>Where is he widely published, and what for? Cartoons?

How many newspapers am I supposed to find to answer this question?

>>> For starters, I was well aware, through the US media, that Chavez was democratically elected. Secondly, there have been a million people protesting against Chavez. Those aren't just a few wealthy oil managers.
>>
>>Deja vu. So have the truckers protested against Allende.
>
>My point remains the same. I knew Chavez was democratically elected.

My point remains the same. I knew Allende was democratically elected.

>>In years of Milosevic I've seen all the possible ways to manipulate what you see on TV. I've seen a rally with 500 people (pro-government) look like there's 5000 people, and a rally with 150,000 people look like there was only 200.
>
>More speculation on your part. When you have a credible news source, please let me know.

I haven't found a credible news source on this matter. My point is that Fox news or any such is also not credible. What sort of truth in oil business can you expect from a network which fires its two reporters because they didn't want to alter their reports about milk to be in favor of dairy industry?

>>No, he spent the time in Afghanistan.
>
>That doesn't really help him with Venezuela, does it?

So he wasn't there. Were you?

>I can point you to web pages where people publish unsubstantiated facts, like aliens in Rockwell New Mexico , but I assume you don't want to waste your time.

I love modern folklore.

>>And... may I assume you agreed with him on the other two accounts?
>
>Not atl all. I finally found the article at The Guardian he was referring to:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685531,00.html
>
>where someone, ON THE RECORD, stated that the US did not support a coup. Yet when you read Rall's article, we backed it. Hard to trust this guy if he is going to be so misleading.

And while that sentence is there, you seem to have read too much into it and ignored the rest of the article. How about

However, a defence department official quoted by the New York Times yesterday said: "We were not discouraging people."

"We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, 'No, don't you dare' and we weren't advocates saying, 'Here's some arms; we'll help you overthrow this guy.'"

or

when Mr Carmona and other opposition leaders came to the US they met Otto Reich, the assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs.

or
Some of the key participants in US meetings with Venezuelan figures in the run-up to the coup were veterans of Reagan-era "dirty tricks" operations. Mr Pardo-Maurer served as the chief of staff to the Nicaraguan contras' representative in Washington between 1986 and 1989.

...so, I'm actually glad you gave the other side a chance to be heard, thanks for the cue.

> It's our shame that we ("we" as in "all of former Yugoslavia) had more than these 10%, and that the remaining 80% were too confused and gullible, easily manipulated, to do anything against it until it was far too late.
>
>And yet earlier you were arguing against NATO intervention.

If you still think that the bombing solved more problems than it created, that's your opinion, and I beg to differ.

Besides, we'll unfortunately have to wait another 20 years until the archives open, to see how much of the split of Yugoslavia was cooked outside of the country and who were the cooks. While the US insisted on keeping the country whole, much longer than the others, Germany has recognized Slovenia and Croatia far too early, and created a fait accompli. And that's the visible part.

Set Speculation on

One of the popular conspiration theories (sorry, I have nothing more substantial than that) was that the West wanted to see what would happen if Soviet Union (or CIS) would split along its seams... and decided to do a smaller scale experiment first, on a country which was already too strong in such a small region.

Set Speculation off

>>No comments on this one? It's easy to check. The full article is on http://www.sundayherald.com/30700 if you think Urban Legends website has misquoted it.
>
>Like I have written: when you come up with a credible news source, I will be glad to read it. Writers of spy novels need not apply.

You'd have to post your criteria publicly... so I figure I should also be withdrawing my application for taking part in this thread? It's obvious from my website that I sometimes write science fiction.