Did you know that capitalism ended life on Mars?

ctrlaltdel
ctrlaltdel Posts: 114
edited March 2011 in The Crudcatcher
So sayeth Hugo Chavez. Must be true :shock:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110322/od_ ... havez_mars

The guy's off his rocker...

Comments

  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    He just throws out crap to make people think he's an idiot. That way people underestimate him. He's a proper tool though and has been gradually turning Venezuela into a dictatorship. He's bang on the money though about Libya though.
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,171
    He's bang on the money though about Libya though.
    So what did Chav-vy boy say about Libya?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mak3m
    mak3m Posts: 1,394
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    He's bang on the money though about Libya though.
    So what did Chav-vy boy say about Libya?

    its all about the water
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    This


    "He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves."


    Water as a resource worth fighting over is still a bit off (I do see it happening though) but this does seem like an oil grab. Why are we intervening in a civil war in that country and doing nothing in Bahrain? Or Ivory Coast?
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • VWsurfbum
    VWsurfbum Posts: 7,881
    This


    "He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves."


    Water as a resource worth fighting over is still a bit off (I do see it happening though) but this does seem like an oil grab. Why are we intervening in a civil war in that country and doing nothing in Bahrain? Or Ivory Coast?
    same reason we get involved with any of america's war's all to do with oil, not political at all!
    Kazza the Tranny
    Now for sale Fatty
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    I know there are political elements to it (Sarkozy wanting to cling onto something which could help in his re-election campaign) but the oil issue is a valid one. Watch as the fat contracts are given out when all of this is over. You'll be seeing the big US and European oil companies getting the goods cheaper than they were before.

    I'm just pissed off by the fact we always have to get involved. If there is a civil war then it's not up to us to decide it. Just look at Kosovo. We backed those brave freedom fighters against the cruel Serbian regime. Turns out they are a shower of nasty people with a few of their top men wanted for human organ trafficking (amongst others). That one was purely political though.
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    I'll just add that the hypocrisy of the whole thing is obvious when you consider that Bahrain have shipped in troops from another country to beat the shit out/kill protesters who want the exact same thing as the Libyan rebels. The fact that the US is chummy with the ruling folk there (The US 5th fleet are based there) has nothing to do with the inaction there.

    I don't want western governments to get involved in any of it but if they are I'd like some consistency
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    I wouldn't trust a word any western news agency reports what comes out of Chavez' gob and it's context.

    Even B&Q CEO agrees with Chavez on his basic point. here today
  • VWsurfbum
    VWsurfbum Posts: 7,881
    It seems all wars nowadays are over oil, weather thats what they say or not, thats what its about. C'mon why else would the world rulers (the Americans :lol::wink: ) give a sh1t?
    What happened to a good ol holocaust? Eh? at least there was a reason to get involved?
    Kazza the Tranny
    Now for sale Fatty
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    VWsurfbum wrote:
    It seems all wars nowadays are over oil, weather thats what they say or not, thats what its about. C'mon why else would the world rulers (the Americans :lol::wink: ) give a sh1t?
    What happened to a good ol holocaust? Eh? at least there was a reason to get involved?

    Well what's your thinking behind the motivation for this intervention? Do you think Nato countries should get involved in stuff like this? Curious about this. Maybe France and UK (with Nato countries backing them) ARE doing this to protect innocent people. What happens though if these rebel folk reach Tripoli and start shooting the crap out anyone that moves (regardless of being part of the military or not)?

    One of the things I seen in the news today was about how they're pissed off in Kosovo at the UN wanting to put some of their leaders on trial for war crimes. Given that the Nato coalition gave these people a platform to do what they done surely they are just as much to blame. This scenario could well play out in Libya as well.
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • VWsurfbum
    VWsurfbum Posts: 7,881
    Man i dunno, I think with the state this country's in and us loosing the other wars were in i dont think we should of even looked in their general direction! I'm not condoning what the mad mans up to, but like you said earlier on, things like this go on all over the world,I just dunno why "we" should get involved.

    On a up side, i bet a holiday in Tunisa would be cheap as chips at the moment?
    Kazza the Tranny
    Now for sale Fatty
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    Surely Egypt is the better bet? Cheap as chips and sharks at the red sea resorts so plenty of Jaws re-enactments
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • VWsurfbum
    VWsurfbum Posts: 7,881
    LOL
    Kazza the Tranny
    Now for sale Fatty
  • mak3m
    mak3m Posts: 1,394
    Surely Egypt is the better bet? Cheap as chips and sharks at the red sea resorts so plenty of Jaws re-enactments

    yup looking at 5 star diving hotel, 2 weeks all inc £700 a pop

    its Taba on the israeli border, so if it gets too dangerous i can flee to safety in Elat :shock:
  • VWsurfbum
    VWsurfbum Posts: 7,881
    mak3m wrote:
    Surely Egypt is the better bet? Cheap as chips and sharks at the red sea resorts so plenty of Jaws re-enactments

    yup looking at 5 star diving hotel, 2 weeks all inc £700 a pop

    its Taba on the israeli border, so if it gets too dangerous i can flee to safety in Elat :shock:
    Pah, whats the worst that could happen :lol:
    Kazza the Tranny
    Now for sale Fatty
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    Just don't use buses and stay away from everyone....yes, everyone
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,171
    This


    "He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves."
    He thinks we want Libya's water? :lol: The country is a frikkin' desert...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    Libya has some of largest water reserves on the continent. Kufra basin, the Sirt basin, the Morzuk basin and the Hamada basin. And then you've got the GMMR project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,171
    So they've got some water - still no idea why he thinks the West would want it. We seem to have enough...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mak3m
    mak3m Posts: 1,394
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    So they've got some water - still no idea why he thinks the West would want it. We seem to have enough...

    seem being the operative word, while everyone worries about oil its a potable water supply thats gonna kick off the riots :shock:
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    Israel has none ...and water is just another potential commodity in a corporate portfolio, and one that is going to be more sort-after and more expensive than any oil field in that region
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,171
    I can see why water is one reason why things might kick off in North Africa and the Middle East - but not Northern Europe in the foreseeable future. And it's going to take more effort than its worth for any country barring maybe Libya's direct neighbours to nick it's water.

    The infighting over resources is more likely to be between the residents of the region. I've always thought that region has the potential for big trouble at some point (i.e. more than just a bit of civil war and rioting) - my money is on the Israel/Iran thing but we'll just have to wait and see.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    this is just straight global geo-politics and the same old, same old neo-liberalism. it's about western (transnational) corporations and banks vying for greater spoils and greater access to those spoils. Like I said in the other thread, libya and it's natural resources were ripe for the picking. Britain, Italy and France have historical connections there (and are hated) and also have massive investments there. BP has over 16 billion invested f'rinstance, high stakes geo politics indeedydoo.
  • ctrlaltdel
    ctrlaltdel Posts: 114
    How's bombing Libya helping oil companies? Are they hoping that whoever replaces Gaddafi is some sort of patsy?
    I guess I just have a hard time believing that our motives are something other than trying to stop a mad dictator from punishing his own people. I mean, why wouldn't you want to send airstrikes against a man who has committed these acts?
    Whether the strikes will have the desired effect... well that's another question entirely.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,171
    Well yes. The fact that Gadaffi is using military power to slaughter his own people does have something to do with it.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    It's an opportunity that was taken. The ideal would be for Gaddafi to go and then you get to put a more compliant western friendly 'democratic government' in, like they did in Iraq, where the US now has it's hand firmly on the main oil tap/ spigot. History is the story of local and global geo-political struggles it's nothing new. Britain doesn't exactly have a glorious stain free history when it comes to empire and nation building for it's own ends - and neither do any other colonial powers for that matter. Especially the current dominant super power, the US.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,171
    If you want to look at it like that, life is a battle for resources and powerful countries will always act in their own interests. It's human nature. But it's not all a massive X-files style conspiracy.

    Anyway, who woud you prefer to have their hands on the oil tap? Russia? China? Ahmedinejad?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mak3m
    mak3m Posts: 1,394
    Mmmmmm upuntil a couple of weeks ago we had a deal with Gadaffi and co and were one of their larger customers, as were the US. So it can't be for oil, we still need our supply and we have sent prices rocketing???

    U can never count on a patsy, so why rock the boat when you already have the deal. It's colonial alright but driven by the French, they seem to have lost their Iraq qualms on this particular issue.
  • montevideoguy
    montevideoguy Posts: 2,271
    Sarkozy is gung ho on this as he has an election coming up soon and he could well get spanked in it. Think of the effect generated by the Falklands conflict for Thatcher.

    As for these countries simply going after a regime intent on killing it's citizens... why was there no action in Bahrain the other week when they got in a ton of soldiers from Saudi Arabia to shoot at anyone who dared to protest? Nothing to do with the US Navy's 5th fleet being allowed to station there and them having close links with the US government? Why no action in Ivory Coast where you have a man refusing to concede he lost an election and is driving the country to a bloody civil war? The Nato countries would never enter into anything unless it serves their interests. Even looking at Kosovo, where it was all about saving those poor Kosovans (or Albanians who gradually moved there over years until they outnumbered the local population). The US only got involved because they wanted to affect regime change in Serbia. And those poor Kosovans? Turns out the top people in them are a shower or organised criminals who partake in human organ trafficking.

    As as been previously said, the oil deals that were in place before will be renegotiated with more favourable prices for the foreign companies invested. That's how it generally works.

    We shouldn't get involved in any other country's internal politics but if we are then at least show some consistency.
    Formally known as Coatbridgeguy
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    If you want to look at it like that, life is a battle for resources and powerful countries will always act in their own interests. It's human nature. But it's not all a massive X-files style conspiracy.

    short answer - political science calls it Neoliberalism and the Neoliberal agenda which was born out of classical Mercantilism. The history of which makes the x-files cloak and dagger conspiracy type storylines look like fantastic mr fox, bogis, bean and bunce.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Anyway, who woud you prefer to have their hands on the oil tap? Russia? China? Ahmedinejad?

    short answer - it's irrelevant because the die has been cast historically, but the motherfuckers oil it belongs to and who have legal nation state rights to it, in general. Even if the old colonial powers like Britain did draw the boundary lines and made those states up to begin with. lol.