Hugo Chavez Thinks the Moon Landing Was Fake

[fa2991]

I usually support Chavez's policies, but sometimes.... what a dumbass.

http://www.slate.com/id/2262520/pagenum/1

[Victory]

I usually support Chavez's policies, but sometimes.... what a dumbass.

If you usually support his policies, why would you want to make him out to be an idiot when you don't need to?

[RadioRaheem84]

Man, the media will do anything to discredit the man. This is something a jerk like Chris Hitchens would use to defame a person in a smug way.

[fa2991]

If you usually support his policies, why would you want to make him out to be an idiot when you don't need to?

Because the unfortunate truth is that he can be kind of an idiot. Am I the only one who thought digging up Bolivar was batshit crazy?

[Peace on Earth]

Meh, it was written by Hitchens; he shouldn't be the one questioning Chavez's mental state.

[Soviet dude]

God I hope Hitchens' cancer kills him quickly.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ha! I never even clicked on the link and figured Hitchens would say something about it. I saw slate and put two and two together. The man just hates populism and has contempt for leftist movements these days. He talks about them as if they're vulgar now. As it's crass to be anti establishment these days.

[Soviet dude]

Many people laughed when Chávez appeared at the podium of the United Nations in September 2006 and declared (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world/21speeches.html) that he smelled sulfur from the devil himself because of the presence of George W. Bush. But the evidence is that he does have an idiotic weakness for spells and incantations, as well as many of the symptoms of paranoia and megalomania.

Is this a reference to the activist in Gainesville who said he smelled sulfer during Hitchens' stupid debate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Diur7B5GI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Diur7B5GI)

[RadioRaheem84]

Look at all the comments! All right wingers praising Hitch. This man is such an imperial tool. He actually uses the trademark right wing sarcastic term "evil America", when somebody dares question it.

So Chavez believes the moon landing was fake? Well, Hitchens believes the war in Iraq was a war of liberation. Which idea has killed more people? Fuck him. This type of smug hit piece pisses me off. The man is just a sell out lackey who's loving being a darling in the American press.

[fa2991]

So Chavez believes the moon landing was fake? Well, Hitchens believes the war in Iraq was a war of liberation. Which idea has killed more people? Fuck him. This type of smug hit piece pisses me off. The man is just a sell out lackey who's loving being a darling in the American press.

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

[Nachie]

Don't forget that Chavez also said the Haitian earthquake was caused by the HAARP

Which I mean fuck, why not

[fa2991]

Don't forget that Chavez also said the Haitian earthquake was caused by the HAARP

I'm adding that to my list.

[Red Commissar]

Don't forget that Chavez also said the Haitian earthquake was caused by the HAARP

In all fairness he never actually said that. What had happened was on a Venezuelan state news site which had an article rounding up the weeks events, which Haiti dominated. In this was a link that went to a conspiracy blogger's description of US secret weapons. Spanish TV picks up that statement as an official state release. Media goes and says Chavez says it. People take it for a fact.

Unsurprisingly despite the lack of any video of Chavez saying this, or a reliable news source beyond second hand reporting, people will still take it for a fact.

As for this particular case, I'm not sure if I can trust it. Hitchens general point of the article is that Chavez is a nutty loon, and the whole moon story seems to be an anecdote about that. For all we know however Hitchens could have easily misreported this conversation or out straight fabricated it- something that is certainly not beyond him.

Other criticisms of Chavez is valid, particular his fixation on Simon Bolivar, but once again Hitchens comes off in his usual condescending tone- i.e. everyone is a dumbass but me.

[RadioRaheem84]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here. I give a shit about if Hitchens supported the war. It clearly shows he's been pretty staunch in his opposition to Chavez mostly out of his support for the US. He hates the notion of anyone, especially a vulgar populist according to him, chiding the imperial north. While Chavez doesn't strike me as the smartest man in the world, what does a belief in the moon landing going to do to his popular policies? It's more dangaerous to believe that capitalism is a global force for good like Hitchens. It's more dangerous to believe in a preemptive strike and that free enterprise is the only alternative. Last, number three on your list is not far off from the truth.


So what was the point of this thread really? To show what an imperial and rather annoying lackey Hitch has become or to troll and show how zany some of Chavezs thoughts can be?

[RadioRaheem84]

On point number three, OP, you don't think that the US hasn't thought about taking Chavez out? Even after the failed coup the US supported? Did you just buy Hitchens idiotic hit piece wholesale?

[Glenn Beck]

You know that Christopher Hitchens is the only source for this right? Do you really think it's beyond that fat bastard to just make shit up?

[GPDP]

You know that Christopher Hitchens is the only source for this right? Do you really think it's beyond that fat bastard to just make shit up?

Indeed, the fact that comrades are taking comments at face value from an outright traitor to the left is worrisome.

But man, Hitchens really turned into a major league asshole to be trying to defame Chavez like this. I'm almost ashamed to have "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" on my bookshelf.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Don't forget that Chavez also said the Haitian earthquake was caused by the HAARP

Which I mean fuck, why not

:rolleyes:

I see there are those who actually still believe in this lie created by the media. Let's get you updated, shall we:

http://theantipress.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-over-ideological-delusion-hugo.html

[Animal Farm Pig]

I don't give a fuck what kind of rumors or slander Christopher Hitchens or anyone else wants to spread about Chavez. Look at the man's policies-- consistently pro-working class and anti-imperialist.

In a way, attempts at character assassination are a badge of honor; they don't try to impugn your character if you are not a threat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't give a fuck what kind of rumors or slander Christopher Hitchens or anyone else wants to spread about Chavez. Look at the man's policies-- consistently pro-working class and anti-imperialist.

In a way, attempts at character assassination are a badge of honor; they don't try to impugn your character if you are not a threat.

“I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.” ~Mao Zedong

:thumbup1:

[fa2991]

On point number three, OP, you don't think that the US hasn't thought about taking Chavez out? Even after the failed coup the US supported? Did you just buy Hitchens idiotic hit piece wholesale?

That's solely in reference to Chavez's recent assertions about Colombia and its alleged Yankee puppet master. Obama's had little to do with Chavez, at least compared to Bush, aside from receiving gifts from him.

[Barry Lyndon]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

Your a 'useful idiot', talking about what the capitalist press wants you to talk about. Congratulations.

1. Probably a lie made up by a man who has a long record as a habitual liar and a shill for American imperialism.

2. Simon Bolivar is the national hero of Venezuela and for much of Latin America. It may be odd to you, but whether he was murdered in a conspiracy is probably not only of interest to Chavez but to many others. Lincoln has been exhumed a few times I believe, but you don't hear the mental sanity of North Americans being questioned do you?

3. Yeah, the last 100 years ago of US foreign policy in Latin America just never happened. The US has NEVER invaded Latin American countries, overthrown their governments, or assassinated democratically elected leaders. It has NEVER trained mercenaries and terrorists to sabotage, undermine, and destroy any regime south of the border that tries to use its wealth for the benefit of the vast majority of its own population and not simply act as a plantation for a small group of local oligarchs and foreign corporations. Salvador Allende, Che Guevara, and Oscar Romero all died natural deaths. Manuel Zelaya has just been taking an extended vacation for a year. Chavez was just imagining that coup de tat in 2002 and several plots to assassinate him since.

4. Source? Given that you just parrot what the capitalist media tells you, I expect this to be based on nothing but bullshit as well.

[Coggeh]

You know that reflector they put on the moon.. thats used constantly by astronomers to find useful data by shooting a laser at it ... ya ...

Also, for the people here defending Chavez and for the most part rightly so, the topic is called chavez believes the moon landings were fake, not chavez is evil communist dictator. The fact that he may be pro working class in many aspects is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[fa2991]

Your a 'useful idiot', talking about what the capitalist press wants you to talk about. Congratulations.

How dare I post something critical of a social democratic politician. :rolleyes:


Probably a lie made up by a man who has a long record as a habitual liar and a shill for American imperialism.

This is a convenient thing for people to say, but I don't know Hitchens to be a liar. Historically, he hasn't "shilled" for imperialism pre-9/11. There's a difference between someone who is full of shit sometimes and someone who makes shit up.

Am I really the only one on this forum who doesn't automatically assume that all non-socialist writers who criticize socialist leaders are liars? It would be different if what Hitchens claimed contradicted what I already knew about Chavez - the fact is that it doesn't. When Michael Moore claimed that he and Chavez got drunk in a hotel and wrote speeches together, I assumed that was a lie. When a writer I've enjoyed and trusted in the past says something that fits the mold of Chavez's personality, that's different.


Simon Bolivar is the national hero of Venezuela and for much of Latin America. It may be odd to you, but whether he was murdered in a conspiracy is probably not only of interest to Chavez but to many others. Lincoln has been exhumed a few times I believe, but you don't hear the mental sanity of North Americans being questioned do you?

I always question the sanity of people who dig up bodies. I guess I'm just strange like that.


Yeah, the last 100 years ago of US foreign policy in Latin America just never happened. The US has NEVER invaded Latin American countries, overthrown their governments, or assassinated democratically elected leaders. It has NEVER trained mercenaries and terrorists to sabotage, undermine, and destroy any regime south of the border that tries to use its wealth for the benefit of the vast majority of its own population and not simply act as a plantation for a small group of local oligarchs and foreign corporations. Salvador Allende, Che Guevara, and Oscar Romero all died natural deaths. Manuel Zelaya has just been taking an extended vacation for a year. Chavez was just imagining that coup de tat in 2002 and several plots to assassinate him since.

Yeah, and Colombia is SUCH a powerhouse in that region. No one randomly invades its neighbors quite like Colombia.

You'd have to be stupid - or Chavez - to seriously believe that Colombia and America are planning a war against Venezuela. Even that 2002 coup wasn't that direct - just opposition funding.


Source? Given that you just parrot what the capitalist media tells you, I expect this to be based on nothing but bullshit as well.

I believe some other comrades here disproved that one. Ignore it. :)

[fa2991]

Also, for the people here defending Chavez and for the most part rightly so, the topic is called chavez believes the moon landings were fake, not chavez is evil communist dictator. The fact that he may be pro working class in many aspects is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Regardless, I'd like to clarify that I believe Chavez to be the most positive force for Latin American socialism and unity in decades, and believe that his influence in the region and worldwide has been almost uniformly positive. If I want anyone ruling Venezuela, I want Chavez.

I just don't think he's above criticism.

[Barry Lyndon]

Also, it should be noted that a propaganda strategy that the US media has employed against any leader who is an 'official enemy' is to portray them as mentally unbalanced- whether Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Manuel Noriega, Muhammar al-Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, its a long list.....

Better to just dismiss them as 'crazy' then to apply any actual political analysis and try to understand what drives their policies. That's the last thing the mainstream media wants. You don't have to like any of these leaders to see what a blatant brainwashing technique this is.

[DaringMehring]

Look at all the comments! All right wingers praising Hitch. This man is such an imperial tool. He actually uses the trademark right wing sarcastic term "evil America", when somebody dares question it.

So Chavez believes the moon landing was fake? Well, Hitchens believes the war in Iraq was a war of liberation. Which idea has killed more people? Fuck him. This type of smug hit piece pisses me off. The man is just a sell out lackey who's loving being a darling in the American press.

That was a smooth crushing.

And yeah, Hitchens is above all a self-promoter. He's politically worthless.

[M-26-7]

This thread should be called, "fa2291 Thinks the Christopher Hitchens Article is Real."

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I guess Hitchens had a few too many drinks (again) and had some "revelation" that prompted him to write this shitty article. :laugh:

[Adi Shankara]

Christopher is a self-aggrandizing bigot who thrives off media attention and controversy; he likes to look at anyone who opposes the US as a "freedom hater", and his sanctimonious attitude pisses me off especially considering his disrespect towards women, and his alcoholism.

[4 Leaf Clover]

i also think that 1969 landing was fake , actually it is almost proved

[Obs]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

Except the third one is absolutely true and the fourth one turned out to be slander. He never said any such thing.

[RadioRaheem84]

How dare I post something critical of a social democratic politician.


Yeah how dare you. You should post all the irrelevant shit about Chavez that has nothing to do with his policies on revleft. That's putting his feet to the fire. :rolleyes:


This is a convenient thing for people to say, but I don't know Hitchens to be a liar. Historically, he hasn't "shilled" for imperialism pre-9/11. There's a difference between someone who is full of shit sometimes and someone who makes shit up.

Am I really the only one on this forum who doesn't automatically assume that all non-socialist writers who criticize socialist leaders are liars? It would be different if what Hitchens claimed contradicted what I already knew about Chavez - the fact is that it doesn't. When Michael Moore claimed that he and Chavez got drunk in a hotel and wrote speeches together, I assumed that was a lie. When a writer I've enjoyed and trusted in the past says something that fits the mold of Chavez's personality, that's different.

Hitchens was also an apologist for the Bosnian intervention too. Anyways, he has been an apologist for war in Iraq and Afghanistan taking Pentagon propaganda whole heartedly. He was a total bullshitter through and through. And now you expect him to be his "old leftist" self on matters outside the War on terror?


Yeah, and Colombia is SUCH a powerhouse in that region. No one randomly invades its neighbors quite like Colombia.

You'd have to be stupid - or Chavez - to seriously believe that Colombia and America are planning a war against Venezuela. Even that 2002 coup wasn't that direct - just opposition funding

Yeah what a stupid thought, eh? I mean Reagan never funded covert operations in Central America to terrorize the Sandanista government. I mean that would be ludicrous!



Even that 2002 coup wasn't that direct - just opposition funding.



Yeah, it was a just a few million dollars and upholding the obvious propaganda campaign of the coup plotters. No biggie. :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

i also think that 1969 landing was fake , actually it is almost provedYou're kidding, right?

RED DAVE

[khad]

Hitchens should do something about his goddamn alcoholism. Or not. It'll be funny when that fat fuck's liver shuts down.

[Adil3tr]

They probably blow some these things way of proportion. jokes, and off hand remarks become HUGE. They'll report anything he does that seems crazy, but not about al the people he helps or his massive support. What about sara palin, she couldn't name all the countries in NAFTA, and she thought africa was a country

[RED DAVE]

Remember when Chavez called Bush the devil? The kept press went crazy!

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ I think a lot of us said that, not in a literal sense, but metaphorically, yeah lol.

[#FF0000]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

Four isn't true at all. It was reported in the States but the source was some guy's blog in Venezuela or something. 3. is more or less true. I haven't heard any sources for the first two, aside from this one from Hitchens, who has a massive axe to grind.

[Robocommie]

Also, for the people here defending Chavez and for the most part rightly so, the topic is called chavez believes the moon landings were fake, not chavez is evil communist dictator. The fact that he may be pro working class in many aspects is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If the topic is that Chavez thinks the moon landing is fake, then the entire fucking topic is irrelevant. It's completely absurd that a socialist would be making a big deal about something so completely inane and pointless, even if Chavez DOES think the moon landing was faked. Whether true or not, it has no bearing on all the good he's doing.

You should be concerned about the economic realities facing the poor of Venezuela and what Chavez does to address those. That's really the only relevant issue.

Or in other words dude, your post basically translates into, "Guys, I don't care if the Bolivarian Revolution is socialist or progressive, what I care about is being hysterical about something silly and playing into bourgeois media sensationalism!"

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

As far as point 4, I made a thread about it a while back..turns out, the only direct source for that claim came from a minor spanish magazine, which printed that story without giving any details or evidence that Chavez actually believes it. This story was then rerun across all the major bourgeoisie media outlets...even those with a reputation for being "non partisan."

Discovering this really made me cynical of any more of these "crazy Chavez" claims.

Still, if there are positives to take from this, its that the ruling class doesn't actually even argue against Chavez's super, super lite brand of socialism, they'd rather pin him up with hysterical latino sterotypes. And that Hitchens has throat cancer.

[gorillafuck]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.
The third one doesn't seem far fetched and he never actually said the fourth one, that was made up.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

And god the idiocy of the comments outrages me.

Its so fucking annoying that these people probably consider themselves "informed" and "educated" cause' they read a upscale magazine like slate and spout such bullshit. Why are all people who comment these things so dumb? Its worse than the comments on youtube.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Would anyone actually care if Chavez actually thought that?

I know that I wouldn't.

[fa2991]

Yeah how dare you. You should post all the irrelevant shit about Chavez that has nothing to do with his policies on revleft. That's putting his feet to the fire. :rolleyes:

:D


Hitchens was also an apologist for the Bosnian intervention too. Anyways, he has been an apologist for war in Iraq and Afghanistan taking Pentagon propaganda whole heartedly. He was a total bullshitter through and through. And now you expect him to be his "old leftist" self on matters outside the War on terror?
His stupid stance on Iraq is a little more complex than that. He (stupidly) believed that if Saddam Hussein was killed, it would be to the direct benefit of leftist rebels he had met who were trying to kill him. Historically, Hitchens praises Chomsky's line of thought on American imperialism. To this day he defends the Viet Cong as more or less heroes.


Yeah what a stupid thought, eh? I mean Reagan never funded covert operations in Central America to terrorize the Sandanista government. I mean that would be ludicrous!
I don't know why people insist on such analogies. Everyone on here knows that America's imperial tactics in the 21st century are vastly different than they were last century. Take Haiti. Woodrow Wilson invaded it in the 1910s. Bill Clinton & George Bush didn't need to to oust the elected government in the 1990s and 2000s respectively. Or how about Cuba? After the Bay of Pigs coup failed, America's strategy for the decades to follow was economic warfare, less so physical assaults. The same is true with Chavez's coup. America tried to oust him by funneling money into opposition groups. No invasion there, either. Now Chavez thinks Colombia and America are about to wage war? Please.



Yeah, it was a just a few million dollars and upholding the obvious propaganda campaign of the coup plotters. No biggie. :rolleyes:Yeah, because that's basically the same thing as invading a country. :rolleyes:

[Adi Shankara]

Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him


America did try to assassinate him. back in 2002, during the Venezuelan coup.

[fa2991]

America did try to assassinate him. back in 2002, during the Venezuelan coup.

Opposition groups America funded did. It's a small detail, but there is quite a difference. The US government is at least smart enough to not pull the same shit they did with Fidel Castro, etc. with modern leaders.

[Adi Shankara]

Opposition groups America funded did. It's a small detail, but there is quite a difference. The US government is at least smart enough to not pull the same shit they did with Fidel Castro, etc. with modern leaders.

No, it's the exact same thing. if I hire a hitman to kill someone, it's still me killing that person, I'm just doing it by-proxy.

[fa2991]

No, it's the exact same thing. if I hire a hitman to kill someone, it's still me killing that person, I'm just doing it by-proxy.

To my knowledge, that wasn't how it worked. I know I'm supposed to take everything bad said about America at face value, but is there actually any evidence that America ordered him killed? Though America is culpable for the coup, I haven't seen any evidence that the opposition wasn't acting of its own accord... unlike in, say, Allende's Chile or Arbenz's Guatemala were we we have direct evidence that America ordered and provoked a coup.

[#FF0000]

To my knowledge, that wasn't how it worked. I know I'm supposed to take everything bad said about America at face value, but is there actually any evidence that America ordered him killed? Though America is culpable for the coup, I haven't seen any evidence that the opposition wasn't acting of its own accord.

This is really funny because I figured you for the sort that would take anything at face value.

[#FF0000]

Anyway, yeah I don't see what's crazy about being leery about Colombia and the U.S. or saying that Colombia wants war, or something. It might be wrong but it's not crazy.

I don't even think that point two is crazy either, about Simon Bolivar's body being exhumed. Some guy who was studying Bolivar said "hey it looks like this guy was poisoned" and so the body was exhumed to be studied. What's insane about this?

[RadioRaheem84]

His stupid stance on Iraq is a little more complex than that. He (stupidly) believed that if Saddam Hussein was killed, it would be to the direct benefit of leftist rebels he had met who were trying to kill him. Historically, Hitchens praises Chomsky's line of thought on American imperialism. To this day he defends the Viet Cong as more or less heroes.



WTF? Does that entail praising Paul Wolfowitz and daring to drift neo-con? And Hitchens does not take the same stance as Chomsky on American imperialism. Are you bonkers? He said that he was sick of people being anti-globalization because global capitalism can be a progressive force for good.



There is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism -- certainly not the sort of critique that proposes an alternative or a replacement. There just is not and one has to face the fact, and it seems to me further that it’s very unlikely, though not impossible, that it will again be the case in the future. Though I don’t think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system, are by any means all resolved.


http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/01/free-radical/1 (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/01/free-radical/1)

At the very end he goes into a tirade about the revolutionary nature of capitalism, totally butchering Marx's words.

Also have you not read his debates with Chomsky? The great and scathing article by Edward Herman in Zmag?




I don't know why people insist on such analogies. Everyone on here knows that America's imperial tactics in the 21st century are vastly different than they were last century. Take Haiti. Woodrow Wilson invaded it in the 1910s. Bill Clinton & George Bush didn't need to to oust the elected government in the 1990s and 2000s respectively. Or how about Cuba? After the Bay of Pigs coup failed, America's strategy for the decades to follow was economic warfare, less so physical assaults. The same is true with Chavez's coup. America tried to oust him by funneling money into opposition groups. No invasion there, either. Now Chavez thinks Colombia and America are about to wage war? Please.





War by proxy. And what do you mean that the there was a change in imperial ambitions? There was no change. The US invades after all options have been eliminated. The US tried sanctions on Iraq, international law, and arial bombardment, by 2003 the stradegy changed to full on invasion.

Why do you not think that the US will not try proxy war again? You clearly do not understand what Chavez means by war that might be instigated against him.



Yeah, because that's basically the same thing as invading a country. :rolleyes:


Why are you making it seem like Chavez is talking about all out war and not by proxy?

Your defense of Hitchens being a stupid but well meaning guy is weak. Your case against Chavez is even weaker. The fact that you would even insist this as an absurd possibility tells me you do not know much of Venezuelan events.

[RadioRaheem84]

To my knowledge, that wasn't how it worked. I know I'm supposed to take everything bad said about America at face value, but is there actually any evidence that America ordered him killed? Though America is culpable for the coup, I haven't seen any evidence that the opposition wasn't acting of its own accord... unlike in, say, Allende's Chile or Arbenz's Guatemala were we we have direct evidence that America ordered and provoked a coup.


Actually, the position of the US was that while the US helped opposition forces against Allende, that the coup was totally Chilean and thus do not take responsibility for Pinochet. Are you going to believe this at face value?




Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. However, the United States sought in 1970 to foment a military coup in Chile; after 1970 it adopted a policy both overt and covert, of opposition to Allende; and it remained in intelligence contact with the Chilean military, including officers who were participating in coup plotting.


http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

[fa2991]

WTF? Does that entail praising Paul Wolfowitz and daring to drift neo-con? And Hitchens does not take the same stance as Chomsky on American imperialism. Are you bonkers? He said that he was sick of people being anti-globalization because global capitalism can be a progressive force for good.

Globalization isn't the same as imperialism, though they are similar.



At the very end he goes into a tirade about the revolutionary nature of capitalism, totally butchering Marx's words.

Also have you not read his debates with Chomsky? The great and scathing article by Edward Herman in Zmag?You mean the debates about Iraq? Again, it seems to be a lone example. And yes, I've read those articles, including the Reason mag one.

Have you read...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3of7f8czACsJ:www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-revenge-of-karl-marx/7317/+revenge+of+karl+marx+hitchens&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

or listened to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aytdi6pWyM4&feature=PlayList&p=2E841073EB6F0ABF&playnext=1&index=16



War by proxy. And what do you mean that the there was a change in imperial ambitions? There was no change. The US invades after all options have been eliminated. The US tried sanctions on Iraq, international law, and arial bombardment, by 2003 the stradegy changed to full on invasion. Not the ambitions, the tactics. :rolleyes: I even used that word: tactics.


Actually, the position of the US was that while the US helped opposition forces against Allende, that the coup was totally Chilean and thus do not take responsibility for Pinochet. Are you going to believe this at face value?

Of course that was America's position. There is evidence to consider outside of what America says. They are memos, etc. showing that America more or less ordered the coup intentionally. Not so with the Chavez coup.


You're bordering on trolling now. Why are you making it seem like Chavez is talking about all out war and not by proxy?

Your defense of Hitchens being a stupid but well meaning guy is weak. Your case against Chavez is even weaker. The fact that you would even insist this as an absurd possibility tells me you do not know much of Venezuelan events.Yeah, I've been hearing that for three pages now. This will be my last post on this thread.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Globalization isn't the same as imperialism, though they are similar.


:confused: umm...Globalization is enacted through the actions of imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

You cannot wiggle your way that easily fa2991. Your defense of Hitchens is staggering and should be taken into consideration in lieu of your "criticism of Chavez".



....it does not quite explain Marx’s later failure, in Capital, to grasp quite how revolutionary capitalist innovation really was.



Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_von_Böhm-Bawerk) and the other members of the Austrian school were able to point out this critical shortcoming of Capital—no pricing policy—during Marx’s lifetime, and it would have been good if Wheen had found some room for the argument (especially vivid among Austrians for some reason) that went back and forth from Rudolf Hilferding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding) to Joseph Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter), whose imposing “creative destruction” theory of capitalism has its own dualism.

Nuggets of gold from the Hitchens article. Funny, I was going to use this article as an example of Hitchen's brain dead assertions but I thought the reason peice would've been enough. Apparently, you think now and believe old Hitch is a Marxist? I mean he calls himself a Marxist but not a socialist? Strange, man indeded. I am guessing he just means he believes in Marx's critique of capitalism but not in his solution to the problem of capital accumilation? :confused: Either way he is still trying to remain chic.



Globalization isn't the same as imperialism, though they are similar.





He insists that the anti-globalization movement is indirectly supporting terrorism because it doesn't support the War on Terror (i.e. imperialism). He thinks that we think Islamic radicals are a anti-imperial force and thus good for anti-globalization/anti-imperialism.



Meanwhile, though, the anti-globalization movement has started to reject modernity altogether, to set its sights on laboratories and on the idea of the division of labor, and to adopt symbols from Fallujah as the emblems of its resistance.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E0DD1031F93AA25751C1A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E0DD1031F93AA25751C1A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3)



Not the ambitions, the tactics. :rolleyes: I even used that word: tactics.




What about the tactics makes your argument any stronger? I said that tactics remain the same as well. The US will still invade a country no matter what. It did it with Grenada and Panama and Iraq and Afghanistan and it can do it with Venezuela. What is your point here other than that you do not have one?



Not so with the Chavez coup


There was nothing saying kill Allende either. What the coup plotters did to Chavez was not of cocern to US planners. Just his ousting and that the power relations returned to the "rightful" owners.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/800



Yeah, I've been hearing that for three pages now. This will be my last post on this thread.


I really think you should stick around to answer the haphazard claims your making in defense of Hitchens and in "scorn" of Chavez.

[BLACKPLATES]

In the first paragraph where it refers to Chavez as "Venezuelas capo" it tipped me off it was going to be a hit piece.It paints him as dangerous for his response to a ridiculous question as to whether or not he intended to "break" the monroe doctrine, portrays him as crazy because he suggests that al queada might not exist. The strangest accusations it makes against him it aknowleges are hearsay....its an unreliable peice of shit

[Adi Shankara]

fa2991 = NGNM85?

[4 Leaf Clover]

You're kidding, right?

RED DAVE

american flag waving on the moon , even if there is no wind on the moon?
messed up shadows ?
moon vehicle being perfectly visible illuminated , even if it is standing in deep shadow ?

[Adi Shankara]

american flag waving on the moon , even if there is no wind on the moon?
messed up shadows ?
moon vehicle being perfectly visible illuminated , even if it is standing in deep shadow ?

Allow me to play the Devils advocate by also adding that the Americans had this huge ego trip where they wanted to beat the Soviets, so it's worth thinking that it could've been staged if they wanted to meet that deadline (since the Soviets were winning, what with sputnik being in space first).

Personally, I think the moon landing was real. but I can see why some would be suspicious. It's not like our government is the most honest here in the USA.

[BLACKPLATES]

competely off point really, i am not a Chavez anti, BUT.....IN 0 Gravity a piece of cloth would not droop like curtains and as for the vehicle in shadows.uh, im sure they brought lights with them ????

[fa2991]

I really think you should stick around to answer the haphazard claims your making in defense of Hitchens and in "scorn" of Chavez.

If you wish.




Nuggets of gold from the Hitchens article. Funny, I was going to use this article as an example of Hitchen's brain dead assertions but I thought the reason peice would've been enough. Apparently, you think now and believe old Hitch is a Marxist? I mean he calls himself a Marxist but not a socialist? Strange, man indeded. I am guessing he just means he believes in Marx's critique of capitalism but not in his solution to the problem of capital accumilation? :confused: Either way he is still trying to remain chic. My understanding is that he hangs onto historical materialism and other scraps of Marxist theory, but rejects socialism. In any case, that doesn't seem especially relevant to the topic at hand.




What about the tactics makes your argument any stronger? I said that tactics remain the same as well. The US will still invade a country no matter what. It did it with Grenada and Panama and Iraq and Afghanistan and it can do it with Venezuela. What is your point here other than that you do not have one? Obviously, if you suggest that I think America has abandoned imperialism altogether, that is very different from what I actually said.

So you seriously think there's a possibility of America and Colombia teaming up and invading Venezuela? Come on.



There was nothing saying kill Allende either. What the coup plotters did to Chavez was not of cocern to US planners. Just his ousting and that the power relations returned to the "rightful" owners.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm)

I didn't say that Allende's death was planned by America. Just that the coup was. In such instances, America more or less acted as strategists for the coup plotters. I don't see evidence that America militarily planned the Venezuela coup or anything - just that it funded opposition groups who perpetrated the coup. Obviously the two situations are very different.



fa2991 = NGNM85?

Nope.

[Barry Lyndon]

fa2991 = NGNM85?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[fa2991]

^Odd. Are we both secretly bourgeois imperialists?

[Magón]

Would anyone actually care if Chavez actually thought that?

I know that I wouldn't.

As for Chavez and the moon. I believe Explosive Situation said it best.

As for a US war with Venezuela

Proxy= Maybe through Columbia, but Columbia would be fighting a two front war like Germany did in WW1 and WW2. Ecuador would probably come to Chavez's aid since both countries are somewhat friendly enough to do such a thing. At least, that's the stuff you hear in Venezuela from time to time. Plus, Chavez in his radio show, is always from time to time talking about possible threats from the US and other places, through Proxy. He's not a dumb man.

War with US troops in Venezuela? Not gonna happen. No matter how bad the US Government would want it, regardless of who's in charge, the US people know it's got to be suicide. It'd be like a South American Vietnam, but with many South American nations coming to Chavez's aid. Mainly because they'd all be under the pretext that the US is there for Venezuelan Black Gold.

[fa2991]

Proxy= Maybe through Columbia, but Columbia would be fighting a two front war like Germany did in WW1 and WW2. Ecuador would probably come to Chavez's aid since both countries are somewhat friendly enough to do such a thing. At least, that's the stuff you hear in Venezuela from time to time. Plus, Chavez in his radio show, is always from time to time talking about possible threats from the US and other places, through Proxy. He's not a dumb man.

Would Colombia even be capable of such an assault? Don't they already have their hands full cracking down on local drug dealers and guerrillas?

[Magón]

Would Colombia even be capable of such an assault? Don't they already have their hands full cracking down on local drug dealers and guerrillas?

It depends. Drugs aren't such a big deal in Colombia anymore like they are in Mexico. Both nations have kinda reversed rolls with each other in that matter. So drugs wouldn't factor so much into whether an assault against Venezuela could happen. But I think Colombia with US backing (tanks, weapons, etc.) could probably pull something off? Maybe have some US Advisors, or even some US Special Forces like Rangers or something, might help Colombia out. (But then again, I don't think the US is all that eager to assist it's practically only South American ally against Socialism since it sees no real value in doing so.)

As for FARC, I'm sure they'd pick up activity if needed, but even I'm not sure if Chavez really aids them across the Venezuelan/Colombian border. There's really been no hard evidence or even semi-hard evidence to prove that he is. It's all pure speculation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fa2291, are you sure you're not NGN? You guys seem to share the same style of argument and faulty logic. Anyways, the entire point was thar Chavez had always felt the the US would use Colombia as a proxy
to take him out. That's it. There was no talk of US troops invading like Grenada. How did you not get this point?

Last the US has always maintained that their policy was to foment or set the stage for a coup in Chile not directly guide it. It was so they could wash thier hands clean. The same policy applied in Venezuela. US planners always give the OK while covering their ass.

You're not really getting much across.


Secondly, the US

[~Spectre]

Sparknotes:
Hitchens attacks Chavez based on a bunch of irrelevant bits of gossip that he probably invented. One must notice, that other people on this trip, such as Sean Penn, have published different accounts.

Hitchens and or his ghostwriter wander further off into looney neocon land by making a parody of resentment towards the Colombian state. Colombia of course being a vicious state with confirmed human rights abuses that are far worse than even the lies spread about Venezuela.

He accuses Chavez of being a dictator with no evidence. He accuses Chavez of supporting FARC with no evidence.

This is understandable, if I were an alcoholic scumbag like Hitchens, I'd probably avoid dealing with evidence too.

The entire thing is an ad hominem, which is funny coming from a guy who once called the ad hominems against him "a sign of victory".

And speaking of his alcohol fueled downfall, apparently that can be a big contributing factor to his type of cancer. Particularly if he has some form of cirrhosis which is very likely. Apparently it's a very aggressive form of cancer too. :)

[Obs]

fa2991, if you say you're not going to post anymore, it's customary to stop posting.

[#FF0000]

Fa2291, are you sure you're not NGN? You guys seem to share the same style of argument

No they don't.

[RadioRaheem84]

No they don't.

Fine.

[4 Leaf Clover]

competely off point really, i am not a Chavez anti, BUT.....IN 0 Gravity a piece of cloth would not droop like curtains and as for the vehicle in shadows.uh, im sure they brought lights with them ????
Dude ,its not about falling down , its about waving. Flag cloth can fall slowly with the gravity , but cant wave , for waving you need wind , and there is no wind on the moon

If there was light illuminating vehicle , then why every single particle around vehicle in shadow ? Do you suggest they had some special light that illuminates only the lines of vehicle ?

There are many other features but i cant remember all.

[Magón]

competely off point really, i am not a Chavez anti, BUT.....IN 0 Gravity a piece of cloth would not droop like curtains and as for the vehicle in shadows.uh, im sure they brought lights with them ????

I just wanted to point out, that the Moon actually does have some gravity to it. There isn't exactly 0 G on the Moon. If there was, then each time one of the Astronauts jumped or walked, he'd be sent into space by the force he gave by pushing off the surface... And in 0 G, it doesn't matter how much force you push off with, you'd still be pulled into space since there's no G.

[JacobVardy]

Dude ,its not about falling down , its about waving. Flag cloth can fall slowly with the gravity , but cant wave , for waving you need wind , and there is no wind on the moon

If there was light illuminating vehicle , then why every single particle around vehicle in shadow ? Do you suggest they had some special light that illuminates only the lines of vehicle ?

There are many other features but i cant remember all.

Not sure about the others, not even sure what claims you are making, but i have seen an explanation for the flag waving. The flags were held horizontal by an aluminium spar on a spring clip. This tended to wobble, more so in low gravity which decreased the effective friction. The wavering spar and the wobbly spring clip make it appear that the flag is waving. I understand that this effect is only seen in early shots. In later shots the flag has stopped moving.

Also there is the mechanics of conspiracy. Why do you assume that the same people who blithely wandered into Vietnam could actually pull of something of this magnitude. Given the constant history of failure by the US secret services it seams a great leap to imagine that they could execute such a fraud and then keep it secret. An example, pertinent to the thread, in the Trial of Henry Kissinger Hitchens presents documentary evidence that Kissinger ordered the kidnapping or assassination of the head of the Chilean armed forces. This assassination directly facilitated the coup. If the Yanks couldn't keep this secret why do you think that they could have kept many fake moon landings secret?

Furthermore, Whilst we still receive the occasional new detail, the conspiracy to pretend that Iraq had WMDs was unravelled within weeks. Part of the reason for this is that officials started leaking to cover their own arses. And that conspiracy had far fewer people breathing together that any fake moon landing would require. As far as i am aware there have been no glory hound leaks in the press, no convincing memoirs of the faking, no death bed confessions. Given their past failures i am not convinced that the US secret services have the capacity to execute and maintain the conspiracy to fake 6 moon landings.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Hitchens is a lying fucking drunk. End of story.

[Adi Shankara]

Hitchens is a lying fucking drunk. End of story.

Agree; he is the exact same thing as Pat Roberts, selling fear (in this case, the fear of islam and radical religion) and preaching, except instead of a bigoted Christian wingnut evangelical, he's a bigoted atheist wingnut evangelical.

[Die Neue Zeit]

He and Dawkins are two arrogant, ultra-atheist, and liberal intellectuals of a kind.

[S.Artesian]

I usually support Chavez's policies, but sometimes.... what a dumbass.

http://www.slate.com/id/2262520/pagenum/1


Who gives a flying fuck about anything that Hitchens says? Who cares about Chavez thinks about the moon-landing. Of all the trivial useless bullshit... hey wait a minute that's it... trivial useless bullshit--that defines Hitchens.

I'm pissed at myself for actually reading the fucking stupid slate article. Fuck it. Frustrated a bit with Marx's theory of rent-- not Marx's best work, believe me-- so I looked at this. Shame on me. Back to Marx on Ricardo's Theory of Rent.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

i also think that 1969 landing was fake , actually it is almost proved

I think the Chinese revolution of 1949 was staged.I heard the whole thing was actually took place in the basement of Macy's department store in New York. June Chang mentioned this somewhere.

[S.Artesian]

He and Dawkins are two arrogant, ultra-atheist, and liberal intellectuals of a kind.

No, Dawkins is a scientist, who actually knows one or two things about science.

Hitchens is a poseur.

[S.Artesian]

I think the Chinese revolution of 1949 was staged.I heard the whole thing was actually took place in the basement of Macy's department store in New York. June Chang mentioned this somewhere.

I think Revleft is faked. I think I'm faking it on faking Revleft.

[Dimentio]

I've seen a lot of French, Russian, German and American decision-makers, some even from the Bush cabinet, who have doubted the official 9/11 story. It is just recently that beliefs in conspiracy theories have become a sort of lithmus test.

I would be worried the day Chávez is making an Ahmadinejad and starts denying the Holocaust.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I think the Chinese revolution of 1949 was staged.I heard the whole thing was actually took place in the basement of Macy's department store in New York. June Chang mentioned this somewhere.

arguments please , i gave arguments , now you have , otherwise this statement is worth zero

[4 Leaf Clover]

Not sure about the others, not even sure what claims you are making, but i have seen an explanation for the flag waving. The flags were held horizontal by an aluminium spar on a spring clip. This tended to wobble, more so in low gravity which decreased the effective friction. The wavering spar and the wobbly spring clip make it appear that the flag is waving. I understand that this effect is only seen in early shots. In later shots the flag has stopped moving.

Also there is the mechanics of conspiracy. Why do you assume that the same people who blithely wandered into Vietnam could actually pull of something of this magnitude. Given the constant history of failure by the US secret services it seams a great leap to imagine that they could execute such a fraud and then keep it secret. An example, pertinent to the thread, in the Trial of Henry Kissinger Hitchens presents documentary evidence that Kissinger ordered the kidnapping or assassination of the head of the Chilean armed forces. This assassination directly facilitated the coup. If the Yanks couldn't keep this secret why do you think that they could have kept many fake moon landings secret?

Furthermore, Whilst we still receive the occasional new detail, the conspiracy to pretend that Iraq had WMDs was unravelled within weeks. Part of the reason for this is that officials started leaking to cover their own arses. And that conspiracy had far fewer people breathing together that any fake moon landing would require. As far as i am aware there have been no glory hound leaks in the press, no convincing memoirs of the faking, no death bed confessions. Given their past failures i am not convinced that the US secret services have the capacity to execute and maintain the conspiracy to fake 6 moon landings.

US being unable to keep secret is only argument that i have accepted so far , and its quite reasonable

i dont think they faked 6 moon landings , i think they only faked first one

[RadioRaheem84]

Why would they fake the first one? Were they that much in competition with the Soviets?

[S.Artesian]

Not sure about the others, not even sure what claims you are making, but i have seen an explanation for the flag waving. The flags were held horizontal by an aluminium spar on a spring clip. This tended to wobble, more so in low gravity which decreased the effective friction. The wavering spar and the wobbly spring clip make it appear that the flag is waving. I understand that this effect is only seen in early shots. In later shots the flag has stopped moving.

Also there is the mechanics of conspiracy. Why do you assume that the same people who blithely wandered into Vietnam could actually pull of something of this magnitude. Given the constant history of failure by the US secret services it seams a great leap to imagine that they could execute such a fraud and then keep it secret. An example, pertinent to the thread, in the Trial of Henry Kissinger Hitchens presents documentary evidence that Kissinger ordered the kidnapping or assassination of the head of the Chilean armed forces. This assassination directly facilitated the coup. If the Yanks couldn't keep this secret why do you think that they could have kept many fake moon landings secret?

Furthermore, Whilst we still receive the occasional new detail, the conspiracy to pretend that Iraq had WMDs was unravelled within weeks. Part of the reason for this is that officials started leaking to cover their own arses. And that conspiracy had far fewer people breathing together that any fake moon landing would require. As far as i am aware there have been no glory hound leaks in the press, no convincing memoirs of the faking, no death bed confessions. Given their past failures i am not convinced that the US secret services have the capacity to execute and maintain the conspiracy to fake 6 moon landings.


If Hitchens is referring to the assassination of Rene Schneider, that took place in 1970, about 3 1/2 years prior to the coup.

Doesn't mean Kissinger didn't have a lot to do with it, just means if Hitchens is claiming that facilitated the coup he needs to get a new watch, the drunken sot.

[Adi Shankara]

Why would they fake the first one? Were they that much in competition with the Soviets?

The funny thing is, they were. the Soviets already "dominated space" earlier in the 50's with the launch of Sputnik, and so the Americans were desperate to have a moral/propaganda victory over the soviets, so they rushed the space program so they could be the first to "claim the moon for democracy".

tl;dr, it was the world's most expensive ego stroke in history.

[RadioRaheem84]

If Hitchens is referring to the assassination of Rene Schneider, that took place in 1970, about 3 1/2 years prior to the coup.

Doesn't mean Kissinger didn't have a lot to do with it, just means if Hitchens is claiming that facilitated the coup he needs to get a new watch, the drunken sot.


Reading back on a lot of Hitchen's stuff, I found a lot of errors like this. I think he was always just an opportunistic slob who really cared not for Marxism.

Anyone hear his debate with Dinesh D'Sounza on socialism? Hitchens has no clue about what he is talking about.

[Obs]

Reading back on a lot of Hitchen's stuff, I found a lot of errors like this. I think he was always just an opportunistic slob who really cared not for Marxism.

Anyone hear his debate with Dinesh D'Sounza on socialism? Hitchens has no clue about what he is talking about.
Neither did D'Souza, though, so I think they were a brilliant match.

[RadioRaheem84]

Neither did D'Souza, though, so I think they were a brilliant match.
:lol: Right on!

How did Hitch get away with peddling his junk for so long?

[Obs]

:lol: Right on!

How did Hitch get away with peddling his junk for so long?
Because elitism and drunken self-hatred are a winning, surprisingly common combination. I know because I used to like Hitchens for those exact reasons.

[Revy]

The moon landing hoax theory? That's so 90's. The new conspiracy theory is that the Moon landing happened, but they are covering up evidence of an alien base on the Moon. Apparently, they stopped going to the Moon because the aliens didn't want us up there.

Also, NASA landed on Mars in 1962. There's even a video of it.:lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

That's true. The initial appeal of Hitchens is his rather terse elitism and smug drunken demeanor. Assholes tend to generally love him.

[AK]

The Moon landings were all faked on a film set on Mars. Oh yeah, and this Hitchens character sounds like a prick.

[REDSOX]

Could someone give us a source for this claim

[Kiev Communard]

This article of Christopher Hitchens is completely irrelevant. It is nothing but a poorly executed attempt to present Hugo Chavez as some kind of clown and from the purely literary point of view it is just pathetic. Frankly, I simply don't think what Chavez's strange views on Moon Landing have to do with his policies.

[JacobVardy]

If Hitchens is referring to the assassination of Rene Schneider, that took place in 1970, about 3 1/2 years prior to the coup.

Doesn't mean Kissinger didn't have a lot to do with it, just means if Hitchens is claiming that facilitated the coup he needs to get a new watch, the drunken sot.

I think it was Schneider. That said, its about 10 years since i read the book, so i'm not going to make definite claims. I do remember reading that the general in question was a strict constitutionalist, and his removal was vital to the coup. If Hitchens condensed three years it would not surprise me. He was then the left equivalent of Ann Coulter

[RadioRaheem84]

Hitchens had a major problem of getting away with the most obscene attempts to look chic in the American press. He knows our press is timid about calling people out and everyone on the talk shows are full of shit and sources go without research for years. If you just make it sound like you know something, then you can have unlimited access to punditry.

I used to let his razor wit and smug demeanor fool me into thinking that he knew what he was talking about but I now want to throw all my Hitch books in the trash. The man was no Marxist! He was always a liberal idealist and nothing he ever said had a materialist bent to it.

The way he speaks about his "days as a leftist", it's like an aging British rock star reminiscing about the 60 and 70s. It's pathetic and was all an act.

[REDSOX]

Another piece of rubbish from hypocritchens as george galloway calls him. A sad bitter man

[28350]

Related.
(http://xkcd.com/202/)

[Artemis3]

I usually support Chavez's policies, but sometimes.... what a dumbass.

http://www.slate.com/id/2262520/pagenum/1

Who cares? No one's perfect. This is no policy, just some opinion about a non issue event in the past.

What was the point of bringing this here? Whats next, Chavez clothing isn't better than the Dear Leader?

[Artemis3]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

Oh i see, all of this circus is just to downplay on the very real danger of an assassination... Who cares about the captured terrorists, the confiscated explosives, rocketlaunchers and different weapons; the colombian paramilitary training with Venezuelan Army uniforms, etc; idiots on USA TV calling for his assassination (Why won't they "freely speech" the same about Obama?), USA tax paid money (USAID, NED, etc) funding right wing groups with more than 60million US$ yearly; an actual Coup with many shot in the head by snipers who "vanished", just to incite a revolt against Chavez, his later detainment and death sentence (disobeyed)... But no, its all delusion... In YOUR mind.

[Artemis3]

You'd have to be stupid - or Chavez - to seriously believe that Colombia and America are planning a war against Venezuela. Even that 2002 coup wasn't that direct - just opposition funding.

Sure, the American (radar detected) warships and (photographed) gunships weren't there, nor the guy from the submarine confusing one of their contacts and spilling it few days earlier ("hurry make up your mind, we are losing tax payed $ by staying here"); and there is no recorded conversation with the now imprisoned criminal who ordered shooting civilians with the then USA ambassador, right in the middle of the shooting; and there aren't countless of FOIA documents proving the massive funding the USA is doing to radical right wing groups, including terrorists (one sent to Cuba, to pay for the bomb plantings he ordered which killed an Italian there). And i suppose you don't happen to know anything about an US joint military multinational exercise codenamed "Balboa" where its imaginary targets, all just "happened" to be coordinates within Venezuelan territory.

And Colombia, oh they haven't kidnapped people here, and bribed their way out of the country; nor had those paramilitary guys who would be dressed like Venezuela Army soldiers to make it look the Army is against Chavez; and the permanent lies his President throws against Venezuela, even when we keep sending him back all his "wanted" drug lords; or the Colombian "tourists" who just, happened to like power plants and somehow had pictures of almost all of them within the country, oh and they just happened to belong to the Colombian Army, just a coincidence, no harm intended... I suppose you believe the 7 US military bases are just to fight drug trafficking, and NOTHING else...

I suppose you think we should ignore everything and just welcome our new overlords with open hands; after all Colombia and USA sure are the true models of progress... And to think YOU are the one calling us stupid...

[Artemis3]

Take Haiti. Woodrow Wilson invaded it in the 1910s. Bill Clinton & George Bush didn't need to to oust the elected government in the 1990s and 2000s respectively.

Let me guess... Mr. Aristide was "amicably invited" to board a plane destiny unknown... Oh, wouldn't you know, Mr. Zelaya seemed to do the same!
And of course, who needs to capture Mr Noriega without burning blocks and blocks of innocent people's houses first, gotta test those weapons right? Of course, just in case, "in the name of freedom", that pesky limitation about ordering the assassination of foreign heads of state just happened to be lifted. Way to go!

[#FF0000]

Dude ,its not about falling down , its about waving. Flag cloth can fall slowly with the gravity , but cant wave , for waving you need wind , and there is no wind on the moon

If there was light illuminating vehicle , then why every single particle around vehicle in shadow ? Do you suggest they had some special light that illuminates only the lines of vehicle ?

There are many other features but i cant remember all.

The flag waved because it wasn't just placed into the moon dirt. The astronaut worked it into the ground, turning the flagpole side to side.

As for the lighting, it's been recreated so many times on Earth using nothing but natural lighting so that myth is debunked.

Real talk the moon landing actually happened.

[~Spectre]

Speaking of Hitchens:

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/img-1-270x262.jpg


http://gawker.com/5608640/christopher-hitchens-how-am-i-im-dying

[S.Artesian]

Originally Posted by fa2991 http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1821245#post1821245)
You'd have to be stupid - or Chavez - to seriously believe that Colombia and America are planning a war against Venezuela. Even that 2002 coup wasn't that direct - just opposition funding.You have to be willfully self-deluding to think the bourgeoisie, inside and outside Venezuela, will notdo whatever they think is necessary to get Chavez out of power and attack the urban and rural workers and poor. That includes threatening war and acts of war.

Not thinking the bourgeoisie are able, willing, ready, and desire, to do that is a much greater disavowal of reality than questioning the actuality of the moon landing.

As for 2002, it was a lot more direct than that, with meetings organized and conducted among the privately owned media, the military, the church, with "advice" from the US embassy. There were real actions taken against leaders of the working class organizations in addition to the simply kidnapping of Chavez, arresting of the government officers, etc.

[Adi Shankara]

Hitch's sharp falling out with the left can hardly gloss over the serious issues clearly present when the president of a country

1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

Chavez has been remarkably unbalanced lately. Who gives a shit if Hitchens supported the Iraq war? Chavez is the issue at hand here.

I love the sarcastic tone of Hitchen's article, where he in disbelief says that Chavez doesn't believe Al Qaeda exists (technically they don't; Al Qaeda is just a name for a bunch of Islamic combatants who were compiled on a government computer, hence the translation of the name means "the base"), but then again, who is the bigger idiot?

Chavez thinks the Lunar Landing was faked;

Hitchens believed there were nuclear weapons in Iraq.

[Adi Shankara]

Speaking of Hitchens:

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/img-1-270x262.jpg


http://gawker.com/5608640/christopher-hitchens-how-am-i-im-dying

I hope that asshole dies; What kind've fucking idiot thinks he can drink like a fish and smoke like a chimney for year after year on end, and be fine at the end of the day? stupid shitpig, I feel no sympathy at all. in fact if he dies, I'd laugh.

right-wingers don't deserve my sympathy.

[REDSOX]

I assume chavez has been watching Capricorn 1 recently:)

[La Comédie Noire]

You just gotta learn when and when no to listen to Hugo Chavez.



1. Thinks the moon landing was an imperial conspiracy
2. Dug up Simon Bolivar to prove that we was killed by conspiracy
3. Thinks Colombia and America are conspiring to start a war and/or assassinate him
4. Thinks that America physically caused the Haitian earthquake

That would be a good time to listen to him.

Also I'm pretty sure fa2991 reads a lot of cracked thus the use of the word "Bat shit crazy".