it is considered international teritory. tecnically he was not in america.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Did Bush say anything about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country?

There are 'rules of the game.' Career diplomats spend years refining the art of how to act in host countries, openly insulting your host is simply 'bad form'

NTM

I don't think it makes a difference where you are. It's not Chavez's fault that the U.N. is based in New York. Why should Bush have home field advantage every year just because they own the patch of land the building is built on.

Chavez only gets one chance every year to address all of the World leaders. He should get to say anything he wants. I only wish all the other leaders were more honest and forthright in their position.

Trode

Can I assume everyone here applauding Chavez's honesty, wit and courage were similarly impressed with Bush's 'Axis of Evil' claptrap?
Or does 'Ha ha I don't like them so they're TEH DEVIL!!1!' suddenly become a devastatingly insightful and hilarious political commentary when you happen not to like the target?

layke

I think everyone has respect for him because he refuses to bow down to the America's usual I say you do atitude, has a more cut the **** attitude and actually has a spine to speak his mind unlike our own polititions. Plus he's giving them a taste of their own medicine and quite honestly he is making Bush and his party seem like a pack of tools who have invaded a counrty for oil when it's cheaper to buy it off the guys down the road.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

I don't think it makes a difference where you are. It's not Chavez's fault that the U.N. is based in New York. Why should Bush have home field advantage every year just because they own the patch of land the building is built on.

You will note that in my earlier post I made the assumption that the UN is foreign soil. (I believe it is).

Rangel's remarks came after Chavez made a speech in Harlem, which is the other end of New York from the UN buildings, right in the middle of his Constituency and very much un-related to the UN. I haven't too much issue with the UN speech, I think the Harlem speech is what broke Rangel's camel's back.

NTM

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

Did Bush say anything about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country?

There are 'rules of the game.' Career diplomats spend years refining the art of how to act in host countries, openly insulting your host is simply 'bad form'

NTM

Bush's government was involved in the Venezuelan coup in 2002 and so yeah Chavez is quite within his rights to say what he did.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html
http://foi.missouri.edu/federalfoia/usfundsaid.html

Akrasia

Trode wrote:

Can I assume everyone here applauding Chavez's honesty, wit and courage were similarly impressed with Bush's 'Axis of Evil' claptrap?
Or does 'Ha ha I don't like them so they're TEH DEVIL!!1!' suddenly become a devastatingly insightful and hilarious political commentary when you happen not to like the target?

Chavez is using his wit and poetic license to call for peace and prosperity for all, while Bush's axis of evil speech was a manifesto for unending war.

There is a significant difference

Trode

layke wrote:

I think everyone has respect for him because he refuses to bow down to the America's usual I say you do attitude, has a more cut the **** attitude and actually has a spine to speak his mind unlike our own polititions.

You don't see the irony in the fact that those are pretty much exactly the excuses given by Bush's supporters in defence of the lack of intelligence displayed in his speeches?

layke wrote:

Plus he's giving them a taste of their own medicine

or sinking to their level.

layke wrote:

and quite honestly he is making Bush and his party seem like a pack of tools who have invaded a country for oil when it's cheaper to buy it off the guys down the road.

Like they need any help with that.

I don't like Bush. At all. I have no problem with Chavez. I don't agree with his politics, but he seems to be making it work for his country in the face of mild opposition from the most powerful country on Earth. Respecting him is completely understandable.
But that doesn't mean you have to respect everything that comes out of his mouth. Childish name-calling is childish name-calling, no matter who's doing it. It isn't worthy of respect, and it certainly isn't worthy of overwhelming praise being heaped on the offender simply because he's 'speaking his mind'.

Trode

Akrasia wrote:

Chavez is using his wit and poetic license to call for peace and prosperity for all, while Bush's axis of evil speech was a manifesto for unending war.

There is a significant difference

Calling the (arguably) democratically elected leader of a country a tyrant, a dictator with imperialist ambitions and the devil himself to the UN, which he simultaneously decries as worthless and undemocratic, is a call for peace and prosperity? Would the same be true if Bush said those things?
In answering,try not to confuse the dancer with the dance.

Sgt. Sensible

Trode wrote:

I don't like Bush. At all. I have no problem with Chavez. I don't agree with his politics, but he seems to be making it work for his country in the face of mild opposition from the most powerful country on Earth. Respecting him is completely understandable.
But that doesn't mean you have to respect everything that comes out of his mouth. Childish name-calling is childish name-calling, no matter who's doing it. It isn't worthy of respect, and it certainly isn't worthy of overwhelming praise being heaped on the offender simply because he's 'speaking his mind'.

I think he gave Bush too much credit to be honest.

I would wager that certain people are regretting that Chavez wasn't killed in 2002 when they had the chance.

Manic Moran

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Bush's government was involved in the Venezuelan coup in 2002 and so yeah Chavez is quite within his rights to say what he did.

You will note that that's not what I asked. I asked if Bush had ever said anything negative about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country. Chavez may have been justified, he may even have been right, but that doesn't negate the fact that criticising your host head of government/state is a serious breach of international etiquette. I may not like my mother-in-law but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep my mouth shut in her house.*

NTM

*Note to those who know me and my mother in law: This is not a statement on my opinion of my mother-in-law, it is merely a commonly stereotyped example

bonkey

Personally, I don't think that it having occurred in the UN is really significant.

With modern media providing a world audience, the basic question is whether or not it is acceptable for anyone, particularly a national leader, to be abusive about other public figures on a world stage.

Personally, I believe its not. I believe Chavez was as out of line as Bush has been with his frequent comments about Evil and so forth.

However, I dont think it would have been any more acceptable to have said it from a platform back home (with the world cameras still on him), before or after the visit.

It also doesn't matter who else has done it, where they have done it, or why. "But he did it fiiiiirst" might hold some sway in primary school bickering, but its no excuse on the world stage. The only thing that doing it first does is remove any credibility you have to issue criticism yourself.

No matter who the leader or public figure, where they are, or what other leader or public figure they are talking about, I believe there is a moral imperative for them to remain civil.

Akrasia

Trode wrote:

Calling the (arguably) democratically elected leader of a country a tyrant, a dictator with imperialist ambitions and the devil himself to the UN, which he simultaneously decries as worthless and undemocratic, is a call for peace and prosperity? Would the same be true if Bush said those things?
In answering,try not to confuse the dancer with the dance.

The U.N. is worthless and undemocratic in its current form. He was speaking to the members of the U.N., not to 'The U.N.'

He wants to end the Veto power of the permanent members that allows them to invade and destroy with impunity against the interests and wishes of the vast majority of the world. And i bet if you held a global referendum and asked every person in the world if they want to see an end to the U.N. veto, you would find a massive majority in favour of that proposition.

If Bush said he wants to get rid of the U.N. It would be to get rid of the last semblance of any oversight over the operations of his government. He would not replace it with something stronger and more democratic, he would replace it with something that America can exert even more dominance over (and something much more Militaristic, A La N.A.T.O.) When Chavez says the U.N. should be dismantled and rebuilt, it is because he wants every country, including the permanent members of the S.C. to be accountable internationally.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote:

With modern media providing a world audience, the basic question is whether or not it is acceptable for anyone, particularly a national leader, to be abusive about other public figures on a world stage.

Personally, I believe its not. I believe Chavez was as out of line as Bush has been with his frequent comments about Evil and so forth.

So when Saddam Hussein was in power before 2003 he should have had the benefit of diplomatic etiquette? Even after he committed his crimes after humanity?

I don't believe any figure deserves instant respect just because he/she holds a position of power. You earn your respect through the kinds of actions you pursue. Bush is responsible for his own negative image.

galactus

OK, perhaps Chavez made inappropriate remarks - something we all do (including the Pope).

What of his other comments? Can you see the UN taking on the reforms it needs?

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

I don't believe any figure deserves instant respect just because he/she holds a position of power. You earn your respect through the kinds of actions you pursue. Bush is responsible for his own negative image.

Of a similar nature, however, one must always respect the position a person holds, even if you don't respect the person holding that position.
By way of a military example, there's a common concept of 'I salute the rank, but not the person wearing it' in cases that the junior has no respect whatsoever for the senior he's saluting. At the highest extreme, Clinton held very little respect amongst the US military, but they were professional enough to distinguish the position from the man.

NTM

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

So when Saddam Hussein was in power before 2003 he should have had the benefit of diplomatic etiquette?

Yes.

One can denounce his acts using polite language. Watch:

Even after he committed his crimes after humanity?

See? You managed to convey how awful his actions were, without resorting to calling him evil, satan, or indeed using anything other than a charge of a really serious crime.

I don't believe any figure deserves instant respect just because he/she holds a position of power.

Its not the figure I care about. International diplomacy functions because people can talk to each other. When you start reducing it to the level of childish insults, for whatever reason, all you do is damage the possibility for dialogue, damage your own credibility, and try and show the world that international politics is really about who's the biggest bad-ass with the largest stones.

I don't see any benefit in any of that.

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

You will note that that's not what I asked. I asked if Bush had ever said anything negative about Chavez when he was a guest in Chavez's country. Chavez may have been justified, he may even have been right, but that doesn't negate the fact that criticising your host head of government/state is a serious breach of international etiquette. I may not like my mother-in-law but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep my mouth shut in her house.*

NTM

*Note to those who know me and my mother in law: This is not a statement on my opinion of my mother-in-law, it is merely a commonly stereotyped example

When did Bush visit Venezuela?

It's also international etiquette, amongst democracies at least, to condemn coups against other democracies, something the US admin failed to do in 2002.

Sgt. Sensible

Ultimately, while Chavez's comments were amusingly silly, he's not going to use them to justify bombing people to bits. Some perspective is nice.