| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:02 pm Chavez: UK must return Falklands |
|
| Quote: | Chavez: UK must return Falklands
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took another swipe at British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, saying Britain should give back the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
Venezuela also formally complained about comments by Blair saying the South American country should respect the rules of the international community, writing in a letter to the British ambassador in Caracas that the remarks violated the "fundamental principles of international law."
There was no immediate reaction from the British Embassy.
Chavez, a blunt-speaking leftist known for his anti-American rhetoric, had already told Blair to "go to hell" for his remarks, made during a parliamentary session in London on Wednesday.
His attack on the British premier shifted his aim following a new flare-up with Washington, sparked when Chavez last week expelled a U.S. Navy attache for alleged espionage and compared Bush to Adolf Hitler.
Chavez used Thursday's speech to prod U.S. President George W. Bush again, calling him a "nut case."
The fiery Venezuelan leader said U.S. ally Britain had violated the sovereignty of various nations. He cited the case of the tiny Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina, which Britain and Argentina went to war over in 1982.
"We have to remember the Falklands, how they were taken away from the Argentines," Chavez said in the western Venezuelan city of Maracaibo. "Those islands are Argentina's. Return them, Mr. Blair, those islands are Argentina's."
Britain still controls the Falklands, which Argentine troops invaded in 1982, setting off a three-month war against colonial ruler Britain in which hundreds were killed on both sides and more than 1,000 wounded.
Oil sales intact
Blair said on Wednesday that countries like Venezuela and Cuba should realize they had much to gain from the principles of democracy.
Chavez responded by telling Blair to stay in his place and calling him the main ally of "Hitler Danger Bush Hitler" -- referring to his favorite nickname for Bush, Mr. Danger.
In a letter to British Ambassador Donald Lamond, Vice Foreign Minister Pavel Rondon said Venezuela categorically rejected Blair's comments and noted that international law meant respect for the legality of other countries.
"The serious distortion in his words in confusing 'the rules of the international community' with the norms and principles of International Law has not gone unnoticed by our government," the letter said.
"This type of confusion has facilitated, permitted and induced the worst atrocities against the world's peoples."
Chavez, a former army officer who took office seven years ago after failing to win power in a 1992 coup, lashed out at Bush anew on Thursday.
"Now there's a nut case up there in the presidency of the United States," Chavez said. "He's dangerous to the world because he's capable of dropping nuclear bombs.
"Now they're making plans to invade Iran and Venezuela as well. He's crazy, the North Americans themselves are going to have to tie him up because he is capable of destroying half the world and destroying his own country."
Rocky since Chavez came to power, relations between oil-rich Venezuela and the chief buyer of its crude soured anew when Chavez expelled a U.S. naval attache last week. The State Department responded by expelling a Venezuelan diplomat.
Despite the spat, Venezuela's ambassador in Washington Bernardo Alvarez said on Thursday Venezuela would continue to supply oil to the United States. Venezuela, the world's No. 5 exporter of oil, provides roughly 15 percent U.S. oil imports.
Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved |
What an idiot! We went to war to keep these islands, we aint gonna listen to a nutter him 
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:00 pm |
|
He can *beep* off. Besides, why, when this world is big enough for everyone, do we still argue over pieces of land in this day and age? The Falklands War is over, there's no need for anyone to reopen old wounds.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:07 pm |
|
It's not as if there are any Argentinians (or whatever it is) are living on the Islands- but there are British there.
This is just stupid.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:15 pm |
|
It is. But you know what the war was about, of course. Oil. Nothing more.
No one had it claimed until the British took interest in it, and the Argentinians wanted it because it was close to them. Understandable, but wanna talk about a war for oil? Talk about the Falklands War! 
Although now, considering the status of the islands, I agree. This is ridiculous. Could yet another Falklands War be brewing?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:52 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | It is. But you know what the war was about, of course. Oil. Nothing more.
No one had it claimed until the British took interest in it, and the Argentinians wanted it because it was close to them. Understandable, but wanna talk about a war for oil? Talk about the Falklands War!
Although now, considering the status of the islands, I agree. This is ridiculous. Could yet another Falklands War be brewing? |
The Argentinian Government is on a downfall so another war is not possible. They can barely control their own people.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:57 pm |
|
We need to assasinate Chavez and no, I won't apologize.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:14 pm |
|
Hah! Yeah, I agree. It'll save a war. Robertson was right in saying it and right when he defended his statement (in a WAY) last week when on Hannity and Colmes (interview should be on www.foxnews.com video, Hannity and Colmes).
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:21 pm |
|
Well, thank goodness we're taking the Christian approach.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:25 pm |
|
I wouldn't go that far, i hardly think an assassination would improve our image. Kill anyone that speaks against us. He may be an idiot who talks crap all the time, but i wouldn't want him killed
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:22 pm |
|
| CJ Cregg wrote: | | I wouldn't go that far, i hardly think an assassination would improve our image. Kill anyone that speaks against us. He may be an idiot who talks crap all the time, but i wouldn't want him killed |
I agree. The man is an idiot, but it's not right to kill anyone for opening their mouth, however distasteful their comments are.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:48 pm |
|
Well, he's a dictatorial enemy that we may--the UK and the US--end up going to war with because of him. It's better than a war, as Robertson's point was. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:15 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Well, thank goodness we're taking the Christian approach. |
Ha. Ha. How predictable that someone was going to make that joke.
As for the others, who say we shouldn't assasinate him for "disagreeing" with us. I never said he should be assasinated for disagreeing or saying outlandish thing. I just don't like him because he is close friends with Castro and hes a communist. Just to clarify.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:16 pm |
|
Not to mention an evil dictator who hates the US and has lots and lots of oil, as well as drugs in his country...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:45 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Well, thank goodness we're taking the Christian approach. |
Ha. Ha. How predictable that someone was going to make that joke.
As for the others, who say we shouldn't assasinate him for "disagreeing" with us. I never said he should be assasinated for disagreeing or saying outlandish thing. I just don't like him because he is close friends with Castro and hes a communist. Just to clarify. |
Well, I suppose "predictable" would imply that you knew it was coming, which would therefore imply that you knew it was hypocritical. Surprise, suuuuurprise.
So, now you're saying that he should be assasinated because you "don't like him"? I don't see how who he's friends with has any bearing on the situation, and people shouldn't be assasinated because of their ideals, no matter how wrong they may be.
If his position needs to be terminated, it shouldn't be done through an assasination. It may be the easy way out, but it isn't right.
Besides, not many people, even in his own country, would back a war of his about the Falklands. If he went to war with Britain, he'd be going to war against the US, as well. That isn't something he'd risk.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:01 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Well, thank goodness we're taking the Christian approach. |
Ha. Ha. How predictable that someone was going to make that joke.
As for the others, who say we shouldn't assasinate him for "disagreeing" with us. I never said he should be assasinated for disagreeing or saying outlandish thing. I just don't like him because he is close friends with Castro and hes a communist. Just to clarify. |
Well, I suppose "predictable" would imply that you knew it was coming, which would therefore imply that you knew it was hypocritical. Surprise, suuuuurprise.
What is hypocritical? That I said it and knew that you were going to respond in the immature fashion? Or that I wish him dead, while being a Catholic? News flash. Religious people are Human too. What? Are athiests the only ones that can be immoral now? Nice try.
So, now you're saying that he should be assasinated because you "don't like him"? I don't see how who he's friends with has any bearing on the situation, and people shouldn't be assasinated because of their ideals, no matter how wrong they may be.
Thats a nice, but unrealistic sentiment. I think he should be assasinated because he is an oppressive tyrant. Not just because "I dont like him".
If his position needs to be terminated, it shouldn't be done through an assasination. It may be the easy way out, but it isn't right.
Well we could go down the popular route of using a revolutionary to oust him and then two decades later that revolutionary will turn into an anti-american communist or anti-american terrorist. Then Democrats will b***h and moan about how its the US' fault that he is in power. So there is no real way to win there.
Besides, not many people, even in his own country, would back a war of his about the Falklands. If he went to war with Britain, he'd be going to war against the US, as well. That isn't something he'd risk. |
I understand that. As I said before, the Falklands thing doesn't concern me that much. I know he wont overstep the boundry of cozying up to anti-American Liberals from America and forcing people to rallies at gunpoint, as is done in Cuba, to hear him spout off about how evil Bush is.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:27 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | I don't see anything immature about stating the truth, but if that's the way it is, then sure. It is hypocritical, by definition, to claim Christianity to be your religion, but then to go out of your way to advocate for murder. I'm glad you find the fact that you're human a comfort when you think about your "sins." (and yes, by your definition, it is a sin) It doesn't make it right.
With all due respect, your opinion on my religon falls on deaf ears. Especially since you probably consider me to be a backwards idiot that believes invisible people in the sky. If thats the case, then you can't argue Christian morality with me, if you don't even believe it exists. Thats like a Christian and Muslim arguing about how God isn't real and the different ways they can prove it. Why would they do that? Makes little sense. If y ou understood Christianity, then you would know defending yourself is allowed. As evident by the "eye for an eye". Now I'm sure you're going to counter with Jesus' pacifistic teachings. Jesus told people not to fight, but he also told his followers to take up their swords. When he said don't fight, he meant it as leave it as a last resort, but if it must be done, then so be it.(although im sure some pacifistic people can aruge that, and thats fine.)
Ah, your post made it seem that way. Those were the only things that were mentioned in it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem. I should have made it more clear.
Well, that's all conjecture. But I suppose that is one option. |
Not one that can be used though. As I said, long term wise it wouldn't be good. The backlash would be bad. Domestically and internationally.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:28 pm |
|
Just to say--I'll stay out of the argument between you two--I don't claim to be a good Catholic/Christian.
Yet, either way, in this case I think it's valid to submit to you that an assassination of a dictator who hates the US and is an enemy of the US and might do harm to the US and has lots of oil that he could use against the US and is a tyrant and has called the president of the US a terrorist--and the list goes on and on and on--would be better than war, killing only one person, and would prevent something like Iraq from happening. It would be better for everyone (except for him and those in power) if he were to be assassinated. It would, as Robertson's point was, prevent another war from happening and stop a tyranical dictator--fitting all the things I've said up there--from continuing his reign.
I don't support an assassination just for the heck of it, or because I don't like him--I want him assassinated to prevent more bloodshed than one to a couple deaths (through a war) and to stop him from continuing to do all the things I said above, and more. There are certain instances where the deaths of a few human beings is better than the death of hundreds to thousands, you know, and this is one of them. There are certain instances where killing a dictator is better than going to war with his country.
I hope you can see my reasoning there, and at least understand it and take it as valid, not criticizing me for being a "bad Christian" here or something like that.
Again, I don't profess to be a good Christian, but if there's anything I'm not, it's a bad Christian.
Sometimes there are solutions better than war. This is one of them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:29 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | What is hypocritical? That I said it and knew that you were going to respond in the immature fashion? Or that I wish him dead, while being a Catholic? News flash. Religious people are Human too. What? Are athiests the only ones that can be immoral now? Nice try. |
I don't see anything immature about stating the truth, but if that's the way it is, then sure. It is hypocritical, by definition, to claim Christianity to be your religion, but then to go out of your way to advocate for murder. I'm glad you find the fact that you're human a comfort when you think about your "sins." (and yes, by your definition, it is a sin) It doesn't make it right. The fact that you added "and no, I won't apologize" would seem to show that you knew it was wrong before you even hit the submit button... I suppose the "human" argument would make sense then, since if you didn't know it was wrong, it wouldn't be your fault. Once again, by your own definition of sin.
| Founder wrote: | | Thats a nice, but unrealistic sentiment. I think he should be assasinated because he is an oppressive tyrant. Not just because "I dont like him". |
Ah, your post made it seem that way. Those were the only things that were mentioned in it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
| Founder wrote: | | Well we could go down the popular route of using a revolutionary to oust him and then two decades later that revolutionary will turn into an anti-american communist or anti-american terrorist. Then Democrats will b***h and moan about how its the US' fault that he is in power. So there is no real way to win there. |
Well, that's all conjecture. But I suppose that is one option.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:34 pm |
|
The reason I said "and no, I wont apologize" was more of a "joke" about Pat Robertson. Because Liberals AND Christians forced him to apologize.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:35 pm |
|
Yeah, I know I understood that. It was simply a "joke" in allusion to Pat Robertson's situation in which he was forced to apologize for his statements.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:57 pm |
|
Blah, I deleted my post, but then ended up just editing it. Is why there's that whole mess.
Anyway, I don't recall saying that anybody is "backwards" because of their beliefs. I have had the unfortunate experience of going to Catholic school for most of my life, I've seen it all, and know nearly all of it. Therefore, I don't find Christians backwards, or their beliefs incorrect. However, if you know something is wrong, but do it anyway, then it's just not right (even if you aren't Christian). I wish I had the luxury of claiming to be human and "defending myself" (although I fail to see what against, he hasn't harmed you in any way) because Jesus tells me that it can be done that way. Yet, I don't. I'm jealous, to say the least.
So, Pat Robertson apologizes once again to save face. Hooray. I wish he'd just suck it up for once. But, you do what you have to do.
But once again, I don't think Chavez would start any kind of war. All he can do is bitch and moan, his country is already falling apart.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:09 pm |
|
I just think it would be best, in all friendly honesty, Aaron, if, even though you went through Catholic school and were raised Catholic and everything, that you keep your discussions on if someone's Christian or not or if something is contradicting Christianity or something to yourself (or at least limited), considering that you are, in fact, an athiest. And please don't take that the wrong way--I don't mean to be rude or anything like that. 
But the apology came months before the Sharon, thing, if you remember. Or it was at least a good time before it.
I think for that one he did it more or less, yes, to save face--that time, that is, because he basically defended his point on Hannity and Colmes last week. He shouldn't have apologized, IMO, but he did. And I do think that that time he did it to save face--but NOT for the Sharon thing. I believe he was HONEST there. He's explained his passion in that situation many times already, and it makes absolute sense and I'm convinced that he's honest.
And I disagree. I think that we may, at one time, have to go to war with him, and an assassination is better than that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:17 pm |
|
And the original point of this topic was lost around the third or fourth post. So, how about we regroup, and move on.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:20 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Blah, I deleted my post, but then ended up just editing it. Is why there's that whole mess.
Anyway, I don't recall saying that anybody is "backwards" because of their beliefs. I have had the unfortunate experience of going to Catholic school for most of my life, I've seen it all, and know nearly all of it. Therefore, I don't find Christians backwards, or their beliefs incorrect. However, if you know something is wrong, but do it anyway, then it's just not right (even if you aren't Christian). I wish I had the luxury of claiming to be human and "defending myself" (although I fail to see what against, he hasn't harmed you in any way) because Jesus tells me that it can be done that way. Yet, I don't. I'm jealous, to say the least.
So, Pat Robertson apologizes once again to save face. Hooray. I wish he'd just suck it up for once. But, you do what you have to do.
But once again, I don't think Chavez would start any kind of war. All he can do is *beep* and moan, his country is already falling apart. |
No one called anyone backwards, yes. But your distaste for my religion is painfully obvious. You had the "unfortunate experiance"? You're slightly obvious...
I didn't say that I wanted to kill Chavez because Jesus said it was "ok". Don't put words in my mouth. I was simply saying that I knew you would try to counter with "But Jesus was a pacifist!!!!!!". I was trying to make you understand that things are not as black and white as you think, especially concerning the Bible. But you know that, since you had the "unfortunate experiance of going to a Catholic school". How horrible...
I agree. Chavez PROBABLY wont start a war, but he is causing a lot of trouble in South America and is friends with murderous tyrants.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:23 pm |
|
Well, good point, yeah. It's probably more than likely that he won't start a war, but yeah, he's causing enough trouble.
Just look at the Falklands (and heeere's where I slide back on topic...). He's pronouncing crap about taking it back when it's not there's. Just...I mean, come on.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
