CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced plans Monday to nationalize the country's electrical and telecommunications companies, calling them "strategic sectors" that should be in the hands of the nation. The New York Stock Exchange immediately halted trading in CANTV, Venezuela's largest publicly traded company, which was singled out in Chavez' speech. The decision was also likely to affect Electricidad de Caracas, owned by AES Corp. read more- a true hero of the left...take what isn't yours.
This is how it works. Slowly start nationalizing everything. Build your constituency through poverty. Make them need you. Before you know it...the power structure is too heavily within a few organizations. Reforming is nearly impossible.
Chavez did have a great teacher. Fidel Castro managed to screw up a nation that was once a thriving economy in Latin America.
I hate to feel the 'blame America first' feeling... but sometimes I wonder....should we have listened to patton? Should we have pushed the solviets back and perhaps eliminated their regime. No cold war...no huge escalation of nucluer arms. No squirmishes in central America and Cuba. Would thing have evolved better-off if we did what he wanted?
While I admire Patton, I think he had his head up his ass on this one. Forgetting that however we felt about it, they were allies and this would have been a betrayal of such a scale the world had never seen - and all subsequent loss of legitimacy for the burgeoning Pax Americana - the Soviet machine was not some 2nd rate force that could so easily be pushed back. I do believe that without the Soviets, we very well might have lost.
They were our allies by default. They really had no chose (but to be), and we were gullible enough to believe that we could have a 'good working relationship' (after the war). Not to say I would change all the history...but a lot of things went down that wouldn't have, if we chose otherwise. It was said even Churchill saw this threat (and leaned in Patton's direction). The aggresive posturing of the Solviet Army was almost immediate. Easily...no. But their supplies were low, their military was very one-sided (ie pretty much only a ground force), and they suffered huge loses. We would have won, but it would have been initially bloody. I would assume it wouldn't have lasted long...due to ^^^^^^. I believe the soviets had no option but to try to be allies with us. They had been attacked and there was no option but to fight back. They needed us more than we needed them (imo). Had we but not eliminated the german airforce, they'd have a much longer and bloodier fight. I myself, never historically viewed the solviet union as an ally. They were our enemy...even when they fought against our enemy. JMO. The german's knew we had the industrial capacity to fly and deliever the weapons, therefore they sent a great deal of their planes into harms way. We destroyed them and ensured a much easier war for both sides. But if I ever had a 'dimension portal' available, I'd love to see the difference in the world had Patton influenced his leadership. I think on some levels it would be a bit safer, and many countries would be more democratic. *shrug* But I could be wrong....even incredibly wrong.
I think everyone forgot that castro was very much supported by our government at one time and he was actually pro american when he first came to power. I guess everyone forgot about castro being invited to new york lol. Why do u think he decided to go on his own? Could some of it have to do with those rich anti castro folks and their mob buddies that wanted the casinos in cuba. hmmmmmm
YOu're right that Castro had support from the US and many in Cuba. However, he always despised America and only used it as a platform for himself. His brother and him got into a big fight over this while here in the US and his brother convinced him to cut his stay short in the US lest they appear too Americanized. Shortly after they sought support from the Soviets.
Roosevelt was naive, Churchill was not. He hated Stalin, for the good reasons you post. Again, as a guy married to an Estonian woman (whose extended family lost close to 50% in Siberia), you are preaching to the converted re: how bad Stalin and the Soviets were. (I've met his grandaughter - who had a picture of grandpappy on her mantle - but to my wife, he was Satan). Given Stalin's duplicity, yep, we had no business trusting him - only depending on him to do what he did, defend the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union and hand Nazi Germany its Eastern ass. On thinking more on this, weighing the potential loss against the potential gain (of Patton's notion), perhaps it's true that we might all have come out on top. You make a strong argument that way. I'm not usually a fan of counterfactuals in history, all that much, but I'd be interested in seeing your sources, and thinking more on what you have argued. One thing that needs to be factored in, I think, is that the Soviet Army was truly a scrapper army - used to deprivations as a matter of course. Removing "Productive capacity" still would have meant a game of hide and retreat into the Russian hinterland, with a helluva scrap on the ground. The Soviets were built on winter - and knew how to wait out Summer. It;s true that supply and communication lines were stretched thin on the Soviet side, and were quite vulnerable to aerial disruption. But it didn't matter - the Soviet army was built on lack, not largesse. Napoleon didn' learn it, Hitler didn't either, and if we attacked, we, too, would have been stepping into a miasma. Further, as Stalingrad showed, the Russian people themselves were not shaken by the destruction of a given city - bomb away, they hold fast. Secondly, remember our unwillingness to commit lives, and the willingness on the Soviet side to waste divisions in order to win. We (the western democracies) were tired, and our generals ultimately had to answer to the public (political) will. No such limitations under Stalin. Had we attacked, everything would be thrown into the fray, and I am not sure our polities would stand for it. We had enough. An assessment of military prowess must be checked against its extended cousin, politics. Don't forget, too, that our erstwhile allies were truly burnt - Britain had sustained horrible, horrible losses relative to us, and had little stomach left. If we went, we went alone. Finally, while we had them in the air, they had us in armored cavalry, artillery and troop levels. And productive capacity was deep in Soviet territory, not that easy to reach. It would have taken a sustained strategic air campaign - sustained. Before any such strategic "victory," (and I am not sure any productive disruptions would mean such a victory), I would have had every expectation that the Soviet machine would overrun Western Europe. We - the U.S., alone - would be hanging on from the perch of Britain, and I am not all that sanguine such a tenuous hold would win the day.
One thing Stalin was good at...killing and maintain his power. Well, here's where I got the list from. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=105 I must say, though...I have been reading about this issue for a bit. I can't say it would have been easy or that the consequence would have been hugely beneficial....but if I scratch the surface it seems like it could have been. It's a debate that's been going on for sometime. I just tend to view the whole cold war as one of the most dangerous eras in American/world history. A state like the Solviet Union really had the power to cause Armageddon. The havoc that was created due to the proxy squirmishes we had with them,...well, I believe they were highly destructive...and almost worth eliminating the threat then. It's been said that people believe Patton was assisinated, because he would have been a contender for the presidency. And many believed he would have won. *shrug* His direction would be wildly different, and to a point I agree with him. I'm just not a fan of unfinished business. If you have an enemy and you have a rightful cause w/practicality...maybe you should attack and finish them off. That's where air superiority comes in. In that era we didn't have a problem with bombing the shit out of people. I'm quite sure we'd have month long campaigns...with a position slowly encompassing. That's very true. I can't assume too much...but I'll say western european powers would hold interests in the results if it went down, and I think their lack of power had a big influence on it not happening. Although I think we could have got two divisions from France, and perhaps a few more from Canada and other allies. Then one has to say if the conflict last through a consistant bombing supply...would it last under a nuke? That would be doubtful. While our nuke supply was relatively low in 45....in 46 we had one coming out every 6 weeks. So a win was in the works, regardless. Not the most moral of wins, but nothing worse than we already did in war. I'm sure the leaders of that time would have taken this point of view very seriously. And while Patton was the minority opinion, I think his opinion is worth pondering--atleast historically.
Its called communism, and it what all democrats want to happen to the US...govt controlling everything...did I hear a "Raise the minimum wage" or a "free healthcare for all" coming from your mouth AC?
War with the Soviet Union would have been disastrous. While Patton was a good war-time general, everyone's favorite bulldog, he was anything but a diplomat. Now we all admire his off-the-cuff stuff, his balls, but to actually pull off what at least one of you is suggesting, Patton would have had to be something quite more than just a president, he would have had to have become a dictator, and the world had just put down a couple of them at the cost of some, what was it, 60 million folks?
You should check your friend previous post and how he praised Bush for the welfare checks since he couldn't buy his house without it, before criticizing social programs. Only an ass like you will criticize "free health care for all". There is no excuse that in a richest country in the world, people should not have access to health care because they are poor.
I'm not talking medicaid....I'm talking free health care, which should be paid for by the worker or the company the worker is working for...the whole healthcare system is a scam anyway...drug prices are so high because too many lazy people out there have 15 kids, no job, no spouse, and I could go wrong. They ruin the system for those who genuinely need it...If you want healthcare, quit smoking, lose weight, and get a job.
If the workers or the company is paying for it then it is not free, is it? I didn't know that lazy people with 15 kids are the head of drug companies or in the government drug administration and decide the price of the medicines, can you enlighten us how many CEO of drug companies you know that are lazy and have 15 kids and no job?