Any "imperialist" attack against either Cuba or Venezuela would be resisted by both nations as one, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Friday in an apparent reference to the United States.
Chavez routinely condemns the United States as a hostile "imperialist" power he says is bent on invading Venezuela to seize its oil wealth and topple or kill him, a charge U.S. officials reject as ridiculous.
"The Cuban and Venezuelan peoples and revolutions are one and the same," the left-wing leader said during a ceremony at which he awarded decorations to more than 90 Cuban teachers who had worked in a Venezuelan literacy program.
"The world should know, in case there's anyone out there who hasn't realized it yet ... that any imperialist attack against one of us will be an attack against both," he said.
The United States remains the single biggest oil client of Venezuela, receiving around 15 percent of its oil imports from the world's No. 5 oil exporter.
But President Bush's administration often criticizes Chavez's close alliance with Cuban President Fidel Castro, who also regularly warns his people to be alert for the threat of attack by the United States. Washington maintains trade sanctions against Communist-ruled Cuba.
U.S. officials have accused Chavez and Castro of joining forces to stir up anti-U.S. revolution in Latin America.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/09/2005 02:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Both of Chavez's parents must have had dominant asshat genes.
"The world should know, in case there's anyone out there who hasn't realized it yet ... that any imperialist attack against one of us will be an attack against both," he said.
He's not even original...It's a cheap fortified buzz, an asshat with true grandeur status.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
07/09/2005 3:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In other news . . . scientists discover that water is a liquid . . . Pope Benedict XVI professes fealty to the Catholic Church . . . sheep observed grazing in meadows . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
07/09/2005 7:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Can it, Hugo, or we'll aim the next hurricane at you.
Climate change: it's not just for Euroweenies anymore. Bwahahahahahahah!!!
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/09/2005 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
we need to reconstitute a wetworks section that speaks spanish ...soon
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/09/2005 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Me cago en este hijo de puta, 'el Presidente' Chavez. Se necessita andar con los desaparecidos, con prisa.
#6
Question, assume for a moment that the US decided to go to war with one of the two nations in question. Is it reasonable to assume that the remaining nation could mount any kind of attack? Even transfering troops and material through air sea or land would be impossible with the Yankees dominant Navy. The only possible course would be to cut off oil supplies which would massacre the Venezuelan economy and put a large number of anti Chavez folks out of work where he would have to keep an eye on them.
More hot air and blame the Yankees nonsense as Chavez ruins his nation's economy.
#9
"The world should know, in case there's anyone out there who hasn't realized it yet ... that any imperialist attack against one of us will be an attack against both,"
TUCSON - Biologists are concerned that an increase in migrant traffic on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge could have deadly consequences for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn.
The biologists say they have noticed a spike since early spring during which traffic has gone from a handful of crossers a night to 200. The number of Border Patrol agents in the refuge has doubled.
The refuge shares a 60-mile border with Mexico, but the increased migration has been funneled though a single, narrow valley. That's the same area where biologists and volunteers have been installing watering holes and irrigation plots to bolster the native plants that pronghorn graze on. John Hervert, a biologist with Arizona Game and Fish, fears the traffic could scare the deerlike pronghorn away from their best chance for survival.
Only 58 adult Sonoran pronghorn survive in the United States today.
#2
You can bet the Left will be wondering which side too take in this one. "Illegals or Pronghorn: Decision 2005"
Posted by: Charles ||
07/09/2005 1:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Last year, the Sierra Club had a big battle between a faction that was opposed to illegal immigration (more yucky humans) and of leftist solidarity (gay rights, illegal immigrants, death row inmates, snail darters, are all our allies).
#6
In a desert border region add waterholes. And you're supprised that "migrant traffic" now use your watering holes because...
Migrant traffic implies going both ways. Is there some vast immigration from the US to Mexico I'm not aware of,or is this another writer afraid to write the ?
Posted by: Stephen ||
07/09/2005 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
THE HAGUE (AFP) - The UN war crimes court authorised the transfer to Bosnia for trial of two Serbs accused of serious offences against civilians in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) said Savo Todovic and Mitar Rasevic should stand trial in the special court established by Bosnia-Hercegovina in March to hear war crimes cases.
The two men, who were in charge of a detention camp, opposed the decision. They are accused of persecuting Bosnian Muslim civilians in Foca in eastern Bosnia... the court decided not to send back a third man, Dragomir Milosevic, accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes for having led a campaign of terror against civilians during the siege of Sarajevo.
A Pakistani man and some of his relatives chopped off his wife's feet after accusing her of being promiscuous, police said on Saturday.
The woman survived the gruesome attack, the latest in a wave of assaults that have raised international concern about the plight of women in Pakistan, particularly in conservative rural areas.
"It is a shameful act of cruelty against a woman and we are taking it seriously," said Talat Ali, a senior police official in Punjab province. "Those who have carried out this crime will not be spared."
The 32-year-old woman told police her feet were chopped off on June 24 by her husband, her father-in-law, a brother-in-law and two others after they accused her of being "of bad character," a euphemism for promiscuous.
Violence against women is common in rural Pakistan where tribal and feudal customs hold sway.
The latest incident occurred in central Punjab province where the 2002 gang-rape of a woman, Mukhtaran Mai, on the orders of a village council, triggered an international outcry.
President Pervez Musharraf, who is trying to project Pakistan as a moderate and progressive Muslim nation, has condemned violence against women and said his government was committed to ensuring victims got justice.
The women in the latest incident had separated from her husband but had gone to his family's house to see her daughter, police said.
Her father-in-law chained her up and that night he and the others took her to a river bed on the edge of their village of Mohammadpur and cut off her feet.
Two days later her parents reported her missing and police raided the house, found her and took her to hospital, where she remains.
"No one can be allowed to treat a woman in this manner no matter what the charges against her," Ali said. "There is no evidence that she was of bad character."
Wipe these vile creatures from the face of the earth. Every pissass one of them. And then wipe from the face of the earth any who would defend them. The rot is so far advanced, it threatens the world's whole bloodstream with its noxious infection.
Posted by: too true ||
07/09/2005 16:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This stuff has been going on for centuries. Islam needs to either join the 21st century or be abolished like the Nazis.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/09/2005 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We should send a special forces team in there and remove both the feet and the private parts of the ex-husband, and anyone else involved in the maiming of this poor woman...
Posted by: Abu Al Bundy ||
07/09/2005 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Jules: Whoa... whoa... whoa... stop right there. Eatin' a b**** out, and givin' a bitch a foot massage ain't even the same fu****' thing.
Vincent: Not the same thing, the same ballpark.
Jules: It ain't no fu**** ballpark either. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but touchin' his wife's feet, and stickin' your tongue in her holyiest of holies, ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fu****' sport. Foot massages don't mean sh*t.
Vincent: Have you ever given a foot massage?
Jules: Don't be tellin' me about foot massages - I'm the foot fu****' master.
Vincent: Given a lot of 'em?
Jules: Sh*t yeah. I got my technique down and everything, I don't be tickling or nothin'.
Vincent: Would you give a guy a foot massage?
Jules: F*** you.
Vincent: You give them a lot?
Jules: F*** you.
Vincent: You know, I'm getting kinda tired, I could use a foot massage.
Jules: Man, you best back off, I'm gittin' pissed.
a 19-year old woman in Nagaon district of Assam has been directed by a local jamait to divorce her husband after she complained that she was raped by her father-in-law.
The family, who are Bangladeshi immigrants, did not inform the police about the rape, but went to local religious elders who gave the decree that she divorce her husband, he said.
Posted by: john ||
07/09/2005 07:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like this sort of thing is pretty common in that part of the toilet world. Or is the word just now getting out that you can rape anyone you want and under sharia law she will be the guilty party? Alas, Islam, the religion of peace,love and tolerance.
BOSTON-A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled unanimously Wednesday that a woman represented by the ACLU who sued the City of Cranston, R.I., after being offended by Christmas displays at City Hall had no standing to bring her claim.
"This is the court's message: you can't sue just because you're an offended observer," said ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull. "The appeals court today rejected what has been a longstanding ACLU tactic-filing lawsuits simply for the reason that somebody claims to be offended. The Christmas displays in Cranston were perfectly constitutional, just as the district court ruled."
#2
When I was stationed in Korea and Japan, the end of the year featured many displays of Old Santa Clause by the local population, particularly in the stores. Although, not christian nations, they seem to have picked up on the full commerical impact of the American version of year end celebrations. Its not religious. And if the name Santa is bothering you, then you should sue the cities of San Diego, San Antonio, etc while you're at it. Its time these ACLU cretins be hammered for their absolute intolerance of their fellow citizens. There seems to be a pattern of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of large numbers of people here.
#3
Try to imagine what this country would look like if the ACLU won every case they brought. Second thought, no, don't do that because we wouldnt even be here. They would have taken the country away from us and given it to the cambodians to appoligize for us not stopping Pol Pot or something.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/09/2005 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
What do you folks think the ACLU stands for? It stands for you, fellers. It's dedicated to protected the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Y'all remember why the framers amended the Constitution, don't you. For those who get their history from Rush Limbaugh, the Constitution ennumerated what the Govt. could do.
To prevent the possibility of tyrany of the majority, the framers made a list of things the Govt. couldn't do and called the list the "Bill of Rights."
This Bill of Rights is what the ACLU protecting. They're protecting you, cowboy, like it or not.
#9
The ACLU is a pain-in-the-ass, suit-happy magnet for liberals, communists, athiests, and other discontents. This article is a case in point. My rights are just fine without them.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/09/2005 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Croutchless,
Your idea of tryannical majority is when your bosses tell you it's your turn to clean the Slurpee machine..
A-holes like you and the ACLU are like jock itch, mildly irritating.
#11
What do you folks think the ACLU stands for? It stands for you, fellers. It's dedicated to protected the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Bullshit. The ACLU has a policy of not doing squat in defense of the 2nd Amendment. They also don't seem to have much care for the 10th, or for what the 1st REALLY says.
The ACLU picks and chooses its fights based on which cases do the best job of undermining American culture and liberties. Does anyone think the ACLU would come to the defense of bloggers against campaign finance "reforms"?
And let's not even get into the ACLU coming to the defense of terrorists. Talk about "not getting the concept"!
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/09/2005 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
What do you folks think the ACLU stands for?
Misha sez it stands for American Communist Litigation Unit.
It stands for you, fellers.
Well, pardon me while I disavow what they are doing. We can still do that, right?
It's dedicated to protected the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.
It's goal is to subvert the Constitution by reading garbage into it that was never there to begin with.
Y'all remember why the framers amended the Constitution, don't you. For those who get their history from Rush Limbaugh, the Constitution ennumerated what the Govt. could do.
It also enumerates what the government should not do, which should be much, much more than it is allowed to do. The ACLU believes the obverse: that social problems can be forced onto the electorate by the judiciary, a tyranny of a minority.
To prevent the possibility of tyrany of the majority, the framers made a list of things the Govt. couldn't do and called the list the "Bill of Rights."
That may have been an interpretation of it so many years ago, but what it actually means that a government cannot be the bad guy just because the majority deems it so. The interpretation of that by the ACLU is the government is the good guy ( which was never the intention of the Framers ) and that it's policies can be twisted to the reverse of a tyranny of the majority into a tyranny of a moniority, AKA Socialism,by using the judiciary.
This Bill of Rights is what the ACLU protecting.
The ACLU uses the Bill of Rights as it own personal jerkoff rag.
They're protecting you, cowboy, like it or not.
Then get them to back off, will ya, pilgrim? Because I don't like paying for protection.
#14
"What do you folks think the ACLU stands for?"
Evidently, about all it stands for anymore is keeping people from putting up Christmas displays.
Pretty fucking sad, for an outfit which, long ago, actually was dedicated to protecting the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/09/2005 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
the ACLU stands for separation from religion, abortion on demand to preteens without parental notification, release of enemy combatants, no individual rights to own arms, no free speech for partisan opponents of their leftist agenda, I could go on....
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/09/2005 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Frank you forgot...
the right of NAMBLA to recruit little children for adult pleasure.
#18
The ACLU was founded by communinists to defend them and further their goals, end of story. Anyone who isn't privy to this fact by now and thinks otherwise is an assclown and tool.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/09/2005 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Croleter, you are exactly 180 degrees off when you say the Constitution ennumerated what the Govt. could do.. What is does is ennumerate what the government can NOT do. Get a quarter, buy a clue and share it with tsotsi.
Better yet, do your own fisking. Prove your point, dude.
#21
this blog was starting to look like a mutual masturbation society
I hope that's not an offer.
Still haven't gotten a hang of that punctuation thing, have you?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/09/2005 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Badanov. Make a new post on your freefirezone site; stavka 'isn't monitored'.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
07/09/2005 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#23
This Bill of Rights is what the ACLU protecting. They're protecting you, cowboy, like it or not.
The problem is not the ACLU defending the Bill of Rights. The problem is who, and on what part of the political spectrum, the ACLU decides to defend the Bill of Rights for.
For example: the ACLU opposed The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in 1970 as being "one of the most potent, and potentially abusive, weapons for silencing dissent." However the ACLU's opposition became neglibile, mostly because the 'pro-choice' groups advocated that RICO was an ideal weapon to use in the abortion wars.
The ACLU claims it is non-partisan and non-politcal. Citing a defense of a group of Nazis for their right to march in Skokie, Illionis some 20-odd years ago does not exactly create a track record.
#25
thank god for Croluter Jolumble6769
this blog was starting to look like a mutual masturbation society ...you idiots wouldn't hesitate to calll on the ACLU when you felt your rights were being trampled on
LAHORE: An eight-year-old boy was married to a four-year-old girl around three days ago in Nadrabad area, Bhatta Chowk, in North Cantonment police precincts. The groom Imran, son of Nazar Hussain, and bride Shazia, daughter of Manzoor, were married in Nadrabad II. The young bride, who is not even aware that she has been married, will be sent to Imranâs house at the age of 14 or 15. The two families are âKaangarâ by cast and their tradition dates back over a hundred years. By profession the people of this community are mostly vendors, run donkey carts, make clay toys and are involved in other labour jobs. Imran belongs to a gypsy family that currently resides in Shadbagh and performs odd jobs. When Daily Times contacted the parents of the young couple at their house, they outright denied that the wedding occurred. However, one of their relatives confirmed the event. He said once the young couple had been married, they were bound to be life partners till their required age, which was 14 to 15 years. He said that a lot of times when children grew up they wanted to select partners of their own choice, but their parents forced them to abide by their customs and ultimately they surrendered to their eldersâ will.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I feel so very old now
Posted by: Jan ||
07/09/2005 0:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Ilsa, we'll always have Paris Preschool"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/09/2005 0:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
She will give birth to a 12 year old.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/09/2005 0:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And the eight-year-old proclaimed, now I know why dad says, "God is Great" all the time...
Posted by: O Redenbocker ||
07/09/2005 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If you had told me that at the age of eight, I'd been legally married to a girl, I'd have been the laughing stock of my peer group. Child abuse, not to mention, as #4 put it, sick bastards. ditto.
Posted by: an dalusian dog ||
07/09/2005 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#7
wa...it--is only his first wife--he'll probably have three more by the time he's ten
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
07/09/2005 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
LAHORE: An eight-year-old boy was married to a four-year-old girl around three days ago in Nadrabad area, Bhatta Chowk, in North Cantonment police precincts. The groom Imran, son of Nazar Hussain, and bride Shazia, daughter of Manzoor, were married in Nadrabad II. The young bride, who is not even aware that she has been married, will be sent to Imranâs house at the age of 14 or 15. The two families are âKaangarâ by cast and their tradition dates back over a hundred years. By profession the people of this community are mostly vendors, run donkey carts, make clay toys and are involved in other labour jobs. Imran belongs to a gypsy family that currently resides in Shadbagh and performs odd jobs. When Daily Times contacted the parents of the young couple at their house, they outright denied that the wedding occurred. However, one of their relatives confirmed the event. He said once the young couple had been married, they were bound to be life partners till their required age, which was 14 to 15 years. He said that a lot of times when children grew up they wanted to select partners of their own choice, but their parents forced them to abide by their customs and ultimately they surrendered to their eldersâ will.
