KeyStone

"Exactly, and it's not just the oil indusrty he's doing that with. He pretends to want foreign investment, and then after they spend millions of their own dollars building facilities and infastructure related to their particular business, he then screams HA HA, MINE NOW! And takes it from them. You can only pull that shit off once, and the end result means that he costs his country billions and billions of dollars per year in foreign investment, and business, and jobs for Venezuelan citizens." The change to the oil industry needed to be done. Those foreign companies were taking all the oil, and giving the people of Venezuela next to nothing. In fact, for the heavy oil, out of the Orinoco, they were only paying a 1% royalty. These companies had all made back 10 times their initial investment. Furthermore, of the companies that were offered the new terms, only two of them pulled out - the rest realized it was still very profitable and chose to stay. Let's say that Mulroney had signed a deal with the US, for us to give them all of our oil at $5/barrel for the next 1000 years. Would we be 'stealing from the US', if we broke that deal? My point is that if a previous leader makes a foolish deal, it is within reason for a future leader to break that deal, if it is too one sided. Give a bribe of ten million, and get five billion back in value, as the leader signs away the future of a country. But Chavez should have stopped there, instead of privatizing every business that is making money. As a result, the investment climate is completely unstable and businesses are fearful that they will be taken over. We will see if Chavez can inject enough oil money into the economy to offset the loss of revenues from private enterprise. "If Chavez would operate on good faith, he could attract large numbers of foreign investors, the way top economic country's do. If he would allow Venezuela to develop its own free-market capitalist economy, and with the natural resources they already have, Venezuela could quickly become a vibrant economy, with a much higher standard of living. Heck, they could be the South American version of Alberta, but on a much greater scale." Perhaps, but he is more interested in lifting all of the Latin American people out of the enslavement to the West.

"Venezuela discovered oil in 1922, Kuwait in 1931, both countries were in the same boat at that era, that's their own fault socialists don't know how to run an economy." Again, as I have already pointed out to you, Kuwait produces ten times the oil that Venezuela does per capita. Countries are not grouped into two categories (has oil, doesn't have oil), the amount of the oil is also a factor, as well as how easy it is to extract. Kuwait is a rare exception - as it has a massive surplus of oil for a tiny population. "The numbers don't lie. Hell in 1969 is when they found oil in Norway. There is no excuse for the lack of Venezuelan prosperity." As should be blitheringly obvious, oil is not the only factor in a nation's success. "Alberta, Kuwait, and Norway have a much higher standard of living and much higher incomes than venezuela. Numbers don't lie. Chavez is a failure. His people are broke, yet they float on oil. The countries in my example allow foreign investment, and are richer for it." Yes, the cherrypicked countries in your example. Last I checked Iraq allows foreign investment and has oil. In fact, I think the US has been in there fixing it for 7 years now. You have made the following assertions: 1 - 10 Years is long enough to fix a country. 2 - A country that has a decent amount of oil should be very wealthy. So, based on that, if Iraq is not swimming in money with all its problems fixed three years from now, are you willing to admit that the US rule has been a complete and utter failure? "Why after oil hit 147 dollars is his country a toilet? Why after 10 year in power are his people still poor? Any CEO with that poor of performance would be fired." First off, Venezuela is not a toilet. It is reasonable although crime is a major problem, and some poverty still exists. Secondly, oil did not stay at 147 dollars a barrel for very long. Thirdly, while conditions are improving, he has not solved every problem in the country in ten years. He has had some successes (literacy) and some failures (crime). Any leader that could take a country like Venezuela and magically transform it in ten years, thanks to some oil money to fix every problem it ever had, would be unanimously voted Secretary General for Life. "Just like Mugabe did with his printing press. Brilliant economics, devalue the currency and screw over your populations purchasing power! And leftists wonder why Venezuela that floats on oil is as broke and pathetic as it is." It's obvious you don't understand. The bolivar is already devalued. It has been artificially pegged at an exchange rate much higher than it's actual value. Now, he is bringing it more in line with the parallel price. Even economist agree that this is a good thing. He could have made it a little more gradual, in my opinion but perhaps he has his reaons. He isn't printing money and handing it out to the wovits, though. "The venezuelans went from throwing crap at each other to throwing crap at each other with socks on, wow what an improvement." I don't know why I bother posting to you, given that you have a tendency to ignore everything that doesn't fit your belief that Chavez is evil and incompetent. I've already pointed out the many improvements he has made to the country - improvements which the people obviously see, since they keep voting him in. "The state of venezuela does not have enough dollars to develop its oil reserves, that's why they are poor broke trash. They need foreign money, but don't want it." Ireland always had a solid base of educated people, thanks to their socialist education system that provides free education, a system that Chavez has put into place in Venezuela for the first time. "Ireland turned its economy around in 10 years without oil, why can't Chavez? Oh that's right he's a tin pot insane dictator. It is that simplistic, Chavez is a failure." Again, you have taken the most succesful turnaround in recent memory and made it the standard for mediocrity. "Kuwait was a pile of sand before oil, Venezuela had more going for it before oil. Yet Kuwait knows how to manage itself. I leave out Iraq plus Nigeria and Iran because they are poor and also have tin pot dictators such as Chavez" Umm, Iraq has a tin pot dictator? Really, what did the US give up all those lives for? Do you mean the media is just lying to us, about this whole democracy stuff? "notice a trend anywhere?" Uhh, yeah - you're consistently trying to oversimplify things into binary categorizations, when even a small child suffering from light retardation could see that it's more complex than that. "Wrong, the cato institute called the cash injection a hindrance. Ireland got to where it was by slashing taxes, there was no meticulous socialist central planning. It was slash taxes and watch the sharks feast. Ireland made a killing, and with zero oil exports on top of it." Well gosh, if the Cato institute said so, then they must be right. Cash injections must be a bad thing. How could a right wing think tank be wrong?" "My examples are successes and have the numbers to back it up, where are the numbers on venezuela's success? Socialism is a failure, ask the Soviets." It depends how you define socialism. Given that the Soviets were communists, it's not a great case study for the failure of socialism. Generally, whenever a social democracy has existed, it has been undermined by the West - ie Chile, Iran, Guatemala, etc. Here are some numbers: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/cepr-paper-responds-to-foreign-affairs-on-venezuela/ Of course, this information is easily available using Google, if you actually wanted to know. And, as you know, there are many other articles from Western media showing that Venezuela is turning into Zimbabwe. So, someone is obviously biased. I would think that the best way to know if conditions are improving in Venezuela or not, would be to see what the people think. And since they keep voting him in, they must think that he is doing a pretty good job.

"Take a look at the people of venezuela, they're broke ass losers with all of that oil money. That reeks of inferior management." Well, they aren't that badly off compared to many of the countries of Latin America. Does their level of prosperity compete with Norway or UAE? No. "He gets this money by letting foreign companies invest in infrastructure, then he goes around and nationalizes them which is essentially theft." Well, no. Actually, most of the money comes from oil. I categorize the investors in Venezuela into two categories. There are the ones who want to syphon off the resources of Latin America (oil and mining companies), and there are the ones who actually want to invest in Venezuela (building hotels etc). Now Chavez was exactly right to demand more from the mining companies. Demanding more from all companies making a profit in Venezuela will have long-term negative effects on foreign investment, at least as long as Chavez is at the helm. However, Chavez doesn't care about foreign investment. He is replacing that by investing the proceeds from the oil industry - an investment that is much more stable and targeted towards the needs of the citizens of Venezuela. As for it being theft, it depends. If he appropriates physical assets with no compensation - then yes, it is theft. As long as the company is free to leave with their employees and their physical assets then it is not theft. From what I understand, these companies, have made their money back tenfold in most cases already, and are offered compensation. This may not be the same, in ever case. "Those private companies were investing a lot of dollars in Venezuela until El Presidente came in and turned off the tap, and look at them they've amounted to a big pile of monkey crap." Yeah, well, I don't agree with everything he has done, but I think that the good outweighs the bad. It would be better if he had a more predictable economic climate. Business doesn't like unknowns. However, as I have said, he doesn't really care about foreign investment, when the state can replace that investment with its own dollars. "How do you screw up the economy of a country floating on oil with a coastline, within close proximity to US refineries? Chavez managed to pull that off." An economy is a lot more than just oil. Furthermore, it would stand to reason that if it is so easy to have a prosperous country if one has oil, than Venezuela must have been amazing during the reign of his predecessors. But, a quick look will reveal it was not so great. In fact, things have changed much for the better since Chavez took over. "Okay lets look at Alberta, and Kuwait, and Norway. There is no poverty in those areas, and they hae well established literacy rates. If Chavez is such a good leader, why isn't a country that is floating on oil at the same level as these jurisdictions." LOL. It's really not that simplistic. The success of an economy is made up of many things other than oil, and that doesn't just turn around in ten years. Canada and Norway are both highly advanced nations boasting top education and health care. They have both been like that for fifty years. Venezuela is far from that, although it has been making strides under Chavez. The only reasonable comparison is Kuwait, but they produce a similar amount of oil, with only 10% of the population. I am sure that if the population of Venezuela was only three million, the people would all be doing quite well also. I notice you chose to leave out the oil producing nations of Iraq and Nigeria? Any particular reason? "Hell, Ireland in the 1980's was in the same boat as Venezuela, but they managed to become the freest country in the world and one of the richest, plus with no oil to boot. Yet somehow Venezuela is still a broke mess." Sure, Ireland got a big whack of cash from the EU deal, and promptly invested it into infrastructure and central planning to become an insurance mecca. It's a great story, but not something that every country can duplicate. The fact that Venezuela does not compare favourably to the most succesful nation in the past decade, does not make them a country of 'broke-ass losers'. "I'm a cowboy that knows a garbage system when I see one. Chavez is a braindead selfish ass and his people are poorer because of it." No, you're a cowboy that reads MSM as if it's the word of God, who doesn't have the ability to question anything that he sees in print. "I suggest you take a class in commerce and economics, because you need it." You're the Einstein that thinks devaluing the Bolivar is a bad thing. "Those dern rednecks and that there economics done outfoxed them commie bastards again. Hyuk hyuk hyuk." Perhaps you should wait until you win an argument before you start patting yourself on the back.

Wow, you're absolutely clueless. Take a look around at what he is doing with the oil money. He's investing in education, healthcare, social programs. He's implemented UI, and maternity leave for the first time. He's building infrastructure so Venezuela can't be sabotaged by private companies pouting that they can't make a killing at the expense of the Venezuelan people. Literacy rates have skyrocketed. Poverty rates have declined. Why is it that you think you know so much better what Venezuelans need than the people who have lived under Chavez for the last twelve years? They seem to like what he is doing. Shouldn't that mean something? But hey, you're a cowboy, and you can just 'reckon' that he must be a bad guy. That's good enough for internet debate.

You're really drinking up the Western media kool-aid. Do some research and see what independent election monitors had to say about the elections. What did the Carter center say? What did the OAS say? What did the EU say?

Right. Because Venezuela was swimming in riches before Chavez came along.

To those that don't follow Venezuela that closely, this doesn't look good. And I am sure the Chavez haters and MSM can do a great job of creating 'sky is falling' articles in abundance. But the truth is, this is a good move. The exchange rate has been fixed in Venezuela for some time. However, the actual rate of exchange (known as the parallel rate), is two to three times higher. As a result, there are many loopholes, in which people can buy Bolivars at the lower rate, sell at the parallel rate into US dollars, and complete the cycle. It needs to change. By devaluing the dollar, Chavez is bringing the bolivar back in line with the actual rates that it is trading for internationally, a move that will make it easier to get rid of the fixed rate, and allow a floating currency once again. Economists always call for floating exchange rates, so they should be well pleased with Chavez's move here. There was far too big of a gap between the government rate, and the parallel underground rate. Generally, if this was any other country, the pundits would be applauding, but because it is Hugo Chavez, expect non-stop doom and gloom articles about it.

Congratulations. You have realized that people that advocate for change, are not perfect. Yes, Elizabeth May flies in planes sometimes. Yes, Jack Layton went to a private clinic once in his life 13 years ago. Yes, David Suzuki has chosen not to live in a cave in the mountains. Advocating for change does not mean that one has to be perfect. It means that you give up the changes that you can, and you make an effort. I don't think it is especially necessary for David Suzuki to live in a one-room shack and power everything by solar panels and 4 hours of a bicycle-generator in order to have credibility as an environmentalist. What sickens me is not hypocrisy. What sickens me are people that feel a need to tear down the people that are trying to make a difference, by looking for the tiniest flaw in them. Then, they declare that since those people are not perfect, it must mean that we are all the same, so that must be justification for a life of hedonistic indulgence at the expense of the environment and the less fortunate. If you want to be a selfish prick, go ahead - but you don't really need to spend your time tearing down others that are trying to make a difference, simply because they are not 100% perfect.

Absolutely. There was no justification for us going into Haiti. Unfortunately, Haiti does not have the unity nor military firepower to exact any revenge. If you install a dictator for the next 10 years, who routinely kills political dissidents, then you might want to be wary of placing an embassy there.

Basically, JBG, your opinion amounts to a complete abandonment of justice, or fairplay, and simply becomes a matter of might makes right. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. We can have all the weapons we want. They can't have any unless we say it is OK. If they try to get weapons, we will kill as many as it takes to stop them. The problem is not with the US supporting its own interests. The problem is with the US pretending to be the world's policeman, when in fact it's only real interest is itself - not democracy, not justice, and certainly not compassion. If the US is the world's policeman, than they are 'on the take'. There are far too many instances of the US siding with dictatorships over democracies, simply because of where their alliances are, and the trading relationships they will prefer.

"Jeez, the Mossedegh mythology, which always omits how the dressing gown premier was playing footsie with the Russians, and the whole history of the crown of Iran." It is probably omitted, because the alleged Russian plan was contrived, and had nothing to do with the coup. "The prime players in the drama were the British, and, other in assenting in the move, the Americans did little." No, the Americans didn't do much. They just funded, and organized the coup, and then trained SAVAK to deal with dissidents. "The oil ended up nationalized anyway, licensed by the Shah, and used to modernize Iran." Yeah, it had already been nationalized under Mossadegh, because the people demanded it. "but if he's to be faulted, it's that he tried to westernize his people too fast." LOL. I hadn't realized that replacing democracies with dictatorships, and having secret service kill political opponents was part of the Westernization process. You're hysterical. "I think it is a time for world leaders to speak out." 1) Iran is very wary of foreign interference. Any explicit interference will be viewed negatively, and the internal group getting support from external interests, will suffer as a consequence. 2) Iran's elections are far from perfect, but they are much better than those of Saudi Arabia. How can we possibly condemn Iran for the faults with its elections, when Saudi Arabia has only token elections in municipalities, continues a multi-generational dictatorship, and routintely kills dissidents under the guise of fighting terror? Why the double standard? Could it possibly be because Israel isn't telling us to engage Saudi Arabia, and because Saudi Arabia buys a krap load of stuff from the West?

"Gosh, when did that happen? And did it have anything to do with Soviet plans for Iran?" You know when it happened, and no, it had nothing to do with Soviet plans for Iran. Mossadegh did not like communists. It had everything to do with the nationalization of the oil industry, and the US/UK being opposed to it. "Of course, since then, Iran attacked the American embassy and took the staff prisoners -- itself an act of war. " Some would say that organizing a coup to remove an elected government, is an act of war. "Let me turn the sarcasm off, and just to put the question: why would any politically organized people deal with these barbaric liars?" Sorry, your question is unclear. By barbaric liars, do you mean the American government?

Given prior US interference in Iran (Mossadegh), it's quite difficult to have any credibility when it comes to promoting democracy, given that they did the exact opposite in the fifties. The US will probably prefer to do things covertly. The US can force the current regime to take bigger risks in winning the election by demanding certain reforms be met, or else sanctions will be put in place or lifted, as the case may be. There is a huge generational divide in Iran, and it is only a matter of time before real democracy prevails. There is no real justification for starting a war, (civil or otherwise), to expedite a process that will come about naturally in the next 10-15 years.

That seems surprising. The Western media likes nothing better than to make Chavez look like a crook. I'm not saying that it isn't true, just that it's surprising that the MSM hasn't splashed this everywhere. Can you provide a link? Spanish language is fine.

Well Bill, actually he wants to discourage the consumerist gift-giving insanity that occurs each Christmas. You know, the one that makes fathers feel worthless if they can't afford to get their child the very latest toy? The one that ensures suicide rates are higher than at any time of year? He also isn't abolishing anything, he's suggesting what people should do with his own personal opinion, not enacting legislation. What a monster.

Is it acceptable to you that random and innocent Palestinians die, because of militant activities? Do you find it OK that a militant launches a feeble rocket attack, and several innocent Palestinians die as a result of Israel retaliating? For instance, if a First Nation group attacked the CN tower, would it be acceptable for us to shock and awe a couple reserves, just to teach all FN people a good lesson, about not messing with us?

Well Bill, firstly I hope you realize that the term the 'monkey'or more accurately 'macaque', refers to his indigenous status. There are similar people in the US who refer to Obama as a monkey. You will see that you are in good company. Secondly, if you have been paying attention to the news in the past ten years, you would have noticed that the US has tried to take Chavez down. There was a coup, supported by the US, which failed, only because the people took to the streets and demanded him back. If you have been paying attention in the past 50 years, you'll see that there are a number of Left-leaning Latin American leaders who have been removed either directly or indirectly by the US. Sometimes it is a mysterious plane crash, sometimes a coup by an internal group with US support - there are different methods. Chavez has been saying for years that the US plans to kill him. While it might make him seem crazy, it also gives him some protection. If he is killed mysteriously, the finger will be pointed at the US, and he will become a martyr. In this information age, it is far more difficult than it was in the 1950's to take out a national leader, and not be held responsible.

"When oil hit $150 a barrel, the world economy went for a crap. How much is oil worth when that happens? They had to cut production way back to get it back to the $70 range. Chavez played a role in that the cartel. In the meantime, gold has skyrocketed. When OPEC was happy with $60 oil, an ounce of gold cost 5 barrels. Now it costs over 15 barrels." Well, it wasn't exactly cause and effect. Generally, the financial crisis was attributed to the sub-prime meltdown having a chain reaction in the financial industry, but if you want to blame Chavez, I'm sure he has been accused of less credible things. "It seems like there is a natural price at work here, and that the Sheiks end up with far less gold for their greed than they would have enjoyed if oil had stayed at $60." Gold is only one measurement, and it has gone up against everything drastically, so it seems a bit silly to suddenly make that the standard. The cartel loses if the rest of the world starts looking at viable alternatives to fossil fuels and investing heavily. I agree that it is not good for long-term profit to increase the price too much, but the success that I am talking about occured when Chavez first came to power. At that time, OPEC was in disarray and the price of oil had sunk to around $12/barrel largely due to the fact that Venezuela had previously been uncooperative as an OPEC partner. "The point is that oil's price is dependent upon demand, and without the internal combustion engine, the oil becomes almost valueless, as it was before we became mechanized. OPEC nations are as dependent on the industrial nations as the industrial nations are on them." Sure. "Chavez is blowing Venezuela's best chance. In simple terms, he is using the income from oil to buy out the high points of the existing economy." Is he? Is taking away money from foreign multinationals, and putting it into healthcare, education, infrastructure blowing it? Sure, I agree that he is spending too much money outside of the country, but Venezuela is taking some tremendous strides. Education, (something that the World Bank and IMF had been trying to deny Latin America), is how 3rd world countries begin to equalize things. The West would like nothing better than for Venezuela to allow foreign companies to 'invest' in taking their oil and minerals, while giving the people low-wage jobs and a pittance in taxes, but Venezuela asked for more - and they got it. Now, I don't agree with the auto position he has put forward and some of the other restrictions on corporations, but the change to the oil industry practices has been a clear success. Perhaps he could have spent the money more wisely, but the fact that they have so much revenue now coming in, when prior they received only 1% royalities on the Orinoco Tar Sands, is an unmitigated success. What you fail to realize is that the West (and this includes Canada), has been propagating a myth for quite some time. That myth is that the people of Latin America are too stupid to extract their own resources. So, without Western technologies, it will just stay in the ground. Therefore, it is a good idea to accept whatever terms are offered. Chavez has challenged that myth and won. A second myth the West likes to perpetuate, is that all Latin American nations are dependent on foreign investment. Well, if you read Joseph Stiglitz, you'll see that the only country that weathered the Asian economic crisis well, was Malaysia, because they ignored the IMF, and put in strict controls on money entering and leaving the country, despite the big scare from business that there would be a massive exodus. Foreign investment is good, but internal domestic investment is better. Instead of hoping that foreign investors will put in $200 Billion into the country, he can just invest it himself, and that way he doesn't need to pander to foreign companies, doesn't have to worry about a mass exodus should the economy take a turn, and can ensure that the investment goes where it is needed most. Economic theory teaches us that driving away foreign investment results in ecomic collapse, but no one has done what Chavez is doing. What if the government takes in so much money from their businesses, and from taxes, that they can invest more in the country than private investors ever would? You'll notice that Venezuela survived the economic crisis quite well, despite the fall in the price of oil. "A Venezuelan passport now costs about US$25,000. You get the picture? People can't get their assets out of the country." Interesting, I didn't know that. I'll research and get back to you. "Chavez, a kind of elected military dictator with pretensions to becoming a South American Lenin," How can one be a dictator if one is elected, and continues to have elections. Unlike most people who debate against Chavez, you have strong points. It's a shame you undermine them with such clear falsehoods. "has mastered the feat of minimizing the economic growth that pumping a million barrels a day can produce for the ordinary people of the country, and overspending, to the tune of creating an inflation rate that is only 18% because of economic slowdown." So, do you agree that getting more revenue from the oil companies was the right thing to do, but that he isn't spending the money properly, and that the additional (and unpredictable) changes that he continue to bring in, are pushing things too far? "An 18% inflation means prices double every four years. Wages? Not so much." So, let me see if I understand. If I am a maid, and inflation goes up 18% every four years, how it that the cost of my services would remain stagnant, but my purchasing power would go down? But perhaps you are referring to items for which there is a foreign component? There is some truth to that. Although, Chavez is working very hard to make Venezuela less dependent on trade, particularly with non Latin American countries, which should help to combat inflation. I agree that it is a problem though. The changes have been too rapid. Combing increased wealth (demand) with decreased investors (supply) can have some dire effects. "That's the socialist part." There's a lot more socialism in Chavez than that. He doesn't try to hide it.

Wow, It's amazing how limiting freedom to information, can create honest politicians.

"My guess is-given the ignorant even idiotic comment as quoted-that you have never been to Colombia and don't even speak the Spanish language." Welcome to the new millenium Bill - where you can obtain information without having been to a place, or speaking the local language. You may notice the abundance of people here who have opinions on Ahmadinejad. How many of them do you think speak Persian and have been to Iran? "I have and I do. Well, la de da. "As your pal The Monkey runs out of petrodollars his friends-like Dominica and other political heavyweights-will desert his sinking ship like the rats they are." With Colombia's history of killing journalists, union leaders, and rival politicians, they really have no business pointing fingers at anyone. As for the economies of the two countries, Colombia is going to be getting a boost from Canada and the US as they try to prop up another corrupt regime in the fight against socialism. If you did some research, you would find that one of the reasons for the rise in the price of oil, is that Chavez helped to solidify OPEC, unlike his predecessor who undermined it. Yes, he is spending a lot of it - on things like education, health care, and building companies in Venezuela to manufacture products in Venezuela - instead of being dependent on foreign companies. Chavez is showing the world that the 3rd world nations do not have to accept the pittance that they are offered in exchange for their oil, minerals and access to their markets. They can do better - and that scares the shit out of the Peter Munks of the world.

Shady, there is much more to politics than who one's friends are. Being buddies with the US and/or Israel seems a far worse association than Ahmadinejad if one looks at incursions into other nations. The US was complicit in trying to overthrow Chavez, and for that it is only natural that Chavez would look to find any allies he can to help him against a potential US threat. You might remember that Cuba had no significant relations with the USSR prior to aggressive US actions against the island nations, which forced them to seek out whatever allies it could. As for your myriad of lies, there is nothing to suggest that Chavez is either a drug smuggler or a holocaust denier. But, I strongly suspect that neither truth nor credibility are goals of yours, so continue on.

Many of the things that Chavez has done have worked for the benefit of the people - not only in Venezuela, but as a new agreement between the poor providers of natural resources and the rich nations who extract them. However, this recent move as reported, seems to be poorly thought out. Unlike oil and mineral extraction, car manufacturers can simply leave the country. Currently, the auto manufacturers provide jobs, and taxes. The fact that they make some profit seems bearable. For Chavez to demand that they share their technology with local manufacturers doesn't make much sense, and discourages companies from investing in Venezuela, particularly in R and D. I will withhold further commentary on this, until more information is provided. Currently, information on the demand seems quite limited and the Western media has a desire to villainize Chavez as much as possible.

Really? Did blacks obtain equal rights through the courts and government alone? Did women obtain equal rights through the use of courts and government alone? What about those terrorists at the Boston Tea Party? As much as we laud our democracy, the fact is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The Nazi party was elected when they started appropriating Jewish homes. Should the Jews have simply acquiesced? As for 'ordering the immediate destruction', I think such a mandate might be more applicable to the nation of Latveria, than a nation such as Canada.

The same can easily be said of the US (although not so much under the current President). Israel certainly likes to ramp up the rhetoric too. Perhaps when they submit to IAEA inspections and abandon their nuclear weapon program, they can have some credibility when it comes to lecturing others about nuclear technology.

JBG, it really depends on what they are willing to do, to avoid 'taking a chance'. Do they nuke Iran? Do they invade? Do they kill all the people in Iran? Are these options on the table, to eliminate a perceived threat? Is a nation justified in destroying another nation in order to protect itself from a perceived threat? If Israel believes this to be true, then there can be no doubt that Israel is a threat to Iran, and so by extension and by the same logic, Iran would be fully justified in destroying Iran. Regardless of what Ahmadinejad said and intended, Israel does not want Iran having nuclear weapons, nuclear technology or long range missiles. This would be a reasonable position if it weren't for the fact that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons.