NationStates Jolt Archive

in the Battle for the hearts and minds of Americans.. (all Americans)
Who do you think is winning?
and Why?

So far Chavez has showed his clout in the Americas Summit.. and his presidential "candidate" Won big in Bolivia..

Now its the nation of Peru.. they get To choose today.. between the pro-Bush candidate or pro-Chavez Candidate..

BTW LasVegas-onLine-odds(AKA Pollsters) is refusing to give an official estimate.. after the humiliation at the hands of the Bolivian voters. ;)

Hopefully not the ones backed by the murderer (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624), fascist (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/10/31/chavezs_assault_on_human_rights_activists.php), and human rights abuser. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN)

I would say Chavez because he's not a dickhead, with an even worse crony mate as his second-in-command, backed up by a selection of corrupt fools.

And Condi Rice, who is quite alright, actually.

North Americans seem to prefer Bush, South Americans prefer Chavez.

Hopefully not the ones backed by the murderer (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624), fascist (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/10/31/chavezs_assault_on_human_rights_activists.php), and human rights abuser. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN)
Your first two links are dubious at best. Try a little harder.

The Nature of CIA Intervention in Venezuela (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1403)

However, your last link is interesting because of the numerous postings on that site that detail US human rights abuses.

Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and ‘disappearance’ (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006?open&of=ENG-2AM)

Military commissions for "war on terror" detainees (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510502006?open&of=ENG-2AM)

USA: The secretive and illegal US programme of 'rendition' (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510562006?open&of=ENG-2AM)

The execution of mentally ill offenders (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510022006?open&of=ENG-2AM)

Stonewalled – Still demanding respect: Police abuse and misconduct against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the USA

Secret Detention in CIA "Black Sites" (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511772005?open&of=ENG-2AM)

Victory to Comrade Chavez! Free the people :)

Seriously though how anyone could support Bush over Chavez is beyond me, + the fact Chavez is a comic genious with his insults to Bush. lol

Your first two links are dubious at best. Try a little harder.

Dubious? Hah!

Venezuela: Investigate Asuses against Protestors (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm)

Venezuela Country Report on Human Rights Practices (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41778.htm)

[


P.S. So how many mentally incapable people were executed in the United States?

Dubious? Hah!

Venezuela: Investigate Asuses against Protestors (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm)

Venezuela Country Report on Human Rights Practices (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41778.htm)

P.S. So how many mentally incapable people were executed in the United States?
I think the point went sailing over your head? You also only selected one of the reported abuses of human rights to discuss, and conveniently ignored the rest?

Why is the US mucking around with the politics of Venezuela? Oh, thats right, they are communists......er socialists and are a "threat" to the US interests?

P.S. in answer to your question.....it appears to be 22 children murdered.....er "executed" by the US.

Killing Kids (http://www.aclu.org/capital/juv/10622pub20041119.html)

Since 2000, only five countries have reportedly executed juvenile offenders: Congo, Iran, Pakistan, China and the United States. However, at present, all of these countries except the United States have now renounced the practice. Numerous international treaties prohibit the juvenile death penalty, the most notable being the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which only two countries-Somalia and, embarrassingly, the United States-refused to ratify.

P.S. So how many mentally incapable people were executed in the United States?

Ask Clinton.

Ask Clinton.
Why ask Clinton?

Chavez will win the heart of South American, because he's trying to make life better for his citizen. He's providing them with food, education, healthcare, housing, what they really care about. And in top of that, he's really defending democracy, creating rights like recall referendum, direct democracy, ... While Bush is just invading countries, breaking international laws, using torture and massive political repression (Guantanamo Bay anyone ?), and giving big tax cuts to the wealthy while more and more people live in poverty even in his own country.

Why ask Clinton?
Yeah, why ask Clinton? Ask Bush, he was governor of fucking Texas.

Why ask Clinton?

When Clinton was running for election in 1992, he was accused of being weak on crime. So he allowed a mentally-retarded inmate be executed.

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector)

P.S. So how many mentally incapable people were executed in the United States?

http://www.newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/schwarzenegger/arnold-policy/schwarzenegger-allows-mental-impaired-execution.txt
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_013173218.html

There's one mentally incapable and one deaf/blind execution for you.

Also you miss the point that Columbia is a country with far worse human rights abuses than Venezuela while also being a leading recipient of US aid http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/08/23/colomb730.htm

I think the US administration has pretty much given up any right to criticise other countries human rights records given their massacre of Iraqi civilians recently and of course their show of total contempt for basic rights that is Guantanamo Bay. Their claim that Venezuela is destabilising the region could have come from Ninteen Eighty Four - what do you think they just did in Iraq?

Their claim that Venezuela is destabilising the region could have come from Ninteen Eighty Four - what do you think they just did in Iraq?

It's also very funny when you remember the records of USA in South America... coups and coup attempts, support to paramilitary groups, murder attempts, ...

True indeed. They've already supported a coup attempt against Chavez, who was fairly elected by his people. The same people who swept him back to power after the coup. Haha! Have that Prez. Bush! :p

More importantly does anyone care what happens in South America? Except for some areas with oil no one in the US really cares because it doesn't affect us. It's not like these countries are poised to to become a world power.

However, your last link is interesting because of the numerous postings on that site that detail US human rights abuses.
Does this make Chavez's abuses any more acceptable?

Why is the US mucking around with the politics of Venezuela? Oh, thats right, they are communists......er socialists and are a "threat" to the US interests?
Why do only human rights abuses committed by the US matter to you?

That's like choosing between the plague and cholera.
I'll have to go with Michelle Bachelet.

Hopefully not the ones backed by the murderer, fascist, and human rights abuser.

Murderer, fascist and human rights abuser... you're speaking of George W. Bush, aren't you ?

For your link to Amnesty International, it's interesting, but if you looked a bit closer, you would realise that there is no country in the world with no report from Amnesty International, and that there is much, much more against USA than agaisnt Venezelua from them.

And for your links to anti-Chavez propaganda, their behavior on April 11, 2002 completly take out all credits for them. For those who don't know what happened this day, here is a short summary:

On April 11, 2002, the anti-Chavez front called to a general strike and march against Chavez decision to change the direction of PDVSA, the state oil company. The demonstration was, of course, allowed by Chavez, and a lot of people massed around PDVSA protesting against Chavez, while Chavez supporters started to mass around Miraflores, the presidential palace.

Then, the anti-Chavez leaders called the protesters to march towards Miraflores. Chavez and his governement begged them to take any other way, whatever they wanted, but to not come close to Miraflores, to avoid clashes between supporters and opponents. The anti-Chavez leaders refused to even discuss about it, and marched towards Miraflores.

Chavez send the police to try to block the march a way blocks away from Miraflores, to prevent a clash. But the Metropilitan Police, controlled by the anti-Chavez mayor, forced the police barrage. Then, firearms were fired, from the an hotel in front of the palace, and some Chavez supporters died, from bullets in the head. A few Chavez supporters who had guns fired back in direction of the hotel. Evidence where then foud that the were snippers inside the hotel, snippers equiped by anti-Chavez forces, and with orders to kill a few Chavez supporters to provoke chaos.

All the media, controlled by anti-Chavez buissnesmen, quickly showed people shot in the head, saying they were Chavez oponents, killed by Chavez forces. Then they show the images of the Chavez supporters firing back, taking the pictures under an angle clearing showing them firing from the top of a bridge, but not allowing to see what was behind the bridge. Then they show the march of anti-Chavez going under a birdge, and explained that Chavez supporters fired on a peaceful anti-Chavez march. Truth is that the anti-Chavez never went under that bridge this day. The media completly lied, deformed the situation, telling the exact opposite: while Chavez supporters were killed by snippers, they presented them as firing upon a peaceful march !

Using this false reality as an excuse, the anti-Chavez generals then did a coup attempt, taking Chavez by force, and creating terror inside Caracas. They dissolved the Assembly, the Supreme Court, rendered void a Constitution voted by a large majority, and proclaimed martial law. Less than two days later, the population from all Venezuela marched to Miraflores to take back their country, removing the "president" put there by the coup d'État, and reinstoring legality.

The ones involved in the coup were not thrown in jail. Some chose exil, most remain in Venezuela nowaday. The generals were fired from the army, but remain free. The private media who lied during the whole event and supported openly the coup were not censored. Show me a single other country where a President targeted by a coup attempt would have reacted so nicely, so democratically.

And stop spreading the lies of anti-Chavez media, who are liying since the beginning, as this day showed it to the whole world.

Murderer, fascist and human rights abuser... you're speaking of George W. Bush, aren't you ?

It's likely that these terms could be applied to both leaders (except fascist... neither of them are fascists).

It's likely that these terms could be applied to both leaders (except fascist... neither of them are fascists).
You're forgetting the word 'facist' is now short-hand for anything that remotely irks the user.

damn.. I wanted to add a Poll.. and ran out of time.. (it sux to work on Sundays)

Is there any way to add it now?

It's likely that these terms could be applied to both leaders (except fascist... neither of them are fascists).

Honestly, I never saw any serious accusation against Chavez of his governement of either "murder" or "human rights abuse". Some Chavez supporters did "cross the line" a few times. They got pissed off by the attitude of anti-Chavez media and leaders, who themselves don't hesistate to use violence, lies, going as far as murder calls, murder attempts and coup attempts. But it's not Chavez' fault, it didn't encourage nor call from it. And as far I know, he never ordered or covered any "murder" nor any "human rights abuse". I even tend to think he's too nice with the opposition, letting them do things that would be repressed anywhere else, like supporting the coup attempt, or calling for murder (try to call for the murder of the President on the TV of any other country, and see how long before you end up in court).

Honestly, I never saw any serious accusation against Chavez of his governement of either "murder" or "human rights abuse". Some Chavez supporters did "cross the line" a few times. They got pissed off by the attitude of anti-Chavez media and leaders, who themselves don't hesistate to use violence, lies, going as far as murder calls, murder attempts and coup attempts. But it's not Chavez' fault, it didn't encourage nor call from it. And as far I know, he never ordered or covered any "murder" nor any "human rights abuse". I even tend to think he's too nice with the opposition, letting them do things that would be repressed anywhere else, like supporting the coup attempt, or calling for murder (try to call for the murder of the President on the TV of any other country, and see how long before you end up in court).
It was already shown in this thread:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN

I don't hate Chavez, but he's not squeaky clean or a perfect leader.

It was already shown in this thread:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN

I don't hate Chavez, but he's not squeaky clean or a perfect leader.

He's as good as the next one. And certainly better than Prez. Bush.

Honestly, I never saw any serious accusation against Chavez of his government of either "murder" or "human rights abuse".Have you not heard.. last week.. The US ambassador was harassed an abused in Venezuela.. not sexually.. but Vegetabely abused..

The white House official statement was "we will answer in kind"
US Busheviks and Bushites.. ladies and Gentlemen ..Prepare you vegetables!!! Bush honor is on the line!! :D :D :cool: :D

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6516
"Omigod! It's the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes all over again.

It was already shown in this thread:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN

I don't hate Chavez, but he's not squeaky clean or a perfect leader.

Well, honestly, those reports only point out a tiny few number of individual cases, most of them being unclear of what's the exact truth. And I didn't claim there were no problem at all (the situation in Venezuela is very hot, since the opposition is using violence often), but that AFAIK there is no large scale abuses, and that none of the abuses were ordered by Chavez or his governement.

At this rate, every governement of the world is "human rights abusers". There are much more problems like the ones shown on those reports in France right now, despite the fact that the climate is much less tensed and that the huge majority of protesters don't use violence at all, and it's the same everywhere.

Sure, Chavez has to calm down his supporters and his troops, and do his best to avoid those abuses to ever occuer again, but if you blame him for that, all the leaders of the world are "human rights abusers".

damn.. I wanted to add a Poll.. and ran out of time.. (it sux to work on Sundays)

Is there any way to add it now?

Just make another one! Heh, I remember you once giving me crap about posting to much on Chavez. Today you have two posts! Maybe I need to start up on him again But again maybe he is old news and boring by now like Castro. ;)

When Clinton was running for election in 1992, he was accused of being weak on crime. So he allowed a mentally-retarded inmate be executed.

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector)
You bring one example of Clinton, yet Bush was the king of executioners?

"During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two women were executed in Texas," Berlow reports in the Atlantic, "a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history."

The Texecutioner (http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab020/index.html)

In the meantime, we have to keep up the pressure. We saw how effective this can be when Bush traveled to Europe this spring. Protesters confronted him at several stops, causing the Texecutioner a lot of embarrassment.

Bush even had the gall to declare, "We should never execute anyone who is mentally retarded." Of course, as governor of Texas, Bush opposed legislation that banned executions of the mentally handicapped. He signed off on the execution of six prisoners with IQs below 70 (the general threshold measuring mental retardation) -- one-sixth of the number of mentally handicapped individuals who have been executed since 1976.

Does this make Chavez's abuses any more acceptable?
Neither is "acceptable". However, I look at Venezuela as going forward democratically, while I see the reverse in the US.

Why do only human rights abuses committed by the US matter to you?
This thread is about two countries.....Venezuela and the US. I was responding to a poster, who seems to be oblivious that his/her own country in fact has human rights abuses.

You are reading far too much into my reply to that poster.

So how many mentally incapable people were executed in the United States?

Before it was made "unconstitutional" in 2000? From 1976 to then, 35 mentally retarded persons (HRW.org). Absolutely postive cases of the mentally ill (clear prior history of mental illness) executed 100 plus, with no similar ruling for future cases.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510032006


Does this make Chavez's abuses any more acceptable?

If you examine the pages of the NGO's concerning Venezuela, theres nothing much there that isnt on the pages concerning Germany, Britain, Ireland or France. One has to go to sources of dubiuous quality and with a highly questionable agenda to see otherwise.

If you want to know why one might fire flack at the states answer me this -how often does Hugo Chavez hop off a plane and get described as "leader of the free world"? Who are the masters of smug hypocrisy?

Chavez is winning and I think this is a good thing, it's in Venezuela's interest that South America is less poor but it's not really in the US's and most countries especially the US only act in their own interests.

You bring one example of Clinton, yet Bush was the king of executioners?
Why waste your energy on the defunct Clinton vs. Bush debate? Clinton isn't worth defending and neither is Bush.

Neither is "acceptable". However, I look at Venezuela as going forward democratically, while I see the reverse in the US.
If neither is acceptable, why do you never directly engage with reports on human rights abuse in Venezuela, preferring to dig up dirt on America? It's the same as Americans who support torture saying "well Saddam did it too." That's not an excuse or an argument, that's just trying to shift attention away from one's own wrongs.

If you want to know why one might fire flack at the states answer me this -how often does Hugo Chavez hop off a plane and get described as "leader of the free world"?
Not often enough. He has a difficult job and the opposition are really immature and violent.

Not often enough. He has a difficult job and the opposition are really immature and violent.

They might be violent, but if you can weather the storm from your failed coup in miami, and then have a court say the coup never happened, you aren't "immature".

Chavez is far, far more popular in America than Bush, that much is true. Whether his policies and the Venezuelan state can remain stable for many years and the people of Venezuela benefit from them is a very open question. He is starting to nationalize everything in sight and there have been a number of corruption and cronyism cases that could get worse. He has the power to stay indefinitely in power, it'll be a test to see if he uses it.

The rest of America seems to be turning left, but in many cases not as radically as was feared. Brazil has taken a very pragmatic approach to leftism and as a result is poised to become a very big power in the region (not that it wasn't before, but bigger). In Bolivia Evo Morales has proved to be much more pragmatic than feared. Chile and Colombia balance the region nicely.

Mexico might take a turn to the left, but it's unlikely that if López Obrador takes power he'll follow a very radical departure from previous policies, plus the Congress and States should balance that power.

Why waste your energy on the defunct Clinton vs. Bush debate? Clinton isn't worth defending and neither is Bush.
Debate is point/counterpoint?

If neither is acceptable, why do you never directly engage with reports on human rights abuse in Venezuela, preferring to dig up dirt on America?
I think you missed the point?

It's the same as Americans who support torture saying "well Saddam did it too." That's not an excuse or an argument, that's just trying to shift attention away from one's own wrongs.
Again, I think you missed the point? I stated quite clearly that neither one was right. I expect much more of the US than I do of other countries as they are developing. With the Bush administration, the US is sliding down that slippery slope, and I think it is sad.

He is starting to nationalize everything in sight

Not exactly. He is moving against a few oil companies. The two are very different things.

and there have been a number of corruption and cronyism cases that could get worse.

Find me a government anywhere in the world where there have been no "corruption and cronyism" cases.

He has the power to stay indefinitely in power, it'll be a test to see if he uses it.

He doesn't need to. He'll win any election any time soon, and both he and the opposition know it.

The rest of America seems to be turning left, but in many cases not as radically as was feared.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Brazil has taken a very pragmatic approach to leftism

Thanks to the IMF, and to the dissatisfaction of considerable portions of Brazil's population.

and as a result is poised to become a very big power in the region (not that it wasn't before, but bigger).

That has more to do with the double game Lula is somehow able to play, pleasing both Bush and Chávez.

In Bolivia Evo Morales has proved to be much more pragmatic than feared.

I don't see how "pragmatic" and "radical" are contradictory. You are correct about his politics, though, semantics aside; it is unfortunate, but perhaps necessary.

Chile and Colombia balance the region nicely.

I don't see how a center-left and a center-right government "balance" anything out but each other, but I digress.

Not exactly. He is moving against a few oil companies. The two are very different things.
He's moving against all oil companies, not just a few. Not nationalizing precisely, but unilateraly renegotating contracts. Besides that he has nationalized factories, newspapers, and ranches, under the pretext that they're unproductive and must be made productive somehow.

Find me a government anywhere in the world where there have been no "corruption and cronyism" cases.
That's not the point, the point is that they're becoming important enought to become a worrying trend. There are cases of corruption and cronyism everywhere, but as long as they're kept under a certain level they don't affect the natural course of economy or democracy. It looks like Venezuela is approachig that threshhold, perhaps Chavez will stop it, perhaps not.

He doesn't need to. He'll win any election any time soon, and both he and the opposition know it.
Yes, and he has the power to change the Constitution to eliminate term limits.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Yup. Radical changes based only in the blind following of an ideology leads to crashes and unforeseen consequences. Changing slowly and solving the current problems while keeping the overall goal in mind is what's desirable.

Thanks to the IMF, and to the dissatisfaction of considerable portions of Brazil's population.
They don't seem that dissatisfied with Lula. Sure, there are unhappy segments, and some who feel more could be done, but most agree that Brazil is better than when Lula started and that it now has a stable platform from which to grow.

That has more to do with the double game Lula is somehow able to play, pleasing both Bush and Chávez.
The mark of a true politician, a states-man, and an able leader.


I don't see how "pragmatic" and "radical" are contradictory. You are correct about his politics, though, semantics aside; it is unfortunate, but perhaps necessary.
They're not necessarily contradictory, but radicalism can lead to unpragmatic decisions, while being pragmatic can keep you from changing radically. Ideally you should make the changes you can, while keeping those you can't for later.

I don't see how a center-left and a center-right government "balance" anything out but each other, but I digress.
Precisely by influencing other countries in the region not to depart too much to either extreme and providing an example of how centrist policies can work.

Honestly, I never saw any serious accusation against Chavez of his governement of either "murder" or "human rights abuse". Some Chavez supporters did "cross the line" a few times. They got pissed off by the attitude of anti-Chavez media and leaders, who themselves don't hesistate to use violence, lies, going as far as murder calls, murder attempts and coup attempts. But it's not Chavez' fault, it didn't encourage nor call from it. And as far I know, he never ordered or covered any "murder" nor any "human rights abuse". I even tend to think he's too nice with the opposition, letting them do things that would be repressed anywhere else, like supporting the coup attempt, or calling for murder (try to call for the murder of the President on the TV of any other country, and see how long before you end up in court).

You mean like the patient at a hospice for the mentally unwell who's going to jail for saying how he wanted to kill Bush whilst in the throes of mental disease? It's bad enough that the people charged with taking care of the man reported him, but it's even worse that the Secret Service is so incompetent and bored that they actually have the time to take the man seriously.

However, I look at Venezuela as going forward democratically, while I see the reverse in the US.

In what way is Venezuela 'going forward'?

Do you mean, perchance, the assassinations of the opposition protestors? Or the government control of the press?

In what way is Venezuela 'going forward'?If you trust The BBC reports.. in Health Care and Education..
Also he has reduced poverty by 1/3 .. that is huge.

What do they mean by 'going forward in health'?

Increasing it's budget? Increasing the average lifespan? Increasingf the amount of beds per patient?

Same with education.

Also I would like to point out that these statistics were IIRC quoted by Chavez himself, with no attributed source.

Bush vs. Chavez can only reach one satisfying conclusion:

Thunderdome. :D

Also I would like to point out that these statistics were IIRC quoted by Chavez himself, with no attributed source.:confused:
Did you see the BBC program.. ?

Even better than a thunderdome - Shanghai pit fight.

2 men, one cage, one pistol. One stil living at the end. And I know who I'd put my money on, although Bush's dad would probably train him up a bit pre-fight.

Bush vs. Chavez can only reach one satisfying conclusion:

Thunderdome. :D

Not enough mud for my liking.

Even better than a thunderdome - Shanghai pit fight.

2 men, one cage, one pistol. One stil living at the end. And I know who I'd put my money on, although Bush's dad would probably train him up a bit pre-fight.Not like it would matter.. Chavez would make him his bitch..

The only thing Daddy can do.. is re-enlist soni-boy on the Texas National-Guard.. just before the showdown :D :D :p :D

Not enough mud for my liking.

I don't think that's Thunderdome's fault. The only one we have seen was in a dry climate. Thunderdome in Vermont in springtime might be fun. :)

I don't think that's Thunderdome's fault. The only one we have seen was in a dry climate. Thunderdome in Vermont in springtime might be fun. :)

Or just outside Caracas at any time of year. So to avoid dispute over home mud advantage, place the Thunderdome in Bangladesh.

Chavez blasts Ukraine's Orange Revolution. (http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2417)
Chavez helps Columbia by damaging Venezuela's economy. (http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2346)

Chavez is a paranoid moron who needs to calm the fuck down. The US ain't gonna invade Venezuela. I don't know how he even thought of that idea, but he needs to face reality and see that the US is NOT going to invade his country. It's not that important and they've done nothing wrong so far.

If the US even makes one mistake, Chavez will be on it like a fucking Jack Russell Terrier. He's like that kid who would point at you when you trip and then say, "Hey EVERYBODY, this stupid fuck tripped! LETS ALL POINT AND LAUGH! HAHAHAHA."
He also makes wild accusations against the US and it's allies. Such as when he accused the US embassy staff of being 'spies' and declared that he has infilitrated this "spy ring."

Source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4664502.stm)

:|

Chavez is a paranoid moron who needs to calm the fuck down. The US ain't gonna invade Venezuela. I don't know how he even thought of that idea, but he needs to face reality and see that the US is NOT going to invade his country. It's not that important and they've done nothing wrong so far.
Paranoid? The guy survived a coup which was backed by America and probably partially funded by certain American agencies. coughcough

Not important!? They have the third largest oil reserves in the world and the US buys about 15% of its oil from them.


If the US even makes one mistake, Chavez will be on it like a fucking Jack Russell Terrier. He's like that kid who would point at you when you trip and then say, "Hey EVERYBODY, this stupid fuck tripped! LETS ALL POINT AND LAUGH! HAHAHAHA."
And?

He also makes wild accusations against the US and it's allies. Such as when he accused the US embassy staff of being 'spies' and declared that he has infilitrated this "spy ring."

Yeah, pfft. Because embassies are never used as back door intelligence gathering offices. :rolleyes:

You leave him alone, he'll leave you alone. Fair deal, no?

Paranoid? The guy survived a coup which was backed by America and probably partially funded by certain American agencies. coughcough

It has never been proven that the US was involved in such a coup. Of course I would hate to see you prove me otherwise. So please do go ahead and provide sources for your information.

Not important!? They have the third largest oil reserves in the world and the US buys about 15% of its oil from them.

WE GOT IRAQ! Why would we want some loser country with the 3rd largest oil reserves, when we already have a country with the 2nd largest oil reserves?


And?

:3

Yeah, pfft. Because embassies are never used as back door intelligence gathering offices. :rolleyes:

But does he have any proof?

You leave him alone, he'll leave you alone. Fair deal, no?

No he leaves his own people and then we'll talk.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html

snip

Sorry, I don't think I can answer your post.

It will take me some time to recover from gut-laughing after reading that....

Bolivia is in an election right now and it looks as though they’re leaning towards a more socialist government. It appears the people care more about themselves than being exploited by foreign multinational corporations. And of course once they’re elected we’ll start hearing rhetoric about them. Ah the good old days of the Munroe Doctrine are back with a vengeance.

The CIA thought nothing of knocking over the democratically elected government of Haiti, by backing a bunch of thugs. That worked out awesome. It’s the shining start of recent regime changes arranged by the Pentagon.

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
Head of state and government: Hugo Chávez Frías
Death penalty: abolitionist for all crimes
International Criminal Court: ratified
UN Women’s Convention: ratified with reservations
Optional Protocol to UN Women’s Convention: ratified
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Head of state and government: George W. Bush
Death penalty: retentionist
International Criminal Court: signed
UN Women’s Convention: signed
Optional Protocol to UN Women’s Convention: not signed
Who's Country is worse?

It seems the majority of the problems in Venezuela are corrupt police officers, something that unstable Latin American countries have problems with. That's a hard thing to stop.

All I can say is.
I'd like to meet Chávez to shake his hand.
I'd like to meet Bush to call him a puppet.
I'd like to meet Cheney to curse at him.

Sorry, I don't think I can answer your post.

It will take me some time to recover from gut-laughing after reading that....

LEIK THE LOLOLOLOLOL!

Who's Country is worse?

It seems the majority of the problems in Venezuela are corrupt police officers, something that unstable Latin American countries have problems with. That's a hard thing to stop.

Sounds like the same problem Mexico has.

"Why Officer is it all right for me to pay this traffic violation now?" flipping a few bills over to the policeman.

"Yes and try not to run down any more people in the streets while you're here."

In what way is Venezuela 'going forward'?

Do you mean, perchance, the assassinations of the opposition protestors? Or the government control of the press?
Whatever. The people apparently are supporting his leadership:

When Chávez was campaigning he clearly promised to the Venezuelan people to combat and change that grim situation. Well, as you remember, at the end of 1998 he was democratically elected President by a large majority of the popular vote. One and half years later he was re-legitimized by an even larger and more overwhelming majority of nearly 60 per cent of the popular vote. In both cases he beat the traditional political parties that governed Venezuela for more than 40 years.

Sorry, I don't think I can answer your post.

It will take me some time to recover from gut-laughing after reading that....
*Joins in the laughter. :D

Dont worry, with Bush's leadership, we shall overcome!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33042

;)

Brazil has taken a very pragmatic approach to leftism
Thanks to the IMF, and to the dissatisfaction of considerable portions of Brazil's population.

Don't forget also that Lula doesn't have a majority in the Parliament. That makes it much, much harder for him to take radical measures. I'm not sure if he would have dont it with a majority, but still, it contributes to Lula being center-left and real radical left (as we elected to be).

I don't see how "pragmatic" and "radical" are contradictory. You are correct about his politics, though, semantics aside; it is unfortunate, but perhaps necessary.

It's too early to judge Morales right now, IMHO. He wants a new Constitution, as Chavez did. Chavez didn't do much major change before the new Constitution, either. Let's see what will happen. I have good hope in Morales, I don't think he'll betray what he was elected for.

I don't see how a center-left and a center-right government "balance" anything out but each other, but I digress.

Columbia, center-right ? It's a far right governement, more or less controlled by the drug barons and the far-right militias. The cases of human rights abuses in Columbia, by those militia and by the governement itself, are also numerous.

But Columbia doesn't "balance" anything, it just destabilizes the region, with its civil war between the far-right militias (supported by both USA and the gov) and the far-left militias.

It has never been proven that the US was involved in such a coup. It has never been proven than Osama was involved in 9-11 either.

Hopefully not the ones backed by the murderer (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624), fascist (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/10/31/chavezs_assault_on_human_rights_activists.php), and human rights abuser. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN)
I find it funny that, without clicking the links, I wouldn't really know whether you mean Bush or Chavez.

It has never been proven than Osama was involved in 9-11 either.
He confessed, didn't he?

He confessed, didn't he?He praised the "martyrs" and he said the US had it coming.. and he spelled the reasons.. but I do not remember a video of him saying "I did it".. or "I made it happen"

He praised the "martyrs" and he said the US had it coming.. and he spelled the reasons.. but I do not remember a video of him saying "I did it".. or "I made it happen"
...

Okay good point...

But if I shot up a buncha people, went into hiding, and constantly made video tapes talking about how awesome my gun is and how the police will never find me, I don't see myself pleading innocent.

I don't see (Osama) pleading innocent.pleading would make him look weak.
Also could be interpreted as saying the attack was wrong..

So, just like you.. I do not see him pleading nothing.

He's moving against all oil companies, not just a few. Not nationalizing precisely, but unilateraly renegotating contracts. Besides that he has nationalized factories, newspapers, and ranches, under the pretext that they're unproductive and must be made productive somehow.

What's bad with that ? I see only good in that :)


That's not the point, the point is that they're becoming important enought to become a worrying trend. There are cases of corruption and cronyism everywhere, but as long as they're kept under a certain level they don't affect the natural course of economy or democracy. It looks like Venezuela is approachig that threshhold, perhaps Chavez will stop it, perhaps not.

There were far, far more corruption in the pre-Chavez era than there is now. Remember how much were the top officiers of PDVSA paid, how many had ficitive jobs, how many took massively from PDVSA.

Yes, and he has the power to change the Constitution to eliminate term limits.

Term limits are something very american. There is no term limits in most european countries, and it never was a problem. In most of Europe, leaders are nearly always kicked out every time they try to be relected. I prefer a good ruler, loved by his people, keeping his promises, to be reelected a few times than having the current governement always defeated in elections, because they weren't able (or didn't want) to make things better and to fullfill their promises.

Yup. Radical changes based only in the blind following of an ideology leads to crashes and unforeseen consequences. Changing slowly and solving the current problems while keeping the overall goal in mind is what's desirable.

When more than half of the population lives in utter poverty, you NEED radical changes. When people are starving, or dying from lack of healthcare, slow changes are not acceptable. And keeping the overall goal in mind means having an ideology, a theorical basis for what you do. That's probably one of the point where Chavez isn't good enough, he's doing a very practical job, correcting the problems when he sees them, but is, IMHO, lacking a bit of long term goal and of a theory. He would have had more theory and global vision, he may have prevented the coup of April 2002, for example.

They're not necessarily contradictory, but radicalism can lead to unpragmatic decisions, while being pragmatic can keep you from changing radically. Ideally you should make the changes you can, while keeping those you can't for later.

Too much pragmatism leads to short-term solutions, lack of overall picture, being unable to see consequences and reasons, and finally, failing to do what you want to do. Theory and pragmatism are not opposite, but should complete each other.

Precisely by influencing other countries in the region not to depart too much to either extreme and providing an example of how centrist policies can work.

Centrist policies do not work.

In what way is Venezuela 'going forward'?

Recall referendum ? Community media ? Direct democracy ? Reduced illetteracy ?

Do you mean, perchance, the assassinations of the opposition protestors?

That was done by Chavez's opponent on April 11, 2002. Not by Chavez.

Or the government control of the press?

Venezuela is probably the only country of the world in which the media can openly call to murder the President and support a coup attempt without having any trouble. So stop with your insane ranting about Chavez controlling the media. Most of the media are very strongly against him, and speak agaisnt him in terms that would not be allowed everywhere else.

¡La muerte a Chavez!

¡Hacia abajo con los socialistas!

What do they mean by 'going forward in health'?

Increasing it's budget? Increasing the average lifespan? Increasingf the amount of beds per patient?

In everything. Millions of Venezuelian who didn't have access to any form of healthcare are now cured. And not only for life-critical things. Hundred of thousands have had their eyesight corrected, ... The "Operation Miracle", started by Chavez and Castro, aims to cure eyesight of more than one million of South American, and is on its good way !

Same with education.

Between one and two millions of adults who were illeterate learnt how to read. "Bolivirian schools" (completly free schools were kids receive free food too) are a massive success. Chavez was forced to build much more of those schools than initially planned, because of so many kids who were not in school (because they had no money) and who now are.

Chavez is a paranoid moron who needs to calm the fuck down. The US ain't gonna invade Venezuela. I don't know how he even thought of that idea, but he needs to face reality and see that the US is NOT going to invade his country. It's not that important and they've done nothing wrong so far.

The US supported so many coup d'Etat in South America, than Chavez is right to be careful... even more so than he was the target of coup in April 2002, coup that was openly supported by USA. Don't forget also the role played by the CIA in Columbia civil war, the support of CIA to the far-right militias there, and the huge border between Venezuela and Columbia. Also don't forget that a far-right commando from Columbia tried to murder Chavez not so long ago, and with the tight links between the CIA and those militia, it's not paranoïa to think that USA may be involved.

Also don't forget that USA invaded TWO sovereign countries, against international laws, with no agrement from UN, since Bush is in power. That is enough to make anyone who openly defy US imperialism to be afraid.

Sounds like the same problem Mexico has.

"Why Officer is it all right for me to pay this traffic violation now?" flipping a few bills over to the policeman.

"Yes and try not to run down any more people in the streets while you're here."
Though some may dislike the movie 'Man on Fire' it was a pretty good movie about the Mexican Police Corruption.

It has never been proven that the US was involved in such a coup. Of course I would hate to see you prove me otherwise. So please do go ahead and provide sources for your information.

That the coup leaders where received in the White House a few days before the coup is just a coincidence, sure. That the only two countries who recognized the puppet president that lasted less than two days, one of those two being USA, and the other being Aznar's Spain (Aznar who was among the top Bush supporters), is just another coincidence.

And the massive fundings of USA to opposition parties was absolutely not used in the coup attempt either, that's obvious.

That the coup leaders where received in the White House a few days before the coup is just a coincidence, sure. That the only two countries who recognized the puppet president that lasted less than two days, one of those two being USA, and the other being Aznar's Spain (Aznar who was among the top Bush supporters), is just another coincidence.

And the massive fundings of USA to opposition parties was absolutely not used in the coup attempt either, that's obvious.

He has many reasons to be nervous, The Bush humper Pat Robinson didn't help it either.

By the way did you know the US navy will be doing 'Exercises' near Venezuela soon?

He has many reasons to be nervous, The Bush humper Pat Robinson didn't help it either.

By the way did you know the US navy will be doing 'Exercises' near Venezuela soon?

Source?

Source?
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=8813

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=8813

NORFOLK — The Navy will send an aircraft carrier strike group, with four ships, a 60-plane air wing and 6,500 sailors, to Caribbean and South American waters for a major training exercise, it was announced Monday.

Some defense analysts suggested that the unusual two-month-long deployment, set to begin in early April, could be interpreted as a show of force by anti-American governments in Venezuela and Cuba.

The mission was sought by the U.S. Southern Command, which has its headquarters in Miami and is responsible for all military activities in Latin America south of Mexico.

The Navy was last in the region in force in January 2003, when it used the bombing ranges at the Puerto Rican island of Vieques for the final time.

Led by the aircraft carrier George Washington, the deployment also will include the guided missile cruiser Monterey, guided missile destroyer Stout – all from Norfolk – and the guided missile frigate Underwood, based in Mayport, Fla.

“The presence of a U.S. carrier task force in the Caribbean will definitely be interpreted as some sort of signal by the governments of Cuba and Venezuela,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a pro-defense think tank in Washington.

“If I was sitting in the Venezuela capital looking at this American task force, the message I would be getting is America still is not so distracted by Iraq that it is unable to enforce its interests in the Caribbean,” Thompson said.

The objective of the deployment is to support the Southern Command’s maritime security in its area of responsibility, the Navy said, which includes 32 countries: 19 in Central and South America and 13 in the Caribbean.

The Navy, citing security requirements, declined to say which nations the carrier group would work with or which ports it might visit.

“Each ship will make two or three port visits in the region throughout their two-month deployment, but at this time no announcements are being made,” said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Loundermon, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command.

Called Partnership of the Americas, the exercise will focus on “unconventional threats, such as narco-terrorism and human trafficking, and improving training levels in a variety of mission areas,” the Navy said in a news release.

Stephen Johnson, a former State Department and senior policy analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation, said such training exercises are relatively common in the region for the United States , albeit smaller ones.

“It’s a chance to show the flag and let our friends know we care,” he said.

As far as the exercise also sending a message to Latin American countries opposed to U.S. policies, particularly to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, “there is a challenge for us not to be threatening and reignite hostilities in the region,” Johnson said.

However, there also is increasing concern Venezuela has begun to amass new weapons – from rifles to helicopters – possibly including Russian Su-27 or Chinese J-10 aircraft .

Tom Baranauskas, a Latin American defence analyst with Forecast International, said Venezuela has plans to procure 138 naval vessels, from small patrol craft to larger ones capable of carrying surface-to-air missiles.

It also wants to buy 30 transports and gunship helicopters for the army, he said.

Venezuela has always announced plans for acquiring new military hardware, even before Chavez came to power in 1998, but couldn’t afford it , he said.

“That was before the oil prices went up,” Baranauskas said. “Now the money is available, and there is a pretty nice pool to buy this stuff from.”

Thompson, with the Lexington Institute, said that although the Caribbean is a natural training area for the United States , “we don’t have a task force there very often because of the political sensitivities.

“So the fact we are doing it now will be interpreted by Castro and Chavez as indicative of some sort of U.S. plan, or initiative, or whatever you want to call it ,” said Thompson, referring to the Venezuelan leader and Cuban President Fidel Castro.

He said U.S. military interests in the region “waxes and wanes” depending on the political rhythms.

“ Right now, in addition to the persistent irritation of Castro, we have a very anti-American government in Venezuela, and we have a chronic guerrilla insurgency and narcotics problem in Colombia.

“Needless to say, the Venezuela issues intersect rather powerfully with our energy dependence.”

Norfolk-based Navy officials said the last time an aircraft carrier was in that region was summer 2004, when the Ronald Reagan sailed around South America after it left Norfolk to join the Pacific Fleet. However, that was a relatively quick trip to get the ship to its new home in San Diego.

The Navy drastically cut back sending its carrier groups, as well as all other warships, to the Caribbean for training when it agreed to abandon the island of Vieques near Puerto Rico in May 2003. Such training activities have since moved to the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic.

Likewise, a yearly exercise in the area, called UNITAS, has been scaled back in recent years. UNITAS is a multinational naval deployment exercise. Every year since 1960, U.S. Navy ships have circumnavigated the South American continent, participating in maneuvers with local navies.

L ately, however, fewer than four U.S. ships have participated. Instead of an exercise that once lasted as long as six months, it now is relegated to a month or two and is conducted in phases.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=102085&ran=181584

:|

Whichever one is easier to make fun of globally on comedy shows...

Whichever one is easier to make fun of globally on comedy shows...

Both and Kim Jung Il.

"Im so rorey."

In what way is Venezuela 'going forward'?

Do you mean, perchance, the assassinations of the opposition protestors? Or the government control of the press?

Thanks for acknowledging my answer to your previous post. Presumably it didnt say what you wanted to hear so you ignored it. As the sames happening in this post though, I might be wasting my time...

The Television media in Venezuela (with one exception) is owned by members of SUOMO and their associates and is anti-chavez. The same goes for the radio.

What's bad with that ? I see only good in that :)
It's not necessarily good or bad, depends on the reasons and the way it's being made. There may be nothing to worry about right now, but if this policy continues towards the extreme of actually taking over productive industries and driving away investment that could put a stop in the economy.

There were far, far more corruption in the pre-Chavez era than there is now. Remember how much were the top officiers of PDVSA paid, how many had ficitive jobs, how many took massively from PDVSA.
There's always been a lot of corruption in Latinamerica in general, the point is that it hasn't stop with Chavez and it seems to be on the increase. May not be too different but still something to keep an eye on.

Term limits are something very american. There is no term limits in most european countries, and it never was a problem.
And Venezuela is in America, not Europe, where most countries have term limits for a reason. That's going to be the big question for his next term (he's almost sure to win this year's election) will he abolish the term limits imposed in the Constitution that he himself ratified? Will he accept unfavourable results in future elections? That's also something to keep an eye on.

When more than half of the population lives in utter poverty, you NEED radical changes. When people are starving, or dying from lack of healthcare, slow changes are not acceptable.
Not at the expense of your long term ability to maintain and to keep improving on that change. So far his policies have helped in the short term, but it's still doubtful whether that change is sustainable. No big industry has taken hold in Venezuela, the agricultural situation is still depressed. This may change on his next term, however.

Too much pragmatism leads to short-term solutions, lack of overall picture, being unable to see consequences and reasons, and finally, failing to do what you want to do. Theory and pragmatism are not opposite, but should complete each other.
That's right. Our operative definitions of pragmatism and ideology differ, but the end conclusion is the same. In my view, being a slave to ideology can blind you to what's really important: the good of the people, and to take decisions that will contribute to that goal. And all because you want to prove that Marx, Smith, Keynes, or whoever was right.

Centrist policies do not work.
Depends on what policies those are. Would you say that extreme liberalization of the economy would have worked just as well as socializing it?

I'll take Chavez.

There may be nothing to worry about right now, but if this policy continues towards the extreme of actually taking over productive industries and driving away investment that could put a stop in the economy.

When Chavez does nationalize "productive" industries, he gives then them back to the workers, as a cooperative. That's something very positive. For the investments, it's not a good thing in itself: it gives to the wealthy a power upon you, since they can break your economy by removing it. In some cases, it may be needed. But in a country like Venezuela, with a lot of oil, it's not needed. An endogeonous developement model, using oil profits as the source of funding to develop industries is much, much better than asking foreign investors to lend money, for a huge price both in term of money (they expect very high profits) and in term of sovereignity.


There's always been a lot of corruption in Latinamerica in general, the point is that it hasn't stop with Chavez and it seems to be on the increase.

Compared to the pre-Chavez era, it's not to the increase at all. It's still a problem, and one Chavez is fighting agaisnt, but one that is hard to address - especially with a so violent opposition, which makes it harder for Chavez to move against those officially supporting him, even if they are corrupt.

May not be too different but still something to keep an eye on.

I agree on that, we need to keep an eye on it. But Chavez does, too ;)

And Venezuela is in America, not Europe, where most countries have term limits for a reason.

My point was that many countries which are democratic (or at least as much, if not more, than most american countries) do not have term limits, so not having term limits in itself is not a problem of democracy.

That's going to be the big question for his next term (he's almost sure to win this year's election) will he abolish the term limits imposed in the Constitution that he himself ratified?

Well, there is the recall referendum of 2009 first. You can be pretty sure the opposition will try a new one, except maybe if they are sure to lose it. Then, I don't know if he will change the Constitution to allow himself a third mandate. If he does so, he'll have to do a referendum, and if he wins this referendum, I won't be much bothered - if Venezuelian want Chavez to stay, then so be it. Sure, it would be better if someone else, following the same path, could take the power in 2012. But I tend think in term of policies, ideals and programs much more than in term of persons.

Will he accept unfavourable results in future elections? That's also something to keep an eye on.

Seeing how he preferred, on April 11, 2002, to surrender himself to the "golpists" (the one who did the coup) rather than to risk a civil war (he was still controlling many forces, outside of Caracas, and even some inside Caracas, but he gave an explict order to the loyalists forced to not open fire), despite the fact that he had a clear popular support, I doubt he'll risk a civil war in 2012 (or 2009) if he is defeated.

Not at the expense of your long term ability to maintain and to keep improving on that change. So far his policies have helped in the short term, but it's still doubtful whether that change is sustainable. No big industry has taken hold in Venezuela, the agricultural situation is still depressed. This may change on his next term, however.

The key idea of his economical policies is to "make oil to germinate" (home-made translation from a french translation of a spanish expression, so sorry if it's a bit wrapped), that is, to use the money from oil to prepare the economy for when there will be no more oil. That's definitely a long term issue. If he focus that much on education, it's because he knows that today education plays a key role in the future economy, especially in the XXIest century. It's the same for healthcare, when he restores eyesight to Venezuellians with oil money, that's something which will have long-term effects to the economy. And the agrement with Cuba is not only "I give you oil, you lend me doctors", it's also "I give you oil, you lend me doctors and you train my future doctors", which is also a long term goal.

He also does it on more purely economical issues, like with agriculture, it's not perfect yet, but they are less dependant of foreign food than they used to be before Chavez. The same is true when he wants to acquire civil nuclear energy, it's not because he needs it now (hey, he has the 3rd world oil stock), but because he wants to build the plants now that he has money, to be ready when oil will be over.

Depends on what policies those are. Would you say that extreme liberalization of the economy would have worked just as well as socializing it?

Well, sure, I prefer center policies on right-wing policies ;) But center policies, in themselves, don't really work. And "center" itself is very vague, the "center" is very different in USA, France and Venezuela.