Chavez, Ahmadinejad meet, discuss OPEC converting reserves to a stronger currency

[Maikeru-sama]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Iran to Boost Ties With Ahmadinejad
Monday, November 19, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his fourth trip to Iran in two years on Monday, state media reported, as the two countries sought to strengthen ties while their leaders exhort the international community to resist U.S. policies.

Chavez, who arrived in Tehran from Saudi Arabia where he attended the weekend's OPEC summit, is expected to discuss various political and economic issues with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Chavez was accompanied by a string of top Venezuelan officials for the hours-long visit, including the foreign, industry, oil and communication ministers, as well as the mayor of Caracas, the country's capital.

Ahmadinejad also attended the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries summit in Riyadh.

During the gathering, the two firebrand leaders echoed one another, blaming U.S. President George W. Bush's policies for the decline of the dollar and its negative effect on other countries, and challenging Saudi Arabia's reluctance to mention weak dollar concerns in the summit's final declaration.

Ahmadinejad claimed OPEC's member countries want to convert their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper."

Chavez said the dollar was in free-fall and that its "empire" must end, and proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies excluding the dollar.

But the two were unable to generate support from enough in the 13-member cartel -- many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.

Tehran is in a bitter standoff with Washington over its nuclear program, which the U.S. fears is a cover for a weapons program but which Iran insists is peaceful.

Meanwhile, the U.S. accuses Chavez of being a threat to stability in Latin America, while the Venezuelan leader is constantly criticizing U.S. "imperialism" under Bush. Chavez has also defended Iran's nuclear ambitions, dismissing Washington's concerns that Tehran is secretly trying to develop atomic weapons.

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said Sunday the two leaders would sign economic deals and memorandums of understanding in economic fields, and an agreement on small and medium enterprises.

In July, the two countries broke ground to start building a jointly owned petrochemical complex in Iran, with 51 percent of it in Iranian ownership and 49 percent to be owned by Venezuela. The two also began construction of a second petrochemical complex in Venezuela, at a total combined cost of US$1.4 billion (euro956 million). No details on the ventures have been disclosed.

The two nations believe their petrochemical partnership will help Iran access markets in Latin America and Venezuela would get access to energy markets in Asia, especially India.

During Chavez's previous visit in July, the two countries signed some 20 economic and trade agreements. Since 2001, they have signed over 180 trade agreements, worth more than US$20 billion (euro15 billion) in potential investment, according to IRNA.

Iran has partnered with Venezuela on several industrial projects in the South American nation, including the production of cars, tractors and plastic goods.

Link

[Maikeru-sama]

The U.S. policy regarding Iran is totally wrong.

Ahmadinejad is hugely unpopular in Iran (especially among the young people) and the real power doesn't even rest with him. Heck, a couple of members of his government were forced to resign at one point.

Everytime the U.S. threatens sanctions and leaves the door open for a pre-emptive strike, it just polarizes all of Iran and even his most ardent detractors side with him.

They need to engage this guy and play to the pro-American young crowd in Iran imo.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by mickgreen58

The U.S. policy regarding Iran is totally wrong.

Ahmadinejad is hugely unpopular in Iran (especially among the young people) and the real power doesn't even rest with him. Heck, a couple of members of his government were forced to resign at one point.

Everytime the U.S. threatens sanctions and leaves the door open for a pre-emptive strike, it just polarizes all of Iran and even his most ardent detractors side with him.

They need to engage this guy and play to the pro-American young crowd in Iran imo.

That would require subtle diplomacy -- not this administration's strong point. They prefer the simplistic, brutish approach. Think Ivan Drago from Rocky IV -- "I must break you."

[ConcordCowboy]

[jterrell]

sigh more friggin monetary/resource hostage.

i hate these oil producing sob's. i would love to take a dump in their turbans.

i can not wait til we use less oil than most 3rd world countries and can laugh at these little sand boxes all over with no way to make money as oil sales for 15 bucks a barrel and we charge them 200 bucks a bushel for the cotton for their turbans.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by mickgreen58

The U.S. policy regarding Iran is totally wrong.

Ahmadinejad is hugely unpopular in Iran (especially among the young people) and the real power doesn't even rest with him. Heck, a couple of members of his government were forced to resign at one point.

Everytime the U.S. threatens sanctions and leaves the door open for a pre-emptive strike, it just polarizes all of Iran and even his most ardent detractors side with him.

They need to engage this guy and play to the pro-American young crowd in Iran imo.

You can not work with a country that is part of the axis of evil...don't you know?

/sarcasm off

On a side note...maybe we need that guy in spain to tell alphabet to shut up again.

[ConcordCowboy]

[vta]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Two sides of the same coin.

[ConcordCowboy]

Originally Posted by vta

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Two sides of the same coin.

Well considering one(Bush) has actually started a War for shall we say...dubious reasons and the other(Clinton) has not...there is no other side to the coin.

And until she is actual President and ACTUALLY starts a War...Bush is all alone on his side of the coin.

We have SEVEN years of history with Bush being President.

But again until Hillary is actually President you don't really know one way or the other what she would do or how she will act.

But we do with Bush.

But this really isn't about Bush...this is about not wanting people to follow Bush that think like he does or that want to carry on his policy's.

[Dallas]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

You can not work with a country that is part of the axis of evil...don't you know?

/sarcasm off

On a side note...maybe we need that guy in spain to tell alphabet to shut up again.

Or someone here to tell you all to shut-up. I could be that guy if you want.


PM me?

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by vta

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Two sides of the same coin.

Yea all except that nasty little part where one has actually went to war and the other hasn't.

[Dallas]

Originally Posted by jterrell

Yea all except that nasty little part where one has actually went to war and the other hasn't.

But she voted for it and supported it. So in a sense she did go to war. Spin it however you want.

You liberals love to skew things. Either get things straight or just don't post this silliness.

Please don't reply saying that you are not a liberal. That's just more silliness.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

Well considering one(Bush) has actually started a War for shall we say...dubious reasons and the other(Clinton) has not...there is no other side to the coin.

And until she is actual President and ACTUALLY starts a War...Bush is all alone on his side of the coin.

We have SEVEN years of history with Bush being President.

But again until Hillary is actually President you don't really know one way or the other what she would do or how she will act.

But we do with Bush.

But this really isn't about Bush...this is about not wanting people to follow Bush that think like he does or that want to carry on his policy's.

In the Nevada Debate Hillary addressed this with a soldier and his Mom; and explained why she (alone amongst the Dems) had voted to label the Iranian guard a terrorist group. She said Bush needed to understand that he can and will not get Congressional approval to attack Iran and any effort to do so would be worthy of impeachment proceedings but that we know the Guard is sending weapons and technology to help injure and kill our armed services members in Iraq.

We are not going to go to war with Iran but we are also not going to play pacifist either and stop all non-war efforts to curtail their nuclear proliferation.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Dallas

But she voted for it and supported it. So in a sense she did go to war. Spin it however you want.

You liberals love to skew things. Either get things straight or just don't post this silliness.

Please don't reply saying that you are not a liberal. That's just more silliness.

She did approve it and would do so all over again if convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as instructed by our intelligence community at the behest of the administration.

And yes I am liberal, compared to you and your pappy Karl Rove.
Compared to everyone else I am pretty moderate.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

Well considering one(Bush) has actually started a War for shall we say...dubious reasons and the other(Clinton) has not...there is no other side to the coin.

And until she is actual President and ACTUALLY starts a War...Bush is all alone on his side of the coin.

We have SEVEN years of history with Bush being President.

But again until Hillary is actually President you don't really know one way or the other what she would do or how she will act.

But we do with Bush.

But this really isn't about Bush...this is about not wanting people to follow Bush that think like he does or that want to carry on his policy's.

given i've shown quotes from bill in 1998 where he said "something must be done" yet did nothing, is the answer to simply say SOMETHING MUST BE DONE yet never do anything that could cause problems or hardship?

i see the "something must be done" crowd all the time in mid-management but i see so few step up to try. either the talent or skillset isn't there, or where it is the person feels like it would be hopeless, so just float along, or what?

i've seen enough people who just talk (clintons for some) and i've seem some who'll try and screw it up. (bush) in the last 16 years. i don't wanna go back to talking a good fight and i'd like to see us get something right for a change.