• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt Romney: Venezuela’s Chavez is “Threat to National Security”

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Presumptive US Republican candidate for this year’s presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has branded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a threat to US national security and accused the leader of Venezuelan’s Bolivarian revolution of “spreading dictatorships and tyranny throughout Latin America”.The former Massachusetts’s governor was responding to comments made by President Obama, who had stated that Chavez did not pose a “serious threat” to the US on Tuesday. Speaking to Fox news channel the following day, Romney said that he had been “shocked and stunned” by Obama’s statements and branded them “naive”.
“This is Chavez who has invited Iran in, who has invited Hezbollah in... This is Chavez who supports FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia] and other terrorist activity in nations like Colombia, who are friends,” said Romney.
The Republican candidate went on to criticise Obama for not paying enough attention to the continent South of its borders.
“Latin America is critical to America, the United States of America, and the president needs to focus on what is happening there. What Chavez is doing, what the Castros are doing. These are people who call for terrible acts against America,” he added.

Although Obama said he did not classify the Chavez government as dangerous to the US, he did state that his main concern in the country was seeing “the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs” and “having fair and free elections, which we don't always see”.
The government has always denied accusations that it has links to terrorist organisations, maintaining that the allegations are unsubstantiated and politically motivated.



Read more @: Mitt Romney: Venezuela

So we are back to the "dangerous, evil, terrorist supporting Chavez" card that the Republicans love to play again? Get people all scared and give me the vote right?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
 
well in all fairness,everyother attempt at socialism morphed into a dictatorship.

reallynot opposing the spread of socialism is bad for republicans.people like stalin lenin mao and castro have left such a bad legacy the gop just need say it.

is this no different than the left bringing up bush over and over again?????
 
well in all fairness,everyother attempt at socialism morphed into a dictatorship.

reallynot opposing the spread of socialism is bad for republicans.people like stalin lenin mao and castro have left such a bad legacy the gop just need say it.

is this no different than the left bringing up bush over and over again?????

1.)Not a dictatorship
2.)No proof he is supporting terrorism
3.)Cold war is over
4.) Countries have the right to decide the direction they want to without foreign intervention of any kind
 
How in the world could a puny nation like Venezuela threaten the national security of the US?

Once again, the republicans make it clear that they're just wussies who are scared of their own shadow
 
How in the world could a puny nation like Venezuela threaten the national security of the US?

Once again, the republicans make it clear that they're just wussies who are scared of their own shadow

Corporate interests. AKA nationalization of industries. That really pisses people off when countries choose their own economic policies.
 
1.)Not a dictatorship
2.)No proof he is supporting terrorism
3.)Cold war is over
4.) Countries have the right to decide the direction they want to without foreign intervention of any kind

i said all previous attempts led to dictatorship,doesnt mean his govt will but the odds are against venezuala.

on the rest of the points you are right,however i pointed out that due to acts by previous socialist(they called themselves communist)regimes that it would be stupid not to use them in a political campaign.

romney will tie venezuala to russia as obama has tied his failures to bush,its simply called vote pandering and propoganda,and such lies/insults/half truths will continue so long as peoplereact to it.
 
1.)Not a dictatorship
2.)No proof he is supporting terrorism
3.)Cold war is over
4.) Countries have the right to decide the direction they want to without foreign intervention of any kind

1) It is one step shy of a dictatorship
2) Yes, we do have proof he is supporting terrorism
3) Cold war was never really over
4) History tells another story
 
Yes, Sweden is so dictatorial :roll:

sweden is not socialist.

if russia cant be counted which was much closer to marxs ideals as socialism by socialist,than sweden which is way way off from his ideal utopia cant be counted either.

you guys cant say its not socialism when it fails and then say something farther off is,thats simply not how it works.
 
1.)Not a dictatorship
2.)No proof he is supporting terrorism
3.)Cold war is over
4.) Countries have the right to decide the direction they want to without foreign intervention of any kind

Why did Obama go into Libya
 
Last edited:
sweden is not socialist.

And the US is not a democracy :roll:

if russia cant be counted which was much closer to marxs ideals as socialism by socialist,than sweden which is way way off from his ideal utopia cant be counted either.

Marxism is not socialism. Neither is communism. Like many rightwingers, you don't understand the difference between marxism, communism and socialism. Probably fascism too


you guys cant say its not socialism when it fails and then say something farther off is,thats simply not how it works.

And you can't says it's not socialism when it works (as in Sweden and the US) and call it socialism when it doesn't (the USSR)
 
just for sangha,sweden has privatly owned business.sweden does not have public ownership like socialism does.

simply sweden has lower taxes than america did in the 60's,and has a large welfare state.its population is a little over 9 mil.comparing a super low population country to the us is idiocy at its best.
 
And the US is not a democracy :roll:



Marxism is not socialism. Neither is communism. Like many rightwingers, you don't understand the difference between marxism, communism and socialism. Probably fascism too




And you can't says it's not socialism when it works (as in Sweden and the US) and call it socialism when it doesn't (the USSR)

like i just pointed out sweden is not socialist,it maybe somewhat socialized,but definately doesnt come close to socialism.
 
just for sangha,sweden has privatly owned business.sweden does not have public ownership like socialism does.

simply sweden has lower taxes than america did in the 60's,and has a large welfare state.its population is a little over 9 mil.comparing a super low population country to the us is idiocy at its best.

Just for beerWTF, The USSR, Cuba and China (all undeniably communistic) also had or have privately owned businesses just like capitalism does. That didn't make them capitalist nations

Umm, the Swedes pay 51% of their GDP in taxes, which is almost twice as high as the US, and socialism is not limited to large nations

IOW, everything you said was nonsense
 
Just for beerWTF, The USSR, Cuba and China (all undeniably communistic) also had or have privately owned businesses just like capitalism does. That didn't make them capitalist nations

Umm, the Swedes pay 51% of their GDP in taxes, which is almost twice as high as the US, and socialism is not limited to large nations

IOW, everything you said was nonsense

wow i really dnt think you know the difference between communism and socialism.

for one russia and cuba were not communist,they were dictator socialist.right there you already shown fail.
 
How in the world could a puny nation like Venezuela threaten the national security of the US?
Didn't we used to say the same thing about Afghanistan? Prior to 9/11, I mean?

Once again, the republicans make it clear that they're just wussies who are scared of their own shadow
Said the guy hiding behind his computer screen.

Funny thing, I read a lot of comments from people like you accusing righties of cowardice. Like, daily.

Funny thing, in all my years of face-to-face poltical discourse, never, NOT ONCE, has one of you pasty-faced-basement-dwellers said that to my face. EVER. It's never even been implied in my presence. Never.

Funny thing indeed.
 
wow i really dnt think you know the difference between communism and socialism. for one russia and cuba were not communist,they were dictator socialist.right there you already shown fail.
Wow, i'm not at all surprised that you don't know that The USSR was communist and so was Cuba.
 
Didn't we used to say the same thing about Afghanistan? Prior to 9/11, I mean?

And after. Afghanistan never threatened our national security. Al Queda did (according to fearful)


Said the guy hiding behind his computer screen.

Funny thing, I read a lot of comments from people like you accusing righties of cowardice. Like, daily.

Funny thing, in all my years of face-to-face poltical discourse, never, NOT ONCE, has one of you pasty-faced-basement-dwellers said that to my face. EVER. It's never even been implied in my presence. Never.

Funny thing indeed.

Yeah, right. I'm sure that all the tough talk that righties post on the internet are true. :roll:
 
Wow, i'm not at all surprised that you don't know that The USSR was communist and so was Cuba.

they called themselves communist,but they were dictator socialists.

heres a fun thought whats the difference between communism and socialiusm
 
Corporate interests. AKA nationalization of industries. That really pisses people off when countries choose their own economic policies.

Oh, so the people of Venezuela chose to do that?
 
they called themselves communist,but they were dictator socialists.

Bith they and the rest of the world called them communist

heres a fun thought whats the difference between communism and socialiusm

No private ownership vs state control (not ownership) of the means of production
 
Back
Top Bottom