Back to WMD:s

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:47 am

1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez was jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.

2000 - Foreign Minister Jose Vicente Rangel discloses plot to kill Chavez. Chavez wins another six years in office and a mandate to pursue political reforms.

Chavez becomes the first foreign head of state to visit Iraq since the 1991 Gulf war, in defiance of strong opposition from the US.

2001 November - President Chavez appears on TV to hail 49 reform laws which his government has introduced in the past year. The laws - including land and oil industry reforms - were passed under powers which did not require them to be approved by the National Assembly. Chavez says the laws will help the nation's poor; critics say they will put jobs and the economy at risk.

2001 11 December - Caracas grinds to a halt as millions protest against President Chavez and his controversial economic reforms, especially a new land law that gives the government the power to expropriate large estates and agricultural land deemed to be unproductive.

2002 14 February - Venezuela's national currency, the bolivar, plummets 25% against the US dollar after the government scraps five-year-old exchange rate controls.

2002 25 February - Chavez appoints new board of directors to state oil monopoly Petroleos de Venezuela in move opposed by executives.

2002 9 April - Trade unions and the Fedecamaras business association declare general strike to support Petroleos de Venezuela dissidents. Chavez vows to crush strike.

2002 11 April - Some 150,000 people rally in support of strike and oil protest. National Guard and pro-Chavez gunmen clash with protesters - more than 10 are killed and 110 injured. Chavez shuts down coverage of violence by TV stations. Military high command rebels, demands Chavez resign.

2002 April 12 - Chavez resigns, is taken into military custody to await possible charges stemming from violence. Military names Pedro Carmona, one of the strike organisers, as head of transitional government.

2002 April 14 - Chavez returns to office after the collapse of the interim government.

2002 July - Former US President Jimmy Carter fails to bring about a face-to-face meeting between President Chavez and the main opposition parties.

2002 October - Chavez says security agents foil another plot to topple his government.

Workers stage a national strike to press Chavez to step down or call early elections.

Group of senior officers goes on national TV calling for civil disobedience, alleging the government is corrupt and has impoverished the nation.

2002 December - Opposition strike cripples the oil industry. Organisers demand that Chavez resign. The weeks-long stoppage leads to fuel shortages.

2003 February - Shops, factories and universities re-open after nine weeks of a general strike. Opponents of President Chavez scale back the stoppage, but insist the campaign to force the president from office is entering a new and more flexible phase.

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Fri May 02, 2003 1:51 pm

Aside from a fact that Chavez is a populist politician (but elected nonetheless), you cannot really compare him to earlier presidents, say Carlos Andres Perez. btw, investigation has shown that both sides shot to the crowds. let's look some other things.

Ari Fleischer 12.april 2002:

The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. This government has promised early elections.

The United States will continue to monitor events. That is what took place, and the Venezuelan people expressed their right to peaceful protest. It was a very large protest that turned out. And the protest was met with violence.

Ari Fleischer 16 april 2002:

I'm not sure how you can say the United States did not stand up. And let me read this to you. "The United States voted on Saturday, along with other nations in the Organization of American States, to condemn the alteration of constitutional order in Venezuela, to condemn the deplorable acts of violence that have led to the loss of human life." And I could go on.

Isn't that a bit contradicting.......But I quess they had to save their skins when coup failed.

Who took part in the coup?

From Venezuela, the National Chamber of Commerce (Fedecamaras), management of the state oil company, and other upper class professionals, Catholic church officials, the corporate-run media, high-ranking military officers (inc. Gen. Efrain Vasquez Velasco, a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas), and the corrupt trade union bureaucracy of the CTV, affiliated with the discredited AD (Accion Democratica) political party.

The traditional PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela, state owned oil-company) management preferred "autonomy" to undermine OPEC quotas-lowering the price of oil exported to the U.S., but increasing market shares for private investors. Chavez wanted to keep oil prices high, since state revenues depend largely on oil exports and taxes on oil revenues. This is one the reasons why US might not like Chavez.

Venezuela has one state run television channel and one neutral newspaper. Others are owned by Venezuelas business oligarchy. Only state run television was taken off the air when the coup began.

Also, after Chavez was ousted and poor people decided to go the streets, The police immediately rushed-in to suppress these expressions of discontent and somewhere between 10 and 40 people were killed in these clashes.

What did the 'democratic unity' government of Carmona do? They proceeded to dissolve the legislature, the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office, the national electoral commission, and the state governorships, among others. Next, they decreed that the 1999 constitution, which had been written by a constitutional assembly and ratified by vote, following the procedures outlined in the pervious constitution, would be abrogated.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Fri May 02, 2003 7:14 pm

Simpi wrote:Here is when oil comes to picture. If OPEC would start to price oil in dollars, what was described above would no longer be possible = american economy would be screwed, so what to do? When/if american starts pumping oil from Iraq, they can go over OPEC quotas which will drive pirices down. This has a major effect on Saudi Arabia, whose corrupt government already takes the majority of oil revenues.

If they drop, Saudi government is in serious trouble and it's quite possible that internal strife will erupt. With largest country oil country of the world, OPEC might well collapse and US hegemony would be secure.

Which is bad...how? You don't really mention that. Is it because it'd be under big bad US control, which is somehow worse than big bad corrupt Muslim control?

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Sat May 03, 2003 12:34 am

kthulhu wrote: Which is bad...how? You don't really mention that. Is it because it'd be under big bad US control, which is somehow worse than big bad corrupt Muslim control?

If Opec would be out of the way, there is no threat that they would switch to Euros. Even better for US, they could take control of SA:s oil fields if internal strife erupts. Therefore they want permanent bases in Iraq.
(and leave Saudi-Arabia as a good smokescreen)

Let's go back to the dollar. Since so much of it's circulating outside US or invested by foreign owners, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. They cost next to nothing to produce so basicly US is importing huge amounts of goods virtually for free.
Because of this, US gov. can run a huge trade deficit year after year without any major economic consequences: http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda ... 970891.htm

Now, what would really happen if oil imports were switched to Euro. Disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them, the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign countries, thus reducing American living standards.

As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force. The message they wanted to send was not for other dictators to start behaving, but to send a message to OPEC countries that they might be in for a 'regime change' if they try mess up with the mighty dollar.

One more thing. Do you think US puppet government in Iraq will let Iraq price it's oil in Euros?

Here's a nice writing by William Clark: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat May 03, 2003 1:33 am

Either way, the oil's going to pump. If the EU is concerned, well, they ARE the European Union. They can either work together to take on the US juggernaut for economic and military reasons (like a real union of nations is supposed to), or they can become mostly ineffectual like the UN is, buried under reams of paper and hours of discussion, but only minutes of genuine action.

So far they seem to be the latter - too concerned with the satisfaction of all the members in regards to domestic standards and regulations, and not concerned enough with actually using the union to get ahead in foreign policy matters.

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Sat May 03, 2003 6:19 am

kthulhu wrote:Either way, the oil's going to pump. If the EU is concerned, well, they ARE the European Union. They can either work together to take on the US juggernaut for economic and military reasons (like a real union of nations is supposed to), or they can become mostly ineffectual like the UN is, buried under reams of paper and hours of discussion, but only minutes of genuine action.

So you don't mind that BushCo is willing to use lies, military force and covert actions to maintain US hegemony? That was the issue I wanted raise with this whole message thread.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat May 03, 2003 1:42 pm

if thats your conjecture, then fine.

you gotta back it up with something more substantial.

You conveniently word your arguement to leave out important facts. Were there forged documents about uranium purchases? Yes. Who forged them? America? nope. . .more likely a detractor to Saddam Hussein.

You see, part of the problem with the world market of oil and opec itself is the fact that oil is sold all over the world. period.

America could produce enough fossil fuel to be self sufficient, thats never been an issue. If Iraq stopped producing oil altogether, then America could make up its own production.

However, production isn't the only piece of the puzzle. Oil is sold across the world. Countries and companies will buy it without regard to where it comes from. Oil is not produced for anything except whoever will buy it.

Do you really trust OPEC to have a good intentioned view of world interest as they've been spiking gas prices for the last 10 years? I would much rather trust ECONOMICS to rule the price of oil than a political organisation like OPEC who produces as a consortium to keep themselves important in the world politcal and economic arena. They don't even use their monies for infrastructure or to improve business or work conditions. . .have you seen pictures of these facilities? they look like the dark ages. . .

Weapons of mass destruction are not the only reason we went in, and nobody ever said it was.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat May 03, 2003 1:56 pm

Simpi wrote:So you don't mind that BushCo is willing to use lies, military force and covert actions to maintain US hegemony? That was the
issue I wanted raise with this whole message thread.

I do mind the methods (and what am I really going to do about it besides vote against the President in 2004?), but I don't mind US hegemony. What's wrong with it? What about Europe? If they get their EU act completely together, there's a potential for European hegemony. Doesn't that concern you? Or is the EU somehow "better" than the US in your opinion?

I think Western hegemony is a fine thing. The rest of the world is full of oppressive influence, cultural relativity and acceptance be damned.

I still fail to see the BIG problem you are hinting at.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat May 03, 2003 2:29 pm

kthulhu wrote:I do mind the methods (and what am I really going to do about it besides vote against the President in 2004?), but I don't mind US hegemony. What's wrong with it? What about Europe? If they get their EU act completely together, there's a potential for European hegemony. Doesn't that concern you? Or is the EU somehow "better" than the US in your opinion?

good point, how could i forget the EU? The union that is run by the "Shut up and do as we tell you or you dont get to be on the EU" nations like France.

Hello, Pot? This is the kettle. . .. .you're black.

Giton · Post by **Giton** » Sat May 03, 2003 5:48 pm

Your too fixed on the political leaders, sixstop.
Indeed most European political decitions are made by the parliaments and their leaders, primarily the European Parliament itself.

Most is done by political nobodies, even we Europeans normally don't know. If there was a "shut up..." mentality the European Union wouldn't exist and there might be still wars like 70 years ago.

Another aspect that lead to the debate on Jacques Chirac's communiques was how the media reported about them.
At that time it was fitting to report about "anti American" diatribes and political splittings in Europe for several reasons...
What Mr. Chirac and other politicains said wasn't that harsh and the criticism on the US war planes didn't come out of nowhere - go and find an Iraqi who'll said that he was "freed" by the US...
Instead US military has to deal with riots and the chance of an upcomeing civil war.
The argument as it took place was something normal in European politics.
If you remember: In 1989 France and Great Britain almost forbade Germany the reunion with East-Germany. This matter was much more crucial to the continuity of the EU, but also solved to everybodies satisfaction.

The problem that lead to the argument was that the EU doesn't have a common foreign policiy.
But the fist step has been done now to solve this by founding a European defence union, an idea that's waiting for it's implementation since the 1950s.

By the way: It was Iraq's respectively OPEC's decision to charge Euros instead of Dollars, not Europe's...