32099, RE: lol. Venezuela's oil was nationalized in 1976|
Posted by foxnesn, Tue Dec-13-05 07:52 AM
>That was under the Manuel Perez-Guerrero presidency, over
>twenty years before Chavez took office. Before 1976,
>Venezuelan oil was essentially under U.S. monopoly control.
>Under the rules of nationalization, the U.S. remains the
>biggest investor at 14.6% of foreign direct investment,
>closely followed by the Netherlands at 14.2% and then a long
>list of Latin American and Caribbean nations. Yes, Chavez has
>been making overtures to China and India, which he has every
>right to do. This may alarm the would-be monopolists in the
>U.S. energy sector (some of whom have offices on Pennsylvania
>avenue) who get a hard-on wherever there are oil wells, but
>they've hardly been "robbed". The notion that nationalization
>is "stealing" is nonsense anyway in the case of natural
>resources like oil, whose value on the world market far
>exceeds the capital necessary to build drilling and extraction
>facilities. We aren't talking about fucking soda pop. I mean,
>the CIA has backed dictatorial coups in Iran (1953) and Iraq
>(1963) after their leaders nationalized the oil, which had
>been owned by an Anglo-American oil condiminium, part of it
>directly invested in the British Treasury. Would the same be
>done of Fiji nationalized its coconut groves?
but he hasnt change anything. so when he sells oil that isnt by right his, he is stealing it. nationalizing is robbing because it turns private property over to the public. it is taking something of value from someone by force against that persons will. that is the definition of stealing. nationalizing is just the public saying its ok, or better yet, the govt saying the public says its ok.
>*edit* Also, about the notion that Chavez is cracking down on
>"freedom of speech" like some left-wing Joe McCarthy: the
>Venezuelan media is run by Henrique Otero, Gustave Cisnero and
>a handful of other right-wing moguls. They own all the TV
>channels and most of the newspapers, and their outlets all
>supported the failed coup against Chavez in 2002, which the
>population obviously opposed. Chavez continues to allow these
>outlets to broadcast in his country. So your argument is, to
>say the least, not very convincing.
uh...you are not allowed to publicly campaign for office in venezuela. yes, you are allowed to express your political opinions but then how is someone who opposes chavez supposed to run for office when you cant publicly campaign...that being said private media outlets can rant and rave all they want about chavez injustice but nothing can ever be done about it.