http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8CUNLQO0.htm

Venezuela has moved its central bank foreign reserves out of U.S. banks, liquidated its investments in U.S. Treasury securities and placed the funds in Europe, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday.

"We've had to move the international reserves from U.S. banks because of the threats," from the U.S., Chavez said during televised remarks from a South American summit in Brazil.

"The reserves we had (invested) in U.S. Treasury bonds, we've sold them and we moved them to Europe and other countries," he said.

Chavez, a sharp critic of what he calls "imperialist" U.S.-style capitalism, has often criticized foreign banks for the power they wield in international financial markets at the expense of poorer countries.

Chavez again proposed the creation of a South American central bank that would hold the foreign exchange reserves of all the central banks in the region.

"I'm ready right now with the Venezuelan central bank ... to move $5 billion (euro4.15 billion) (of Venezuelan reserves), to a South American bank," Chavez said.

Central bank officials could not be immediately reached for more details.

Chavez has also argued against central bank autonomy, saying excess foreign reserves should be spent on economic development projects.

Under his presidency, Venezuela's mostly pro-Chavez Congress changed central bank laws earlier this year so the government could tap reserves for spending, despite criticism that it would lead to devaluation of the local currency and higher inflation.

Every year the central bank must now compute an "optimum" amount of reserves and hand over the rest to a newly created national development fund.

Money held in the fund will be used for overseas purchases and to pay off outstanding debt.

Foreign exchange reserves held by the central bank stood at $30.434 billion (euro25.27 billion) as of Sept. 28, according to central bank data.

10/1/2005 9:05:06 AM

Would this be a Swiss bank account in his name?

10/1/2005 11:06:20 AM

He sounds more and more like Kim Jong Il every day.

10/1/2005 11:13:37 AM

yeah, go ahead and criticize, insult, and make broad generalizations about this guy

i mean, thats what your leader tells you to do right?

10/1/2005 11:18:08 AM

I'm talking about his comical fear of the US, in which he perceives everything and anything to be a "threat". Meanwhile, his government is the one which has seized US businesses and nationalized their Venezualen-based assets.

Stop stealing our ketchup you bastard!

10/1/2005 11:21:35 AM

ah yes
the ketchup factory

because america never seizes assetts or condemns property

and we certainly didn't just have a supreme court case that ruled in favor of the government doing just that

10/1/2005 11:46:18 AM

eminent domain

Chavez might not be quite as narcissistic as Kim Jong Il, but he is even more jingoistic and just as paranoid that the US is plotting against him.

10/1/2005 11:51:32 AM

Quote :

"because america never seizes assetts or condemns property"

Seizes property? Only from drug dealers.

I think you fail to grasp the difference. The city of New London is paying for the property it takes. I'm sure Ms. Kerry would be happy to sell her factory to the Venezuelan government, but they ain't paying.

There is a comparison between the two government's tyranny, to be sure. But the comparison only goes so far.

10/1/2005 1:33:38 PM

Maybe Pat Robertson was right after all...

10/1/2005 1:39:42 PM

jesus christ, you people are going to turn this into something ridiculous.

dont like what hes saying about the US? ignore him. why should it hurt anyone unless he actually starting threatening to use force against anyone?

You fucks have no idea what things are actually like in Venezuela right now anyway. Leave them alone and stop being paranoid of stupid crap. Kim Jong Ill? Please.

^so i hope youre joking, or youre seriously an idiot

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2005 3:09:59 PM

APPEASERS ARE FOOLS

we need to blockade them or something

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2005 3:25:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm talking about his comical fear of the US, in which he perceives everything and anything to be a "threat"."

Uhm, can you tell me exactly how many countries the U.S. has attacked in the last 50 years?

10/1/2005 3:32:12 PM

ummmm, can you tell me how many south american countries the US has attacked in the last 50 years?

10/1/2005 3:34:25 PM

how many SA countries have actually done anything drastic like this?

well, Argentina, but that was a right-wing dictatorship, so it was all good and we left it up to the UK to solve that one.

10/1/2005 3:37:14 PM

we've had troops in Colombia

10/1/2005 3:41:28 PM

i think he's fearing a Cuba-like event, with the US jumping the gun out of the archaic fear of a leftist state and doing something drastic. The difference here is, theres no missles or other smoking gun to justify anything like this.

and dont say the ketchup plant

10/1/2005 3:48:28 PM

hidden WMDs

10/1/2005 3:50:04 PM

Well, I think it may or may not be justified to expect a military attack from the US in the immediate future. It is however, obvious that the US is a country unfriendly to Venezuela. They tried to overturn the legitimate government of Venezuela, which to me is equivalent to a declaration of war. I would say the are perfectly reasonable to move their assets away from the reach of the Americans.

10/1/2005 4:06:18 PM

whoo whoo! here comes the "OMG RIGGED ELECTION" train!

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2005 4:10:20 PM

How can you ignore somebody who we have to depend on for oil? Chavez is going to ruin Venezuela. We can thank Jimmy Carter for rigging the election down there.

10/1/2005 9:01:03 PM

OH GREAT
HERE WE GO

HOW CHAVEZ IS GOING TO RUIN THE COUNTRY

AS TOLD BY A WHACKED OUT CONSERVATIVE, USING COMPLETELY BIASED SOURCES

A TRULY TICKLING TREAT FOR ALL AGES

go ahead
tell the story

10/1/2005 9:47:11 PM

Quote :

"I think it may or may not be justified to expect a military attack from the US in the immediate future."

you're a regular nostradamus.

10/1/2005 10:05:05 PM

^^ You are the pivot man of TWW leftwing circle jerk.

Not that you care, but enjoy.

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2005 10:09:26 PM

Quote :

"Well, I think it may or may not be justified to expect a military attack from the US in the immediate future."

is that kind of like "it may or may not rain tomorrow?"

10/1/2005 11:01:17 PM

just came up

the first link that had chavez' name in it made me chuckle

Quote :

"Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court"

because you could easily say

Quote :

"VenezuelaAMERICA: ChávezBUSH Allies Pack Supreme Court"

omg

this one made me laugh too

Quote :

"Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression"

aren't we locking up journalists now, simply because they are upholding their journalistic integrity?

this one is a classic too

Quote :

"Venezuela: Official Press Agency Distorts Human Rights Watch’s Position"

especially since the GAO just had to come out and basically tell the bush administration to quit making propaganda

WOW
THIS WEBSITE IS FUN
I CAN'T WAIT TO CHECK OUT HOW BUSH IS RUINING AMERICA


[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 11:42 PM. Reason : HRW RULES!]

10/1/2005 11:36:17 PM

Let's not forget the upcoming war on titties.

10/1/2005 11:44:02 PM

THE WAR ON GOOD CLEAN FUCKIN'

10/1/2005 11:46:18 PM

To suggest that there will be an offensive war against Venezuela is positively ludicrous. At least with Iraq, we had a country that had said pretty plainly that they wanted to hurt us, and had at least a passing familiarity with a country that could do such a thing.

Besides, we've not invaded a South American country...ever, if memory serves. We've had some spats and we've supported our share of dictators and rebels. What troops we have floating around down there at the moment were invited and aren't overthrowing the inviting governments.

I could see Chavez maybe worrying about a small but personal thing -- an assassination or a relatively bloodless removal from power. That would sound like our normally South American MO. But the country as a whole? Nah.

10/2/2005 12:55:33 AM

Quote :

"I could see Chavez maybe worrying about a small but personal thing -- an assassination or a relatively bloodless removal from power. That would sound like our normally South American MO. But the country as a whole? Nah."

Well, I'm sorry that everybody except the lunatics like yourself doesn't think that overthrowing a legitimate government or killing a leader of a foreign power is a "small but personal thing".

10/2/2005 1:27:59 AM

Woodfoot, I don't know if you know this yet, but Bush is destroying America. I don't see how that excuses Chavez of destroying Venezuela.

BTW, your examples were all bad. Packing a court is where you either forcibly remove members of the court, as FDR did, or where you change the number of Justices sitting on the court from nine to nineteen so you get to appoint a majority.

Second, he is going to destroy the Venezuelan currency. He is using the nation's foreign reserves to buy shit and is in the process of printing money to suplement the budget.

As for the Media crack, the journalists are in jail for NOT expressing themselves and their sources, unlike in Venezuela where they are in jail FOR expressive themselves, and their sources will soon join them.

^ No government that impoverishes its people and violates their human rights is legitimate.
While America may violate our human rights (eminent domain) it so far hasn't impoverished the majority of us, so it retains some legitimacy.

Venezuela is the same at this point, but in 10 years when his house of cards collapses he will lose even that.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 1:33 AM. Reason : ^]

10/2/2005 1:30:47 AM

Quote :

"No government that impoverishes its people"

Lonesnark: Being an established moron, I will make sure to reinforce my reputation by seriously suggesting that while it's pretty much accepted that there is no general consensus what constitutes impoverishment of people even inside the US, and roughly half thinks the current administration impoverishes people while the other half disagrees, this issue is somehow absolutely cut and dry when it comes to foreign countries.

10/2/2005 1:37:50 AM

MathFreak, as per your custom, you misunderstand me.

Standing next to war -- which is what we are in fact discussion here -- an assassination is a small and personal thing. Violation of sovereignty? Sure. Illegal? Definitely. Morally reprehensible? Quite often. But if the choices are:

Option A: Thousands of people die, the leadership dies, the government is changed, the country is occupied,

or

Option B: The leadership dies and the government is changed,

One of those is smaller than the other. Sorry. One is also more personal, when the "leadership" is defined as an individual.

More to the point of this thread, since the only thing Chavez has to worry about -- I should say, the closest thing to something Chavez has to worry about, since this won't happen either -- is an attack on him personally, moving reserves or anything else but him personally has no defensive value.

10/2/2005 1:39:44 AM

He didn't do it to defend himself or the country. I never said that. I said, the US was an unfriendly country and you typically wanna deal as little as possible with unfriendlies.

10/2/2005 1:44:14 AM

Damn near everybody else does it. Given that we've expressed no real interesting in attack Venezuela or offing Chavez, we're a very benign kind of unfriendly -- the kind that exists between countries all over who deal with each other quite often.

Would you describe the US and China as getting along famously?

I also don't see them cutting off (or down) the oil to us, in part because they couldn't afford it, and in part specifically because not refusing to deal with us is good for relations. Breaking things off only increases tensions. Every time he takes a shot at us, it makes action on our party a tiny bit more likely. Now, if he's getting something out of that or preserving some central principle, fine. But this move accomplishes neither. He gains no real advantage from moving the reserves, and any principle that motivated him to do that (namely, a refusal to deal with the imperialist running-dogs) should have also motivated him to cut back the oil trade.

He's irking us for the sake of irking us, and that's dumb.

10/2/2005 1:57:07 AM

Of course, he accomplishes something. You can't get his accounts arrested anymore. Maybe the US didn't plan to do it shortly, but it is certainly possible. Being labeled the single destabilizing force in the region by the US Secretery of State is no small thing. The US is a dangerous country that has been known to attack TENS of foreign powers that posed absolutely no threat to it. Venezuela cannot afford to sever its ties with America completely, but whatever they can do to depend less on the US, they do it, and I understand them.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 2:02 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2005 2:02:02 AM

All of which would maybe, maybe make sense if there were the remotest chance in hell of us doing anything to Venezuela or Chavez, failing a lot of mistakes kind of like this one, only even stupider.

It's analagous to crazy militia types. A government representative calls them dangerous, but doesn't do anything about it...until the crazies overreact, think that the black helicopters are imminent, and wall themselves up in a compound with guns and stop paying taxes.

If you just pay your taxes and act sane, you don't get your compound shot up. Similarly, if you just maintain normal relations, you don't get Sam Fisher and Jack Bauer sneaking into the presidential palace and blowing you away.

10/2/2005 2:16:30 AM

^ But who said whack-jobs were sane?

Chavez NEEDS to piss off America, just as Sadam needed to do the same. Their people wouldn't support them unless they feared something else more, such as the US.

People will let you get away with a lot of shit if you distract them, just look at our administration. Would congress have authorized war with Iraq if 9/11 hadn't taken place?

Would the Venezuelan legislature been swayed by Chavez's demands to bring the central bank under his direct authority if in the same speech he hadn't announced the latest assasination attempt by the US?

10/2/2005 8:13:46 AM

Quote :

"just as paranoid that the US is plotting against him."

Well there was that coup attempt a while back...

Quote :

"ummmm, can you tell me how many south american countries the US has attacked in the last 50 years?"

How about covertly? Extending it to all of Latin America... Nicaragua, Brazil, Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Chile, Granada (not covert), Panama (not covert)...

That enough for ya?

10/2/2005 8:14:26 AM

Naa, I expect any credible nation to go smartly against any foreign covert operations. Look how well South Korea has hadn't all the shit North Korea has thrown at it.

10/2/2005 8:19:05 AM

Quote :

"All of which would maybe, maybe make sense if there were the remotest chance in hell of us doing anything to Venezuela or Chavez, failing a lot of mistakes kind of like this one, only even stupider."

Right... If it's a mistake, there's no chance in hell the US will ever do it.

10/2/2005 9:53:28 AM

wait, this thread is silly

we might as well start one on why we might invade the Central African Republic. I'm sure you can find plenty of corruption there as well.

(note: i know nothing about the Central African Republic, so dont go off with that. Just saying there are plenty of corrupt gov'ts out there, even in *shock!* the US!)

10/2/2005 3:23:49 PM

i still have yet to understand why people are so obsessed with Venezuela. They are selling us oil and that won't end, they're economy is on the turnaround. Faggots like Loneshark need to stop worrying.

10/2/2005 3:37:09 PM

worrying is such a strong word. I look at Chavez as a learning experience for the World, how NOT to run your country.

I'm thankful there are people like Chavez, otherwise, one day, someone might be tempted to run America like that and we wouldn't have such convenient historical evidence to use against them.

10/2/2005 3:42:33 PM

ummm, there are countries running themselves like Chavez's.

Look at Scandanavia, etc.

10/2/2005 3:52:37 PM

Quote :

"ummmm, can you tell me how many south american countries the US has attacked in the last 50 years?"

I'm not sure if I could list them within the text limit.

I think an easier question would be how many south american countries hasn't the US attacked in the last 50 years.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 12:54 AM. Reason : you forgot peru and a few others GV]

10/3/2005 12:53:25 AM

Yeah, I'm sure I forgot a few. I couldn't find the really good list in my few minutes of searching.

10/3/2005 5:16:03 AM

Quote :

"Venezuela's Chavez Squeezes Oil Companies With Taxes, Raids Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- On July 14 in the western city of Maracaibo, Venezuelan government tax auditors and a prosecutor went to the offices of Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil company. They seized boxes of records to build a case that San Ramon, California-based Chevron and 21 other energy companies owe Venezuela $3 billion in back taxes. The raid is part of President Hugo Chavez's push to squeeze more money out of foreign companies that want to pump oil from the world's fifth-largest petroleum exporter. Since October 2004, he has raised heavy-oil royalty fees to as high as 30 percent from 1 percent, begun paying for some services in nonconvertible bolivares instead of U.S. dollars, and ordered oil well contracts converted into government-controlled joint ventures. Chavez, 51, wants to use the revenue to pay for homes, clinics and schools for the 58 percent of Venezuelan families who live on less than $200 a month. Since taking office in February 1999, Chavez has embarked on a socialist revolution: seizing ranches to hand over to the poor and starting a TV news network with promotional ads featuring a swastika painted on a U.S. flag. Chavez says he's using oil money to bankroll a quest to become Latin America's leader against U.S.-style capitalism, and in a May 4 speech, he said ``Being rich is bad'' and ``Jesus Christ was a socialist.'' Friend of Castro Chavez, a close friend of Fidel Castro, sends crude to Cuba in exchange for doctors to staff 3,000 neighborhood clinics. In June, he pledged subsidized oil for poor Caribbean nations such as Grenada. Chevron and its competitors haven't been scared off by the new rules or Chavez's fiery rhetoric because the country has the largest reserves in the Western Hemisphere. The oil companies want to invest $30 billion in Venezuela, which is the fourth-largest supplier of crude to the U.S., according to the Venezuelan Hydrocarbons Association. Venezuela is also attractive because Chavez is more open to foreign investment than other countries with untapped oil supplies such as Mexico and Saudi Arabia. In an interview, Chavez said all companies are welcome in his country. ``Foreign companies have been here for the last century exploiting oil and gas, and they'll have all the space they've been able to have so far,'' he says. ``It's just that they will have to pay the royalties, they will have to pay the income tax. If they don't, we will go after them.'' The Prize True to Chavez's word, Venezuela's tax agency stated on Aug. 11 that it's seeking to attach more than 280 billion bolivares ($131 million) in assets from The Hague-based Royal Dutch Shell Plc in a dispute over what the country says is unpaid back taxes. Shell Spokeswoman Bettina Steinhold declined to comment. "

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=a3z63_HrIvtc

Our intelligence agencies will be reporting evidence of WMDs in Venezuala very soon.

10/3/2005 7:40:18 AM

Just like they did when Saudi Arabia and Iran nationalized their oil wells.

10/3/2005 8:36:38 AM