Hugo Chavez Dies At 58

[segnosaur]

Western propaganda surely worked against him for not bowing to the interests of the corporatocracy.

Right now, I'm sure the western corporatocracy is drooling at the prospect of getting operatives in to try to ensure a favourable, corrupted candidate can replace him.

I hope Venezuelan's get a new leader that will work for their own interests.

I recognize that oil companies are not exactly selfless heroes. (In fact they can do some downright dirty things.) But the situation is a bit more complex, and suggesting that there is some sort of greedy 'corporatocracy' that is going to steel Venezuala's oil money isn't exactly a fair assessment of the situation.

The fact is, oil production requires a certain amount of investment and expertise. When you run around nationalizing oil companies, you don't get as many corporations eager to risk drilling new wells, building infrastructure, etc., lest they find their new investments nationalized as well. And when the government decides to spend more of their oil revenue helping the poor (an understandable goal) rather than putting enough aside to improve its production, you can run into problems in the future. (It ends up being a case of "short term gain for long term pain".)

In fact, that seems to be what has happened in Venezuela... Oil production has fallen from ~3 million barrels/day to ~1.7 million barrels per day in roughly a decade (See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/03/06/business-chavez-oil.html). When companies like Exxon leave, it may seem like you're getting rid of the "evil big-oil companies", but if they're the only ones who were willing to drill new wells, you may be shooting yourself in the foot.

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean I think the oil companies should be given free reign to do whatever they want... I just think there's a happy medium that Chavez was unable or unwilling to find.

[Pliny]

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean I think the oil companies should be given free reign to do whatever they want... I just think there's a happy medium that Chavez was unable or unwilling to find.

Ahhh...yes, the third way. The mixed economy. Works in America. At least for now, until someone decides oil companies need to be nationalized. Anyone out there think that?

[Pliny]

From what I've read, the crime rate soared under Chavez. Certainly he wasn't loved by all Venezuelans. And for the record, I believe he blamed the US and its allies for his cancer. Canada is implicit in the evil deed.

Yes, the crime rate did soar. A government that does not respect the right of private property will have citizens that

don't as well.

Canada may have been implicit in the deed but only in a mediocre way. We are a Mediocracy.

[g_bambino]

Western propaganda surely worked against him...

Do dictators need western propaganda to work against them?

[Hudson Jones]

What's next? The claim that Chavez wasn't really born in Venezuela? Why are people so eager to paint someone to be something they're not?

Wasn't Chavez democratically elected by the Venezuelan people? Weren't the elections monitored and the election process found to be one of the best in the world?

Didn't Venezuela's living standards dramatically improve under Chavez? You don't hear that from people who try to paint Venezuela under Chavez as a lawless, communist dictatorship.

Since 2004, after the failed, American-backed coup, under Chavez:

poverty has been cut in half and extreme poverty by 70%. And this measures only cash income. Millions have access to healthcare for the first time, and college enrolment has doubled, with free tuition for many students. Inequality has also been considerably reduced. By contrast, the two decades that preceded Chávez amount to one of the worst economic failures in Latin America, with real income per person actually falling by 14% between 1980 and 1998.

Link

Why is there a need for some people to paint a different picture? Is it ignorance? Or is it a need to deceit people? If so, what is the agenda?

[segnosaur]

What's next? The claim that Chavez wasn't really born in Venezuela? Why are people so eager to paint someone to be something they're not?

Wasn't Chavez democratically elected by the Venezuelan people? Weren't the elections monitored and the election process found to be one of the best in the world?

From Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy)

...the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute

Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda.

,,,

...packed Supreme Court ceased to function as a check on presidential power. Its justices have openly rejected the principle of separation of

powers and pledged their commitment to advancing Chávez’s political agenda.

...

Under Chávez, the government dramatically expanded its ability to control the content of the country’s broadcast and news media. It passed

laws extending and toughening penalties for speech that “offends” government officials,,,In response to negative coverage, Chávez repeatedly threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses.

So yes, he was "democratically elected". However, its a bit easier to maintain high voter support when you can minimize criticism in the media.

And it should also be noted that one of the hallmarks of western democracy is that, while the will of the majority is respected, that individual rights still exist and cannot be over-ridden just because the "majority" wants it.

Didn't Venezuela's living standards dramatically improve under Chavez?

Yes it did. However, you need to keep a few things in mind:

- Living standards in many Latin American countries have also improved in the same time frame

- Chavez had the benefit of a sharp increase in oil prices (due to factors like economic expansion in China/India, the Iraq war, etc.) Kind of easy to help the poor when you have huge revenue increases

- As I pointed out earlier, while he's spending all this money to help the poor and increase the standard of living, oil production has fell. Until now it hasn't mattered much (since as I pointed out, prices have greatly increased over the past decade.) However, eventually that might catch up with them, and they may see spending on the poor (as well as their standard of living) flatten out or even fall.

- There have been significant economic problems, including food shortages (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/14/venezuela.international) and the highest inflation rate in Latin America (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHxYtdd_ujHU&refer=latin_america)

Instead of comparing Venezuela with the way it was before Chavez, you should instead be comparing it to the way it should be, had they had a leader that was better able to balance business and social programs.

Why is there a need for some people to paint a different picture? Is it ignorance? Or is it a need to deceit people? If so, what is the agenda?

Perhaps we're looking at, you know, the facts.

[scribblet]

What about the 1 or 2 billion dollars he had in his piggy bank, or is that not true..

Imagine though, this great socialist who stole billions from the people died as a leader of those nasty "1% ers", while people saw their standard of living decline and corruption/crime get worse. Of course he used their money to buy elections.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

From what I've read, the crime rate soared under Chavez. Certainly he wasn't loved by all Venezuelans. And for the record, I believe he blamed the US and its allies for his cancer. Canada is implicit in the evil deed.

Well, when you are hated by the US which has a long, dark history of putting in puppets and getting rid of leaders who don't bow down to them... You might be a little paranoid too.

Edited March 7, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I recognize that oil companies are not exactly selfless heroes. (In fact they can do some downright dirty things.) But the situation is a bit more complex, and suggesting that there is some sort of greedy 'corporatocracy' that is going to steel Venezuala's oil money isn't exactly a fair assessment of the situation.

The fact is, oil production requires a certain amount of investment and expertise. When you run around nationalizing oil companies, you don't get as many corporations eager to risk drilling new wells, building infrastructure, etc., lest they find their new investments nationalized as well. And when the government decides to spend more of their oil revenue helping the poor (an understandable goal) rather than putting enough aside to improve its production, you can run into problems in the future. (It ends up being a case of "short term gain for long term pain".)

In fact, that seems to be what has happened in Venezuela... Oil production has fallen from ~3 million barrels/day to ~1.7 million barrels per day in roughly a decade (See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/03/06/business-chavez-oil.html). When companies like Exxon leave, it may seem like you're getting rid of the "evil big-oil companies", but if they're the only ones who were willing to drill new wells, you may be shooting yourself in the foot.

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean I think the oil companies should be given free reign to do whatever they want... I just think there's a happy medium that Chavez was unable or unwilling to find.

By investment and expertise, do you mean dumping oil extraction remnants directly into 3rd world countries water supplies just because it's cheaper? or dumping it in the closest field to save a buck?

Because that's their record.

Why is it that countries that allow foreign oil corporations into them... don't actually reap many rewards and just end up with a cancer striken population?

Edited March 7, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Pliny]

By investment and expertise, do you mean dumping oil extraction remnants directly into 3rd world countries water supplies just because it's cheaper? or dumping it in the closest field to save a buck?

Because that's their record.

Only where Dictators don't really care about much besides their bank account. Other countries don't tolerate that.

Why is it that countries that allow foreign oil corporations into them... don't actually reap many rewards and just end up with a cancer striken population?

Just about every country in the world, you mean?

[Guest American Woman]

Well, when you are hated by the US which has a long, dark history of putting in puppets and getting rid of leaders who don't bow down to them... You might be a little paranoid too.

"Paranoid" isn't exactly the word I'd use for such a ludicrous accusation.

[segnosaur]

I recognize that oil companies are not exactly selfless heroes. (In factthey can do some downright dirty things.) But the situation is a bit

more complex, and suggesting that there is some sort of greedy 'corporatocracy' that is going to steel Venezuala's oil money isn't exactly a fair assessment of the situation.

The fact is, oil production requires a certain amount of investment and expertise. When you run around nationalizing oil companies, you don't get as many corporations eager to risk drilling new wells, building infrastructure, etc., lest they find their new investments nationalized as well. And when the government decides to spend more of their oil revenue helping the poor (an understandable goal) rather than putting enough aside to improve its production, you can run into problems in the future. (It ends up being a case of "short term gain for long term pain".)

In fact, that seems to be what has happened in Venezuela... Oil production has fallen from ~3 million barrels/day to ~1.7 million barrels per day in roughly a decade (See: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...chavez-oil.html).

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean I think the oil companies should be given free reign to do whatever they want... I just think there's a happy medium that Chavez was unable or unwilling to find.

By investment and expertise, do you mean dumping oil extraction remnants directly into 3rd world countries water supplies just because it's cheaper?

No, by "investment and expertise" I mean having geologists who know on where to drill, engineers who know how to construct wells, and people with enough financial backing that they can afford to construct the wells and other infrastructure, and wait for whatever infrastructure they build to actually produce a return on investment.

Or do you think that they can just send a bunch of non-experts into the wilderness with a bunch of shovels and they'll come out with a bunch of oil tomorrow?

or dumping it in the closest field to save a buck?

Because that's their record.

Why is it that countries that allow foreign oil corporations into them... don't actually reap many rewards and just end up with a cancer striken population?

Ok, lets get a few things straight:

First of all, I've already admitted that oil companies are flawed. Heck, the BP oil spill shows that its not just 3rd world countries that can get screwed over... Even the U.S. can. The fact that you would turn around and harp on the flaws of the oil companies even after I've admitted there are problems shows a lack of ability to reason.

Secondly, keep in mind that while you might be right to criticize the greedy oil companies, keep in mind that things aren't always better when the government gets involved. Dozens of people were killed in a refinery explosion in Venezuela back in 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/27/venezuela-oil-refinery-explosion-chavez), long after Chavez had gotten into power. Then there was this:

...an extensive oil spill has fouled a stretch of shoreline and blackened pink flamingos and other wildlife in a nature preserve in Curacao... the spill of crude oil at Curacao’s Jan Kok preserve was from at least one storage tank owned by the Isla oil refinery...The refinery is run by the state-owned oil company of Venezuela. (From: http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/news/curacao_news/610216.html)

So, at least 2 big disasters (there were others by the way, those were just the 2 I found), killing people and polluting the environment... and guess what? The "Big Greedy western oil companies" weren't running the show. The moral of the story is? People screw up. They make mistakes, they get lazy and they cut corners. And that happens regardless if their pay check comes from a private company or the government. (And while it may seem like greed provides more incentive for private companies to take environmental risks, they are also subject to market forces, and would also seek to avoid bad publicity.

Frankly, if you ever want to wonder why the world is so screwed up, try going back and looking at your post. You see, I tried to approach things from a realistic perspective... there are problems with the oil companies, but there are problems with running around nationalizing everything in sight. Your response was to jump in with a pretty pointless post to once again attempt to chant "oil companies bad!" without any real thought or logic behind it.

So tell me, you are complaining about how the population doesn't "reap any rewards" when foreign oil companies get involved. Just how well do you think the Venezuela population will do when their revenues drop even more thanks to a lack of investment in their oil fields? Do you think their "rewards" will be all that great when they're sitting on oil deposits but can't get them out of the ground?

[GostHacked]

"Paranoid" isn't exactly the word I'd use for such a ludicrous accusation.

Tell that to Saddam, Gaddafi, Ben-Ali, Mubarek and many others. The USA has a history of initiating regime change in many nations. The accusation is not ludicrous at all but based on reality.

[segnosaur]

Tell that to Saddam, Gaddafi, Ben-Ali, Mubarek and many others. The USA has a history of initiating regime change in many nations. The accusation is not ludicrous at all but based on reality.

A couple of things need to be kept in mind:

- A little bit of context is important. Remember that many of the worst instances where the US has interfered in internal politics was during the cold war. In those situations, both the U.S. and Russia were attempting to influence countries and change governments. In some cases, had the U.S. not gotten involved, the country would end up as a left wing (rather than right wing) dictatorship. Not necessarily any better (or worse) off.... just different allies

- Some of the examples you've given don't really seem relevant...

* Saddam was a dictator. The country is now a democracy. (Flawed, but better than it had been.) There are valid criticisms about the reasons for war and for the costs, but I doubt anyone would really think an average person was better off under Saddam than under the current government

* The Tunasian revolution wasn't really one foremented by the U.S.; from all appearances it seems to been a case of a true "revolution of the people".

* Like Saddam, Gadaffi and Mubarek were both dictators. (We hope stable democracies will now result in those cases, but its too early to tell.) And while the U.S. may have supported the overthrows of those leaders (well, more Gadaffi than Mubarek), there was also a lot of popular protests in the countries themselves, as well as support from other countries

Again, not saying that the U.S. was a perfect angel... but events have to be put into context.

[segnosaur]

From what I've read, the crime rate soared under Chavez. Certainly he wasn't loved by all Venezuelans. And for the record, I believe he blamed

the US and its allies for his cancer. Canada is implicit in the evil deed.

Well, when you are hated by the US which has a long, dark history of putting in puppets and getting rid of leaders who don't bow down to them... You might be a little paranoid too.

Some people might say that there is a difference between a reasonable concern regarding the influence of the U.S. (e.g. funding groups seeking to overthrow the government), and batshit crazy accusations of secret "cancer causing weapons" or magic death rays that he claims caused him cancer.

[Bonam]

Some people might say that there is a difference between a reasonable concern regarding the influence of the U.S. (e.g. funding groups seeking to overthrow the government), and batshit crazy accusations of secret "cancer causing weapons" or magic death rays that he claims caused him cancer.

Not that I agree with MCC, but it doesn't take anything secret or magic to cause cancer.

[segnosaur]

Not that I agree with MCC, but it doesn't take anything secret or magic to cause cancer.

Cancer isn't exactly the most predictable disease. (Not like a toxic chemical or bacterial infection). It can take years to develop (assuming the body doesn't fight it off.) And Chavez (plus a whole host of leaders that Chavez was claiming were affected) would have to be given the carcinogen without their knowledge. (You'd assume he'd notice someone coming at him with a needle.)

So yeah, it would require a 'secret' weapon for the Americans to give him cancer.

[Hudson Jones]

Tell that to Saddam, Gaddafi, Ben-Ali, Mubarek and many others. The USA has a history of initiating regime change in many nations. The accusation is not ludicrous at all but based on reality.

You can also look at U.S.' involvement in Latin America. U.S. has a very ugly history of involvement there. They were also behind the attempted and failed coup in 2006, in Venezuela. It's astonishing that AW tries to somehow pretend that Chavez shouldn't have been paranoid about U.S.' intentions.

[Hudson Jones]

Some people might say that there is a difference between a reasonable concern regarding the influence of the U.S. (e.g. funding groups seeking to overthrow the government), and batshit crazy accusations of secret "cancer causing weapons" or magic death rays that he claims caused him cancer.

Based on history, it is reasonable to think that U.S. could be behind assassinating and killing the undesired Latin American leader.

One of the reasons there have been so many attempts on his life is that he has been in power for so long. Attempts to kill Castro began almost immediately after the 1959 revolution, which brought him to power. In 1961, when Cuban exiles with the backing of the US government tried to overthrow him in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the aim was to assassinate Fidel and Raul Castro and Che Guevara. Two years later, on the day that President Kennedy was assassinated, an agent who had been given a pen-syringe in Paris was sent to kill Castro, but failed.

On one occasion, a former lover was recruited to kill him, according to Peter Moore, producer of the new film. The woman was given poison pills by the CIA, and she hid them in her cold cream jar. But the pills melted and she decided that, all things considered, putting cold cream in Castro's mouth while he slept was a bad idea. According to this woman, Castro had already guessed that she was aiming to kill him and he duly offered her his own pistol. "I can't do it, Fidel," she told him.

No one apparently could. This former lover is far from the only person to have failed to poison Castro: at one point the CIA prepared bacterial poisons to be placed in Castro's hand-kerchief or in his tea and coffee, but nothing came of it. A CIA poison pill had to be abandoned when it failed to disintegrate in water during tests.

The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to visit Panama. A plot was hatched to put 200lb (90kg) of high explosives under the podium where he was due to speak. That time, Castro's personal security team carried out their own checks on the scene, and helped to abort the plot. Four men, including Luis Posada, a veteran Cuban exile and former CIA operative, were jailed as a result, but they were later given a pardon and released from jail.

Link

[segnosaur]

Some people might say that there is a difference between a reasonable concern regarding the influence of the U.S. (e.g. funding groups seeking to overthrow the government), and batshit crazy accusations of secret "cancer causing weapons" or magic death rays that he claims caused him cancer.

Based on history, it is reasonable to think that U.S. could be behind assassinating and killing the undesired Latin American leader.

One of the reasons there have been so many attempts on his life is that he has been in power for so long. Attempts to kill Castro began almost immediately after the 1959 revolution

The fact that the U.S. may have wanted Chavez gone doesn't necessarily make it possible that they'd have the ability to assassinate him, especially by giving him cancer via some secret weapon.

Seriously, assassination by cancer seems so impractical and far fetched it seems amazing that anyone would be gullible enough to believe it. Its rather similar to arguing with a 9/11 Truther, where they have to make up all new branches of science to justify their bizarre beliefs.

The fact is, in the U.S. Cancer is actually the leading cause of death in the U.S. for men in their 50s (i.e. Chavez's age). I assume Venezuelan statistics are similar. So, using Occam's razor, what makes more sense:

- That the U.S. has some sort of secret weapon that can give someone cancer, even though cancer is remarkably unpredictable and Chavez would probably have pretty consistent security

Or:

- That he came down with a disease which is already probably the leading cause of death for people in his age range

[jacee]

Why did Chavez reject aggressive US involvement in Venuzuelan oil?

CANADA

VENEZUELA

SAUDI ARABIA

MEXICO

IRAQ

COLOMBIA

KUWAIT

NIGERIA

ECUADOR

ANGOLA

ALGERIA

CHAD

BRAZIL

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

AZERBAIJAN

Here's a clue ... oil and conflict ...

Military conflict in the Middle East

The main explanation for the massive presence of the imperialists armies has to be searched in the enormous hydrocarbon deposits and in its profits.

[Hudson Jones]

The fact that the U.S. may have wanted Chavez gone doesn't necessarily make it possible that they'd have the ability to assassinate him, especially by giving him cancer via some secret weapon.

The fact that they have a history of assassinating or attempting to assassinate undesired people, using many different methods, makes what you said earlier about this being "batshit crazy accusation", illogical, irrational and does not correspond with reality.

Oh and this:

In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack.

This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark.

The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.

Link

Edited March 7, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[segnosaur]

Why did Chavez reject aggressive US involvement in Venuzuelan oil?

Could be that he was a well-intentioned individual who just didn't know enough to set a path for his country that would better ensure a long term future.

Could be that he was a megalomaniac and felt that his best way to "leave is mark" was to make it seem like he was pitting his little country against "evil oil companies" and the "great Satanic U.S.".

Or maybe it was a combination of the 2.

Or was that a rhretorical question?

CANADA

VENEZUELA

SAUDI ARABIA

MEXICO

IRAQ

COLOMBIA

KUWAIT

NIGERIA

ECUADOR

ANGOLA

ALGERIA

CHAD

BRAZIL

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

AZERBAIJAN

What exactly was your point in listing all those countries?

The U.S. has had pretty friendly (and mutually beneficial) relations with Canada and Mexico. Can't find anything they've done to mess up Azerbaijan. Yeah, they might be supporting a rather despotic regime in Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean the U.S. is interfering in their internal affairs.

Its almost like you're picking countries at random. Is that what you're doing, picking countries at random?

Here's a clue ... oil and conflict ...

Military conflict in the Middle East

The main explanation for the massive presence of the imperialists armies has to be searched in the enormous hydrocarbon deposits and in its profits.

Here's a suggestion... if you're going to quote a source, try not to refer to ones that toss around the word "imperialist". Makes someone look like a rabid nutcase.

[segnosaur]

The fact that they have a history of assassinating or attempting to assassinate undesired people, using many different methods, makes what you said earlier about this being "batshit crazy accusation", illogical, irrational and does not correspond with reality.

You know the fact that "different methods" are used in assassination does not mean that every suggested method of assassination will actually work.

Oh and this:

In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack.

This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark.

The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.

Link

Wow... just totally... wow.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually read through the rest of that link? That particular article also suggests that the U.S. military was the origin of HIV/AIDS (hint: it wasn't. It was a mutation of the Simian Immunodeficiency virus) and H1N1 (hint: it wasn't.) Did it ever occur to you that a source that includes such conspiracy theory nonsense probably isn't the best source of information?

Furthermore, the individual who supposedly "gave cancer" to a bunch of people (Cornelius Rhoads)? From: http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/Fulltext/2003/09100/The_Rhoads_Not_Given__The_Tainting_of_the.7.aspx

...there was no evidence that Rhoads killed patients or transplanted cancer cells....

Furthermore, a quick look at wikipedia finds a bit more information about your source:

...the Southern Poverty Law Center have criticized it for promoting bigoted and extremist viewpoints. According to the ADL, VT's articles are reposted widely on the Internet, primarily on conspiracy-oriented and right-wing extremist websites

And then there is the fact that they've published holocaust-denial articles. Oh, and one of their editors openly hangs out with neo-nazi groups. (See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/irans-state-run-news-network-blames-israeli-death-squads-for-sandy-hook-shooting/)

So, nice source of information you picked there. Is it really necessary to go to sites that publish bigotry and conspiracy nonsense in your support of Chavez?

Of course, the fact that you would spend your time hanging out on websites like "Veterans Today" would certainly explain a lot of your viewpoints...

[Hudson Jones]

You know the fact that "different methods" are used in assassination does not mean that every suggested method of assassination will actually work.

The fact that crazy methods have been attempted and used by the CIA means that they are capable of using it and it's not batshit crazy to think that the CIA would try to kill an undesired leader by using cancer producing poison.

Wow... just totally... wow.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually read through the rest of that link?

I posted from the first link I saw and it was from Veterans Today. I didn't look at the sources of the article, because I don't think there is a need to prove to anyone, anything that is already documented. I did look up CIA's well-documented methods of assassination attempts of Chavez' best pal, Castro and many others around the world.

Any person who has looked at this information would conclude that it's quite reasonable to assume that the CIA could be behind something like this.

I know it's not fun talking about these things you would usually associate with movies, but they happen:

Edited March 7, 2013 by Hudson Jones