According to an article on yahoo I just read (http://www.yahoo.com/s/314694), Mercenaries 2 is causing controversy for supporters of their "President" Chavez because it portrays him as a tyrant and that Venezuela is on the verge of chaos. The article misses the mark in a few places in my opinion. 1.) Just how many Chavez supporters are there in the U.S., and will their numbers actually make any difference? 2.) 1st Ammendment anyone?
3.) It's hardly a stretch to compare Chavez to a tyrant. Not anymore than crazy Kim who was "portrayed" as a tyrant in the first Mercenaries which took place in North Korea.
4.) Using Venezuela as a backdrop for terrorist activities isn't new. Rainbow Six 3 had me dropping in on oil platforms to take out terrorists who had taken them over. The only difference this time: Chavez is the terrorist.
The Wall Street Journal has been keeping tabs on Chavez for years, and what they have to say isn't exactly complimentary either.
I also find it laughable that a mouthpiece for Chavez inferred Mercenaries 2 was propaganda in order to condition Americans to want to invade Venezuela. Mercenaries wouldn't really hit that large of an audience, and I doubt the message would be much of anything anyway, considering you play a mercenary, and not a soldier. She also called the U.S. imperialistic, which is amusing, considering the last time we kept anything after an invasion was the Spanish-American war with the exception of military bases. Which, if you behaved like Germany or Japan, you deserve worse than a few military bases under the conditions of surrender. But I digress....
ID:184995
 May 24 2006, 7:51 pm
|
|
" Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers. "
Probably thought they'd be useful when they take over Iran >: | | |
Someone needs to take on those commies. The USSR was trying to place nuclear weapons in the silos of Cuba. Would you rather the US be gone? Who'd be there to take on the other superpower?
Cuba's government should be liberated next. I don't care if it's none of our business how another country runs their people. People have what people in early America (and of course the Bill of Rights) would call "god-given rights" or simply civil liberties that communistic governments take away from their people. They affect us on a larger scale than most people think. | |
Apparently Cuba's public health care is better than that of the United States'. Mind you, this is probably propaganda; but so is everything the US government says about Cuba. It's difficult to work out the truth when the only sources of information are either entirely pro-Cuba or entirely anti-Cuba.
Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. | |
I find this problem in all aspects of news today. There is always a strong bias, or there isn't one, but you can't tell if it is fact or bias speaking. It seems that everyone has sources telling them everything.
| |
*raises hand*
You're confusing communism and totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is not the opposite of democracy - communism is the opposite of capitalism. There's a big, big difference. Communism proper really hasn't showed up anywhere in the world, ever. Yes, even Russia - that was socialist. | |
What does being half Venezuelan have to do with anything? Are they commies? Even so, does it even matter? Being only half, I'd think you live in America, obviously to escape your government.
| |
How do you figure I am confusing the two? Most communist governments have turned out to be totalitarian or socialist governments (communism is just a branch of the broader "socialism" class anyway), or the more primitive (dealing in time rather than complexity) marxist government.
Which was what the USSR was, Marxism-Lennism. Lennin had his own contributions to make to the marxist government. Of course, it became known as Stalinism with a few alterations. Something like that anyway. Of course, control of capatalism and commerce means control of money. In a classless society, the ruler is the head and everyone else is the same; classless. Well, being the richest man in the country, you have a lot of power. It basically is a totalitarian government after that. | |
PirateHead wrote:
> Watch it there. The USA has made many imperialistic moves. Though we did not actually capture and hold territory in Iran, we did replace their democratic government with a dictatorship, leading to better control over Iranian oil for the US and its allies. Read: The USA made a mistake in Iran. Jimmy Carter undermined the Monarchy of the Shaw because of human rights issues and accidentally set the stage for the Grand Iyatolla Khumeni to rise to power, which did nothing positive (US view) for the oil trade. > Though we did not take over Cuba, we did force their populace into poverty in order to prevent them from becoming a puppet or base of operations for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Read: Cuba blames the US because their communistic system is only benefiting one person, who has now hit the top 100 richest people: Fidel Castro. > And the list of imperialistic moves goes on and on; we tinker and tamper with governments all over the world in order to [edit: was prevent, should have been:] protect our best interests. If you call World War II imperialistic, sure. Then we overthrew a duly elected leader and replaced him with a US-supported government (at least in our half). Iraq and Afghanistan are simply being rebuilt in a similar manner. (For you "pull out now" antiwar activists, troop withdrawls [and victory] begin this fall) If you don't think the 50 States are imperialistic, you need to tune up your definition of imperialism. imperialism (n.) - [1] The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. [2] The system, policies, or practices of such a government. There was exactly one war in which the US took over the territory it controlled at the end, and that was the Civil War. "Imperialism" is a nice word to throw at policy you don't like, but the policy actually has to increase the territory controlled to be imperialistic. I probably can't convince you, but the record needs to be corrected. The US controls the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Guam (Am I missing a few islands?). It does not control Iraq, Gemany, Japan, or Afghanistan. It does not control France or Mexico. Every one of those countries was once controlled during wartime by the US in the last 60 years.. None are run by the US government. Is that imperialism? --Vito | |
Look at all those people floating their 1975 buicks across the Gulf of Mexico to Florida to secape Cuba. Noone who already has lived under communism wants to live under it.
There are some crazy neo-communists who want a New World Order to rule with globe-spanning communism - but they obviously haven't seen communism's effects firsthand. --Vito | |
What are you quoting?
*Edit: Additionally, it makes sense to keep military bases in countries that have been a threat to you. It's a very modern concept to win a war (save for perhaps a civil war), and then for the victor to give up the spoils. If you don't want a U.S. military base in your country, don't threaten us, and don't bomb us. It's quite simple. I find it hard to believe that it would be different for any other self-respecting nation. Take Ireland for example, the British have occupied that nation for a long time, and keep military bases there. Now I believe in Ireland's sovereignty, but I can see why it would be hard at this stage in the game for the British to completely trust the IRA and pull out. In fact, many european powers have had more imperialistic aims in the past than the U.S. could ever hope or want to. | |
Yes, because they could be a threat at any point. Along with that, we have contracts with Germany and Japan to allow those to stay. Hell, we even have a military base in Cuba. Besides protecting our country from others we have bases in, it gives us an access point in which to move troops without having to get permission from local governments.
This allows Germany, for example, to stay out of the wars the US might be involved in, while still giving them a place to stop to refuel, which would be seen as taking sides during a war, but not if the US owns the land. | |
So, I'm not clear. Is this a post about the game or a rant about why you think Venezuela's leadership is bad and why the US is perfect?
| |
Watch it there. The USA has made many imperialistic moves. Though we did not actually capture and hold territory in Iran, we did replace their democratic government with a dictatorship, leading to better control over Iranian oil for the US and its allies. Though we did not take over Cuba, we did force their populace into poverty in order to prevent them from becoming a puppet or base of operations for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And the list of imperialistic moves goes on and on; we tinker and tamper with governments all over the world in order to [edit: was prevent, should have been:] protect our best interests. If you don't think the 50 States are imperialistic, you need to tune up your definition of imperialism.