NationStates Jolt Archive

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has won a third term in office, securing a clear lead over rival Manuel Rosales.

With most of the ballots counted, Mr Chavez had taken more than 60% of the vote, officials said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6205128.stm

I seem to remember that some time ago there were some threads on Chavez, claiming that he would never win the third term without resorting to cheating and rigging the election, because he was loosing the popular support.

Well, seems he won with a clear margin - more than 60% - and it seems like he did it without cheating...

According to Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301173.html)
Rosales, 53, later conceded defeat without declaring fraud, as opponents had done in the last major election they lost to Ch?vez, a recall referendum two years ago.
Other officials in the Rosales campaign said voting equipment malfunctioned at several polling sites and that there were delays in pro-Rosales districts.

Authorities with the five-member National Electoral Council said they had not found serious discrepancies.

"Everything is perfectly normal in the country," Vicente D?az, who is considered partial to the opposition, told reporters Sunday night. Observers from the European Union, the Atlanta-based Carter Center and the Organization of American States monitored the vote and reported only isolated incidents by early Sunday night.
So basically, no worse than the recent US election ;)

Now, in the Washington post article, I found this interesting passage too:
In a recent opinion poll conducted by Ipsos for the Associated Press, 66 percent of respondents said they approved of Ch?vez's administration. The poll showed that although most Venezuelans see Ch?vez as authoritarian, they also overwhelmingly approve of his social policies, which have given a voice to a vast underclass that had felt forgotten under previous governments.


Any thoughts on any of this?

Yeah, I think you need to fix your C&Ping to accept accented letters. :p

Good. Chavez has done a lot of good for those people.

Good. Chavez has done a lot of good for those people.

How's that crack treating you?

I'm pretty ignorant on his policies but he scares the hell out of me.

I disagree, hes a tyranical dictator that has opposed all forms of democratic reform. His bands of thugs have been responsible for 90,000 murders in the country last year, his brand of socialism is most worrying in South America a clear threat to the Americas as a whole.

Yeah, I think you need to fix your C&Ping to accept accented letters. :p
Nah, I didn't want to manipulate the sources ;)

Trilby63;12035242']I'm pretty ignorant on his policies but he scares the hell out of me.
Why?

I disagree, hes a tyranical dictator that has opposed all forms of democratic reform. His bands of thugs have been responsible for 90,000 murders in the country last year, his brand of socialism is most worrying in South America a clear threat to the Americas as a whole.

Source?

How's that crack treating you?

Well, take a look at the country before Chavez took over. One hell of a mess, almost the entire populace in poverty, and institutionalised racism as far as the eye can see.

Chavez has given those people what they need, at the expence of oil corps and the elites. He's a smart man, too. Just look at how he dealt with that coup a while ago.

Why?

He seems to be just a tad paranoid.

Trilby63;12035274']Source?

Source? SOURCE?
He doesn't need a source. The guys a Communist and obviously all Commies are evil murders who hate democracy.

I mean duh, keep up!

[/sarcasm]

Source? SOURCE?
He doesn't need a source. The guys a Communist and obviously all Commies are evil murders who hate democracy.

I mean duh, keep up!

[/sarcasm]

Chavez is proof to me that winning elections is the most important skill an elected official should have, aside from being able to inhale large amounts of industrial solvents in order to get really high.

Well, take a look at the country before Chavez took over. One hell of a mess, almost the entire populace in poverty, and institutionalised racism as far as the eye can see.

Chavez has given those people what they need, at the expence of oil corps and the elites. He's a smart man, too. Just look at how he dealt with that coup a while ago.

Fucks yes. Long live the Bolivarian Revolution. (For as long as it doesn't fuck itself over.)

Chavez is proof to me that winning elections is the most important skill an elected official should have

In fact, it's a given. He wouldn't be an elected official if he hadn't, well, been elected.

Trilby63;12035296']He seems to be just a tad paranoid.

...or a tad looney? :p

I wonder if it's all an act, or if he really believes the Bush is the devil etc.

I like my world leaders to be a bit more stable, but I wouldn't say he scares me :)

In fact, it's a given. He wouldn't be an elected official if he hadn't, well, been elected.

I see the same effect in the UK, US, France...

Fucks yes. Long live the Bolivarian Revolution. (For as long as it doesn't fuck itself over.)

What the world needs is a nice Democratic Commie Superpower who would stop these guys froming ruining what they've got.
At any rate, it'd be a nice balance to the Capitalist Dictatorship we have in charge right now...

Trilby63;12035296']He seems to be just a tad paranoid.


Which government was the only government in the world to recognise
the 2002 Venezuelan coup as a legitimate change in government?

Answers on a postcard please.

A few months earlier, Colin Powell said the US would support a transitional government in Venezuela. So did World Bank head James Wolfensohn.

Its only paranoia when its not true.

...or a tad looney? :p

I wonder if it's all an act, or if he really believes the Bush is the devil etc.

I like my world leaders to be a bit more stable, but I wouldn't say he scares me :)

Yeah...

I don't fear him as such but I do fear for his people.

Hell, he's a politician. He shouldn't be allowed to run a country.

Whoooo!!! Where's the partay at?!?! :D

I disagree, hes a tyranical dictator that has opposed all forms of democratic reform. His bands of thugs have been responsible for 90,000 murders in the country last year, his brand of socialism is most worrying in South America a clear threat to the Americas as a whole.

Chavez has improved the country, although it isn't perfect yet. But which country is? NONE!
If you would know what sort of country it was before he became president, you'd be amazed what he has done.
First it was a puppet from The USA, everything they had was because they sold oil to the US, now that he has nationalised the oil companies, he can change it. But don't critisize him yet no one can change a country from nothing into a good working country in like 8 years.

Chavez has improved the country, although it isn't perfect yet. But which country is? NONE!
If you would know what sort of country it was before he became president, you'd be amazed what he has done.
First it was a puppet from The USA, everything they had was because they sold oil to the US, now that he has nationalised the oil companies, he can change it. But don't critisize him yet n one can change a country from nothing into a good wroking country in like 8 years.

Yeah, and if you have to kill people to get it done, that's ok, too. After all, we see how well that works in Iraq. Oh, and you can't change a country from nothing into a good working country in like 8 years, so give Iraq some more time...

ROFLMAO

Yeah, and if you have to kill people to get it done, that's ok, too. After all, we see how well that works in Iraq. Oh, and you can't change a country from nothing into a good working country in like 8 years, so give Iraq some more time...

ROFLMAO

And were are the proofs that he has killed so many people, huh, I haven't heard any proof.
And about Iraq, well do you see anything in my text about Iraq, I don't think so, so say that I have said something about it.

And were are the proofs that he has killed so many people, huh, I haven't heard any proof.
And about Iraq, well do you see anything in my text about Iraq, I don't think so, so say that I have said something about it.

If you'll note carefully, I didn't say you said anything about Iraq. I'm just applying your logic to the situation in Iraq, and seeing how it holds up - or doesn't.

Hmm.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Wonder why the jump in murders, eh?

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Walk into an emergency room in many poor parts of this booming, oil-rich nation on a weekend night and you will be overwhelmed--victims of gunshot wounds and drunken clashes line the corridors. Homicides are up 67 percent since 1999, and violent crime is the top concern of Venezuela's voters as they head to the polls Sunday.

Yet the man in charge since then, President Hugo Chavez, rarely addresses the problem publicly and is sailing toward an easy election for a third time. Analysts say Chavez is able to ignore the issue by governing through a system of extensive handouts that eases the purchase of basic goods but does little to ensure public order.

Analysts say police forces have also largely been urged to tread lightly in poor neighborhoods, turning a blind eye to petty crime and small demonstrations such as burning tires. Critics say it is part of Chavez's efforts to maintain support in poor neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, crime has exploded. According to human-rights groups and a UNESCO study, Venezuela has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths in Latin America, with 41.4 per 100,000 inhabitants.

"Venezuela has undeniably become one of the most violent countries in the world," said Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz, the researcher who conducted the UNESCO study.

Which government was the only government in the world to recognise
the 2002 Venezuelan coup as a legitimate change in government?

Answers on a postcard please.

A few months earlier, Colin Powell said the US would support a transitional government in Venezuela. So did World Bank head James Wolfensohn.

Its only paranoia when its not true.

Can I not just use the reply button instead?

I wouldn't listen to anything the States have to say on the matter. It's not like they're capable of objective reasoning when it comes to left-leaning leaders. They're just as paranoid.

To be honest, I'm just looking for reasons not to like him.

I don't like his dealings with Iran.

I don't like the way he cynically manipulates his people.

In all honesty, I don't like him because he's a politician.

Like I say, I'm pretty ignorant about his policies and what affect they're having so I'll reserve judgement until I know a bit more.

Yeah, and if you have to kill people to get it done, that's ok, too. After all, we see how well that works in Iraq. Oh, and you can't change a country from nothing into a good working country in like 8 years, so give Iraq some more time...

ROFLMAO

Can you provide any evidence or sources
if you don't we can only presume that you are referring to illegal killings
carried out by Venezuelan police.

Human Rights Watch have this to say about it
Hundreds of police executions have been reported over the past several years, although the problem long predates the current administration. While the Attorney General’s Office and the human rights ombudsman have denounced these abuses, little progress has been made in prosecuting the police responsible or introducing the reforms necessary to combat the practice. In August 2005, the Attorney General’s Office announced that it was investigating 5,520 presumed extrajudicial executions—involving 6,127 victims—committed between 2000 and July 31, 2005. Of 5,997 police and military personnel allegedly implicated, prosecutors have filed charges against 517, and at this writing only eighty-eight had been convicted (1.47 percent).

So it would seem that Chavez administration has not managed to deal with a situation that was long established before they came to power.
Terrible that it happens and something they should be pressured to resolve
but hardly a creation of Chavez or his government.

Can you provide any evidence or sources
if you don't we can only presume that you are referring to illegal killings
carried out by Venezuelan police.

Human Rights Watch have this to say about it
Hundreds of police executions have been reported over the past several years, although the problem long predates the current administration. While the Attorney General’s Office and the human rights ombudsman have denounced these abuses, little progress has been made in prosecuting the police responsible or introducing the reforms necessary to combat the practice. In August 2005, the Attorney General’s Office announced that it was investigating 5,520 presumed extrajudicial executions—involving 6,127 victims—committed between 2000 and July 31, 2005. Of 5,997 police and military personnel allegedly implicated, prosecutors have filed charges against 517, and at this writing only eighty-eight had been convicted (1.47 percent).

So it would seem that Chavez administration has not managed to deal with a situation that was long established before they came to power.
Terrible that it happens and something they should be pressured to resolve
but hardly a creation of Chavez or his government.

I guess you were unable to read post #24 in this thread.

If you'll note carefully, I didn't say you said anything about Iraq. I'm just applying your logic to the situation in Iraq, and seeing how it holds up - or doesn't.

Hmm.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Wonder why the jump in murders, eh?

Being incompetent and being a murderer are two different things.

Though saying that I don't know if it's imcompetence or cynicism.

Did I mention he's a politician?

Trilby63;12035481']Being incompetent and being a murderer are two different things.

Though saying that I don't know if it's imcompetence or cynicism.

Did I mention he's a politician?

Take this as an example:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/697005

Wow, three kids from a wealthy family murdered by shotgun blasts to the head by people at a fake roadblock dressed as policemen - or maybe they were the police.

And Chavez doesn't do anything until there's public outrage. In light of the soaring murder rate, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's easy enough to look the other way, and let your supporters do the killing.

I'm about as supportive as you can be of Chavez, but there is one thing I'd like to see him change in this term, and that's his current restrictions on jounalistic freedom.

It's a tricky situation for him. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some media corporations in Latin America are influenced or controlled by US interests. After all, we are in the information age. So if he gives these people more freedom, he is making himself more vulnerable to forces that want to stop his populist agenda. But if he doesn't, then he continues to limit the freedoms of all journalists, regardless of political affiliation, which is not something I can support.

Mind you, there is always the Internet.

If you'll note carefully, I didn't say you said anything about Iraq. I'm just applying your logic to the situation in Iraq, and seeing how it holds up - or doesn't.

Hmm.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Wonder why the jump in murders, eh?

That is the stupidest thing ever.

Your logic is 'murders occur' > 'Chavez is president' > 'ergo Chavez commits murders'. Its the most absurd argument ever. You should probably just go live under a rock somewhere untill you learn how to formulate rational thoughts.

Lots of countries have high crime rates, you wouldn't suggest that that is ALL due to government assassins would you?

Worst case scenario, there are gangs who support Chavez who attack gangs and bystanders who do not. Chavez doesn't run them, so I don't see how he can be to blame.

Take this as an example:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/697005

Wow, three kids from a wealthy family murdered by shotgun blasts to the head by people at a fake roadblock dressed as policemen - or maybe they were the police.

And Chavez doesn't do anything until there's public outrage. In light of the soaring murder rate, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's easy enough to look the other way, and let your supporters do the killing.

He's got about a much of a chance of stopping corruption (In the military and police) as the rest of the Latin American countries. (IE basicly Nil) Can't blame Chavez for that. If he tries to reform the military they'll just do another Coup. The police would just walk out if he tried to reform them.

Hell even Mexico can't control their country. the Mexican President does nothing about an outright uprising, and he won't try and stop it by removing a corrupt official. What does that say about Mexico?

Take this as an example:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/697005

Wow, three kids from a wealthy family murdered by shotgun blasts to the head by people at a fake roadblock dressed as policemen - or maybe they were the police.

And Chavez doesn't do anything until there's public outrage. In light of the soaring murder rate, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's easy enough to look the other way, and let your supporters do the killing.

Did I mention he's a politician?

Meanwhile, crime has exploded. According to human-rights groups and a UNESCO study, Venezuela has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths in Latin America, with 41.4 per 100,000 inhabitants.

"Venezuela has undeniably become one of the most violent countries in the world," said Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz, the researcher who conducted the UNESCO study.

I wonder which study they mean, I can only find references to a UNESCO report stating Venezuela
having the highest number of gun related deaths in South America
at 34.3 per 100,000 inhabitants (wonder why the disparity)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,12462,1598147,00.html

I have not however been able to find the actual UNESCO report as of yet.

At nearly 2 and a half times those in the United States it really needs some serious addressing, especially as the figure in the United States is 6 times that of more civilised western nations.

Well, take a look at the country before Chavez took over. One hell of a mess, almost the entire populace in poverty, and institutionalised racism as far as the eye can see.

Chavez has given those people what they need, at the expence of oil corps and the elites. He's a smart man, too. Just look at how he dealt with that coup a while ago.

Still in poverty. Try again.

Fucks yes. Long live the Bolivarian Revolution. (For as long as it doesn't fuck itself over.)

That's bloody brilliant. :rolleyes:

Whoooo!!! Where's the partay at?!?! :D

From Canada, huh? Well, that figures... :rolleyes:

I'm about as supportive as you can be of Chavez, but there is one thing I'd like to see him change in this term, and that's his current restrictions on jounalistic freedom.

And on that point, I really wish Aelosia, a Venezuelan journalist herself, were around to comment. :(

Yeah, and if you have to kill people to get it done, that's ok, too.
Hmm.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Wonder why the jump in murders, eh?
You fail to establish a link between your claim that Chavez is a murderer and the jump in murders. Any other sources?

The closest you'll get by this is that he is extremely poor at handling crime.

You fail to establish a link between your claim that Chavez is a murderer and the jump in murders. Any other sources?

The closest you'll get by this is that he is extremely poor at handling crime.

Try reading the whole thread.

Try reading the whole thread.

I have. You insinuate that he's in some way responsible beyond a failed policy, but you fail to back it up.

How's that crack treating you?

How do you think?

I have. You insinuate that he's in some way responsible beyond a failed policy, but you fail to back it up.

It's pretty clear that there has been a radical increase in the number of murders, that some of these murders are political in nature (carried out against the richer folk there), and that Chavez hasn't done anything about it other than talk.

He has no real political motivation to solve murders committed by anyone who supports him.

Still in poverty. Try again.

Nothing compared to what they were before. Now, farmers have been given land to work on, real life actual houses are being built, and social reforms actually give poor people prospects.

And the elite sneers and complains that he only gains votes by giving the people "bricks and bread". Well, the question you have to ask is why weren't they getting that before? It's a pretty basic need, and before Chavez the government made little effort to help the poor.

It's pretty clear that there has been a radical increase in the number of murders, that some of these murders are political in nature (carried out against the richer folk there), and that Chavez hasn't done anything about it other than talk.

He has no real political motivation to solve murders committed by anyone who supports him. I think you have your regimes mixed up.

Perhaps the rich are getting killed because... Their rich and people try and rob them? Did you think of that?

Nothing compared to what they were before. Now, farmers have been given land to work on, real life actual houses are being built, and social reforms actually give poor people prospects.

"Given," as in stolen from others by government fiat. Nice... :rolleyes:

It's pretty clear that there has been a radical increase in the number of murders, that some of these murders are political in nature (carried out against the richer folk there), and that Chavez hasn't done anything about it other than talk.
See, this is what I'd like you to back up. You haven't offered anything to support the claim that the murders are political, as the article about the three brothers didn't and neither did the article from the Chicago Tribune - which says this, however:
The vast majority of homicides in Venezuela occur in the country's poorest communities--Chavez's strongest base. The large majority of incidents involve males ages 15 to 25.

He has no real political motivation to solve murders committed by anyone who supports him.
And which murders might that be?

Oh, and since it's his base that's hit the hardest by the surging rate of homicide, you'd think he'd have some political motivation to do something about it, wouldn't you...

"Given," as in stolen from others by government fiat. Nice... :rolleyes:

Nationalisation and agrarian reform policies in Latin America tend to follow a complicated pattern.

The original owner has to pay taxes on whatever he or she owns. However, if they claim it as being less than it is worth, then they pay less taxes. Many large land owners and large corporations do this to save money. Bribes make this easier.

The problem comes when they are nationalised. The government pays the landowner or corporatist whatever is on the books, which is a fraction of its real worth, due to what I mentioned above.

Honesty is its own reward.

See, this is what I'd like you to back up. You haven't offered anything to support the claim that the murders are political, as the article about the three brothers didn't and neither did the article from the Chicago Tribune - which says this, however:


And which murders might that be?

Oh, and since it's his base that's hit the hardest by the surging rate of homicide, you'd think he'd have some political motivation to do something about it, wouldn't you...

You didn't read the post I had about the fake police roadblock killings. Obviously.

I disagree, hes a tyranical dictator that has opposed all forms of democratic reform. His bands of thugs have been responsible for 90,000 murders in the country last year, his brand of socialism is most worrying in South America a clear threat to the Americas as a whole.


You are taking the piss. Source for the 90,000 murders please?

I think the question is this.


Is Charvez's corruption due to the political enviroment he finds himself in or is it due to his political alignment?

You didn't read the post I had about the fake police roadblock killings. Obviously.


O - is this like the killings clinton was meant to have ordered?

O - is this like the killings clinton was meant to have ordered?

No, this is like the political killings (of rich by poor) that Chavez doesn't have to order - he can simply ignore them, and say it's just more rampant crime.

You didn't read the post I had about the fake police roadblock killings. Obviously.

I did. You speculated and offered no proof. Not that the murder was political, not that it was done by real policemen, not that it was done by supporters of Chavez, not even that the family was particularly wealthy (the large ransom demand and the fact that they had a driver doesn't prove anything except that they weren't poor.)

So you fail. Obviously.

Nationalisation and agrarian reform policies in Latin America tend to follow a complicated pattern.

The original owner has to pay taxes on whatever he or she owns. However, if they claim it as being less than it is worth, then they pay less taxes. Many large land owners and large corporations do this to save money. Bribes make this easier.

The problem comes when they are nationalised. The government pays the landowner or corporatist whatever is on the books, which is a fraction of its real worth, due to what I mentioned above.

Honesty is its own reward.
Hm. Reminds me of something Heinlein put in one of his books - he put up a law that anybody could buy your real estate off you for what you valued it for tax purposes at any time.

Funny, that.

"Given," as in stolen from others by government fiat. Nice... :rolleyes:

"Given" as in taken from the huge stretches of unused land owned by an arrogant, uncaring elite that had been favoured for centuries by oppressive, right-wing governments.

So yeah, stolen. They deserve it, letting people starve outside in shanty towns while they have vast, empty acres lying unused.

No, this is like the political killings (of rich by poor) that Chavez doesn't have to order - he can simply ignore them, and say it's just more rampant crime.

Really?
Given the majority of people being killed are not rich?

And of people being killed who are not poor are you remembering to include
State prosecutor Danilo Anderson who was assasinated in 2004
Anderson was in charge of prosecuting several opponents of President Hugo Chavez accused of participating in the April 11th, 2002 coup d'etat.

"Given" as in taken from the huge stretches of unused land owned by an arrogant, uncaring elite that had been favoured for centuries by oppressive, right-wing governments.

Arrogant and uncaring elite? Hmmm...you seem pretty well-spoken and well-educated (to a point). Might you be part of the "elite"? Perhaps I can take your house?

So yeah, stolen.

Good of you to admit it.

They deserve it, letting people starve outside in shanty towns while they have vast, empty acres lying unused.

They deserve shite being handed to them for no reason other than the fact that they don't have it? That's bloody brilliant that. I've got a really nice computer. I suppose I should let my nextdoor neighbour take it, because he doesn't. Better yet, let's have the government force me to give it to him. Again, bleedin' genius.

Still in poverty. Try again.

From the very source you are using to attack him...

Poverty rates have dropped by 10%

thats pretty bloody impressive in only 8 years....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
The channeling of oil revenues into a broad range of social welfare programs seems to have alleviated poverty somewhat in recent years. The number of Venezuelans living in poverty has declined to 34 percent from 44 percent in 1998, the year before Chavez took office, according to government figures.

Some of that decline clearly has happened as Chavez has funded a broad range of welfare programs including adult literacy, subsidized basic foodstuffs and medical care in poor areas.

From the very source you are using to attack him...

Poverty rates have dropped by 10%

thats pretty bloody impressive in only 8 years....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

When did I cite the Tribune? You completely fail. Try again.

...

They deserve shite being handed to them for no reason other than the fact that they don't have it? That's bloody brilliant that. I've got a really nice computer. I suppose I should let my nextdoor neighbour take it, because he doesn't. Better yet, let's have the government force me to give it to him. Again, bleedin' genius.

Expropriated lands are ones where the putative owners have failed to prove
that they acquired the land legally.

Now you may argue that if they claim it , then it is theirs but then that
same argument must be capable of being applied to anyone else who claims it
too.

There may be details to work out in the courts as to what constitutes
proof of legal ownership but it is no more or less than the situation in every
country.

Even where you are the law states that if something you have was acquired
illegally, even if you did not know it was so at the time then you have to give it back to its rightful owner.
If there is no legal private owner of land then it must belong to the state.
If the state has the best interests of the people at heart then it would give
most of those lands to people who need land.

What exactly is your problem with that?

The only worrying thing is that he's seeking an end to presidential term limits and stand for a 4th time

Why doe'snt he just go the whole hog and declare himself President-for-life like most other South american leaders do?


El-Presidente Boris

The only worrying thing is that he's seeking an end to presidential term limits and stand for a 4th time

I agree - That's the most worrying part about Chavez as I see it... I really, really, really hope that he won't remove the term limitation, and that he'll leave office peacefully come 2012.

The only worrying thing is that he's seeking an end to presidential term limits and stand for a 4th time

Why doe'snt he just go the whole hog and declare himself President-for-life like most other South american leaders do?


El-Presidente Boris

Why would he be seeking a 4th term just as he starts his second term??

He has it is true suggested holding a recall referendum in 2010 (his term would normally end in 2012)
and if there is a lot of support for him has proposed the possibility of a vote to change the constitutional limit of 2 terms.

I hope he does not have that constitutional limit change, you only have to
look at the current administration in the US to see how much damage can be done in only 2 terms. Venezuela would be better off if the limit is kept.

I agree - That's the most worrying part about Chavez as I see it... I really, really, really hope that he won't remove the term limitation, and that he'll leave office peacefully come 2012.

And when he does leave I hope he doesn't make a fuss about it like Tony Blair did...


"Leaving them wanting more.."

Bloody makes me sick!

The White House will insinuate Chavez rigged the election and then go on to categorize him as a brutal communist dictator.

The White House will insinuate Chavez rigged the election and then go on to categorize him as a brutal communist dictator.

You got a crystal ball there? ;)

*hammer hits nail squarely on head*

If you'll note carefully, I didn't say you said anything about Iraq. I'm just applying your logic to the situation in Iraq, and seeing how it holds up - or doesn't.

Hmm.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Wonder why the jump in murders, eh?

Well, if you use you're arguments on the USA, then the government of the USA is responsible for the most homicides, by guns in the whole world, sometihng like 10 000 a year.

"Given," as in stolen from others by government fiat. Nice... :rolleyes:

Ow right, and these capitalists haven't stolen these lands from the people who were there first?
No, of course not, the capitalists are the best in the world (mark the irony)

No, this is like the political killings (of rich by poor) that Chavez doesn't have to order - he can simply ignore them, and say it's just more rampant crime.

O, so why isnt HRW or Amnesty on about it being him orchestrating it?

Viva Chavez! Viva Bolivarianismo!

Hugo Chavez is an excellent leader. He has fought off United States imperialism, at least attempted (and to a limited extent, succeeded) in giving his people more money and better health care. It's good to see a socialist who is democratically elected and isn't under the bourgeois-socialist ideology of Scandinavia. Chavez is a good socialist, because the changes he brings to his country are radical but gradual, he understands the idea of building socialism.

I disagree, hes a tyranical dictator that has opposed all forms of democratic reform. His bands of thugs have been responsible for 90,000 murders in the country last year, his brand of socialism is most worrying in South America a clear threat to the Americas as a whole.

Are you sure you're not twisting Pinochet's atrocities to serve your own ends. Because replace socialism with capitalism and you've got good ol Pinochet.

(As usual, forgive my non native english grammar)

The only thing that I understand from this thread in that most of you people do not have a single idea of how is Venezuela like...

Every arguing regarding Chávez goes down the path of "Capitalizt Vs. Communizm", without even going a bit deeper over the matter. College boys waving Smith and Marx at each other, it seems.

If any of you want to know the truth, you should stop arguing about Venezuela as if you know exactly how things are around here. Please come, form an idea about the situation, and then you can discuss to death and be firm about what are you talking about. It's like me either defending or attacking the Bush administration like if I know how is the life of the average american citizen. OK, I dissaprove the Texas guy on an overall view, but I would take points as my information isn't exactly first hand. If any of you need a tour, I would gladly offer myself as a guide.

I have guided BBC's, CNN's, Reuters, EFE, and AFP journalist teams around here. I also hope you consider my offer if you don't want to end murdered, kidnapped or just plainly mugged.

To make this a bit short, I'll try to take a shot at the main arguments presented here...

1.- Chávez didn't rigged the elections. He won fairly. OK there are some anomalies, but nothing too strange or definitive.

2.- Chávez is not a dictator, he is a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic.

3.- Poverty in Venezuela dropping 10 per cent? Check twice your sources, the economic indicators have gone nuts. Inflation is rising, and the index of extreme poverty population had a substantial increment.

4.- If you think that Chávez is an excellent international leader because he fights against Bush, wondrous, elect him as the UN secretary or whatever you want. A President should be in chargeof internal politics first, and then his crusade against a particular ideology. Chávez has forgotten about his own people to just take tours around the world rallying the people against the "wild liberalism". Even during the campaign, he was absent for entire weeks.

5.- His thugs are responsible for several political affiliated murders, but 90,000? that number is ridiculous. I dont think even Pinochet reached that number.

6.- If you think that every Chávez opposer is member of a rotten elite, as some people is trying to say, think twice. Rosales got 4 millions of votes. Can you imagine an elite of 4 million people?. Pretty big for an elite, I could say.

7.- Press freedoms are coerced. True, you don't killed by police men if you say something against the goverment, but yet goverment officials do not answer your questions, do not appear in any media that is not the goverment controlled ones, and you can get an occassional beating from the Chávez supporters if you find yourself in the wrong place. To get an idea, in 2002 we stopped using the vests and caps with the word "PRESS" over it because it helped shooters to aim at us first.

On a side note, we were comforted by the fact that lots and lots f people starting wearing media caps and vests during the protest so we couldn't be easiily picked out.

8.- Insecurity is this country's first problem. The number of murders on an average weekend with guns in Caracas is higher than the death toll in Irak. No, no bullshit, no kidding. True. Talk about civil wars then. 180 deaths every friday night due to violent acts, mostly attempts of kidnap//murder/assault means almost civil war.

9.- The police forces are corrupted to the core, and the goverment is facing an internal problem, recognized by Chávez himself, who already promised to purge his own ministeries.

10.- Term limitation. If he really do that, he will become a dictator like his praised mentor Fidel Castro. Yet those are now just words. (On opinions about Castro and Cuba, about the "Dreamland" that it is, please I just advise to go there first. I have been there and it is one of the most miserable places in earth).

11.- Do you know who is the main landowner of the country? Yes, you got it. The state. The goverment. Lands expropiations? some of them are fair, others don't. Yet there is still free land (yes, free, without owners) to be given to the people in need. Expropiations are an instrument of the goverment to punish those who stray off the line marked by them. For example, Chávez father is the owner of a large estate. No expropiations there.

12.- Social programmes were there before the Chávez administration, and will be there after him. They are the weapon of choice of demagogue and populist politicians around here to maintain popular support. Nothing new there.

I think I still have points left, but I have duties to attend right and cannot focus properly. If anyone have doubts, just ask me.

Meh.

Congratulations to Hugo Chavez.

The majority of his people appointed him to rule Venezuela the second time. It reflected the essence of democracy in the country.

The White House will insinuate Chavez rigged the election and then go on to categorize him as a brutal communist dictator.

Even if he's a communist, the people of Venezuela still trust him as their leader.

The term 'communist' usually refers to some leaders or nations that the US doesn't like. ;)

In the mind of the American government: "All nations must obey and support us, or we will categorize them all as 'communists' and 'terrorists'". :sniper:

Congratulations to Hugo Chavez.

The majority of his people appointed him to rule Venezuela the second time. It reflected the essence of democracy in the country.



Even if he's a communist, the people of Venezuela still trust him as their leader.

The term 'communist' usually refers to some leaders or nations that the US doesn't like. ;)

In the mind of the American government: "All nations must obey and support us, or we will categorize them all as 'communists' and 'terrorists'". :sniper:


Congratulations on your gun smilie

*snip*


Thanks. That was very illuminating.

Can I ask do you believe Charvez's corruption is due to the political enviroment he finds himself in or because of his political alignment?

I ask because a lot of people around here are just a little selective in their criticism. Granted, Charvez is a little more vocal than most leaders and draws more attention to himself but like you say, it does always seem to come down to capitalism vs. communism with him.

I myself lean to the left but I can't stand it when people give their support to leaders just because they agree with what is, although with quite significant consequences, a small part of their overall policies.

If you'll note carefully, I didn't say you said anything about Iraq. I'm just applying your logic to the situation in Iraq, and seeing how it holds up - or doesn't.

Hmm.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612030393dec03,1,7234181.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Wonder why the jump in murders, eh?
Wow, this is some pretty amazing logic: People were murdered in Venezuela while Chavez was running it. Thus, Chavez killed them.

The only worrying thing is that he's seeking an end to presidential term limits and stand for a 4th time

Why doe'snt he just go the whole hog and declare himself President-for-life like most other South american leaders do?


El-Presidente Boris

Trilby63;12040923']Thanks. That was very illuminating.

Can I ask do you believe Charvez's corruption is due to the political enviroment he finds himself in or because of his political alignment?

I ask because a lot of people around here are just a little selective in their criticism. Granted, Charvez is a little more vocal than most leaders and draws more attention to himself but like you say, it does always seem to come down to capitalism vs. communism with him.

I myself lean to the left but I can't stand it when people give their support to leaders just because they agree with what is, although with quite significant consequences, a small part of their overall policies.


Geez, Chavez international policies are not just pointing out how dangerous
the US is. Given their part in supporting the coup against him its hardly
likely he could just pretend they don't exist.

He has made arrangements for trade or aid with Iran and with Cuba yes
and also with Jamaica and Uruguay and Antigua and Dominica, Bolivia and
Montevideo, Argentina,Ecuador, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mauritania and Niger
and I believe New York and I am sure with many other countries and some cities around the world too.

When Katrina struck, despite how the US treats Chavez he was one of the
first to offer assistance, only to have it rebuffed, eventually.


Is there corruption in Venezuela
after decades of corruption ridden governments yes there is

Why hasn't Chavez reversed it all in 6 years well gosh
maybe because he's had just 6 years
and a lot of that was taken up with the tantrum throwing of the
elite.
There were management strikes and lockouts, a coup , and after
that coup was reversed and the constitution reinstated, his opponents
attempted a recall election which is of course part of that constitution.

Is he the perfect world leader
of course not, he is human
but so far he hasn't done anything terribly wrong and quite a lot of good

Infant mortalities are way down
Literacy is way up

For more than 30 years Venezuela spent 10 to 14 percent of its total GDP on so-called social programs." In the public health sector, for example, Venezuela spent three times more per capita in 1985 than Chile, Jamaica, or Panama. But in 1988, Venezuela's infant mortality was 200 percent higher than Jamaica's, 80 percent higher than Chile's, and 30 percent higher than Panama's."

I just hope he keeps it up but then retires gracefully at the end of his second term.

I have guided BBC's, CNN's, Reuters, EFE, and AFP journalist teams around here.



A fact which bothers me greatly.

Trilby63;12040923']Thanks. That was very illuminating.

Can I ask do you believe Chavez's corruption is due to the political enviroment he finds himself in or because of his political alignment?

I ask because a lot of people around here are just a little selective in their criticism. Granted, Chavez is a little more vocal than most leaders and draws more attention to himself but like you say, it does always seem to come down to capitalism vs. communism with him.

I myself lean to the left but I can't stand it when people give their support to leaders just because they agree with what is, although with quite significant consequences, a small part of their overall policies.

I don't believe the corruption present in Chávez goverment is a direct consequence of him being a socialist or a leftist. Back then, right wing, center-right and center left (yes, Acción Democrática, the party mainly ruling before him, the rotten elite that Chávez refers as the fourth republic, was also a left leaning party) parties also ran corrupted goverments.

More than Chávez, who I do not believe to be a corrupt thief, it's his ministers who are grabbing every resource they find suitable for their purposes. The problem is that he has failed in fighting against corruption, which is bigger now than ever. If he, as I believe, is clean of said corruption, at least he's being an accomplice for letting his subordinates do as they please.

Oh, by the way, the oil strike back in 2002 was caused by the firing of thousands of workers and managers to appoint political friends and collaborators on their posts. Not because he was a socialist or a leftist and all the people involved in the strike were members of a rotten elite payed by the US goverment to overthrow the goverment. As I have said before, adding grey tones to the usual black & white logic helps you to understand the venezuelan situation.

Perhaps the main problem around here is intolerance. Chávez supporters label everyone else not agreeeing with them as traitors to the country, and every opposer label every Chávez supporter as a Castrist. Hardly true on both accounts.

As Nodinia, for example, who believe that I am being payed by the CIA just because I don't agree with Chávez policies, even as I am a critic of the Bush regime and have never been in the USA, and hardly I could be considered a conservative, or a right-wing activist. On paper, Chávez's policies are awesome. On the practice, they are not as effective as they seem. I think it is more derived from the ineptitude of the goverment administration than to an active part from Chávez. But as long he keeps people on his administration unable to run this country properly, based in the fact that they praise him and share his ideology, I will remain as a critic of his regime.

As an example, the cuban goverment charges the venezuelan administration with 6 millions of bolívares (3,000$) each month for every cuban medic working here in Venezuela, (note that the cuban medics do not receive this money, but Castro's goverment. My new neighbour is indeed a cuban medic). The normal wage of a venezuelan medic here is around 1-2 millions of bolívares (500-1000$), and there is a high amount of venezuelan medics unemployed. Why do we need cuban doctors then?, why we have to pay three more times for a foreign doctor when we have unemployed nationals here able to do the same work? things like that makes us criticize the goverment, not just the fact he's a socialist and we are a corrupt elite.

And no, not 6 years, 8 years. Dunlaoire, check your information on facts. Chávez first rise to power happened in 1998. You can hope for a change in 8 years.

(As usual, forgive my non native english grammar)

The only thing that I understand from this thread in that most of you people do not have a single idea of how is Venezuela like...

Every arguing regarding Chávez goes down the path of "Capitalizt Vs. Communizm", without even going a bit deeper over the matter. College boys waving Smith and Marx at each other, it seems.

If any of you want to know the truth, you should stop arguing about Venezuela as if you know exactly how things are around here. Please come, form an idea about the situation, and then you can discuss to death and be firm about what are you talking about. It's like me either defending or attacking the Bush administration like if I know how is the life of the average american citizen. OK, I dissaprove the Texas guy on an overall view, but I would take points as my information isn't exactly first hand. If any of you need a tour, I would gladly offer myself as a guide.

I have guided BBC's, CNN's, Reuters, EFE, and AFP journalist teams around here. I also hope you consider my offer if you don't want to end murdered, kidnapped or just plainly mugged.

To make this a bit short, I'll try to take a shot at the main arguments presented here...

1.- Chávez didn't rigged the elections. He won fairly. OK there are some anomalies, but nothing too strange or definitive.

2.- Chávez is not a dictator, he is a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic.

3.- Poverty in Venezuela dropping 10 per cent? Check twice your sources, the economic indicators have gone nuts. Inflation is rising, and the index of extreme poverty population had a substantial increment.

4.- If you think that Chávez is an excellent international leader because he fights against Bush, wondrous, elect him as the UN secretary or whatever you want. A President should be in chargeof internal politics first, and then his crusade against a particular ideology. Chávez has forgotten about his own people to just take tours around the world rallying the people against the "wild liberalism". Even during the campaign, he was absent for entire weeks.

5.- His thugs are responsible for several political affiliated murders, but 90,000? that number is ridiculous. I dont think even Pinochet reached that number.

6.- If you think that every Chávez opposer is member of a rotten elite, as some people is trying to say, think twice. Rosales got 4 millions of votes. Can you imagine an elite of 4 million people?. Pretty big for an elite, I could say.

7.- Press freedoms are coerced. True, you don't killed by police men if you say something against the goverment, but yet goverment officials do not answer your questions, do not appear in any media that is not the goverment controlled ones, and you can get an occassional beating from the Chávez supporters if you find yourself in the wrong place. To get an idea, in 2002 we stopped using the vests and caps with the word "PRESS" over it because it helped shooters to aim at us first.

On a side note, we were comforted by the fact that lots and lots f people starting wearing media caps and vests during the protest so we couldn't be easiily picked out.

8.- Insecurity is this country's first problem. The number of murders on an average weekend with guns in Caracas is higher than the death toll in Irak. No, no bullshit, no kidding. True. Talk about civil wars then. 180 deaths every friday night due to violent acts, mostly attempts of kidnap//murder/assault means almost civil war.

9.- The police forces are corrupted to the core, and the goverment is facing an internal problem, recognized by Chávez himself, who already promised to purge his own ministeries.

10.- Term limitation. If he really do that, he will become a dictator like his praised mentor Fidel Castro. Yet those are now just words. (On opinions about Castro and Cuba, about the "Dreamland" that it is, please I just advise to go there first. I have been there and it is one of the most miserable places in earth).

11.- Do you know who is the main landowner of the country? Yes, you got it. The state. The goverment. Lands expropiations? some of them are fair, others don't. Yet there is still free land (yes, free, without owners) to be given to the people in need. Expropiations are an instrument of the goverment to punish those who stray off the line marked by them. For example, Chávez father is the owner of a large estate. No expropiations there.

12.- Social programmes were there before the Chávez administration, and will be there after him. They are the weapon of choice of demagogue and populist politicians around here to maintain popular support. Nothing new there.

I think I still have points left, but I have duties to attend right and cannot focus properly. If anyone have doubts, just ask me.

Quoted because it needs to be reiterated. Up until this post, it's been mostly "Chávez hates Bush so he must be teh shit." :rolleyes: Good to finally have someone who actually has to live under his regime here to comment on it.

And it's just good to see you back around these parts, Aelosia. Missed you. :)

Oh, by the way, the oil strike back in 2002 was caused by the firing of thousands of workers and managers to appoint political friends and collaborators on their posts. Not because he was a socialist or a leftist and all the people involved in the strike were members of a rotten elite payed by the US goverment to overthrow the goverment. As I have said before, adding grey tones to the usual black & white logic helps you to understand the venezuelan situation.


Really ?

My understanding was the while Chavez did fire 7 rebellious executives
of PDVSA in April 2002 and 12 more took early retirement due to the
month long strikes of the time as well as warning that any other workers
who continued leading such protests would be fired.

Then there was the coup in May

Then came December 2002 and appx 2 months of a strike
in an effort by PDVSA to shut down the countries oil revenue
in an attempt to force Chavez out as the coup had failed to do
and indeed he did fire 18,000 skilled PDVSA employees (90%
of its white collar workforce which was about 33% of total staff)
heavily involved in the strike, but that did not
happen until after they striked.

Are you saying the timings were different?

It is pleasant and valuable to have someone living in the country
to give their views, I'd hate to be under a false impression of the situation.


And no, not 6 years, 8 years. Dunlaoire, check your information on facts. Chávez first rise to power happened in 1998. You can hope for a change in 8 years.

Sorry about that one
You are of course absolutely right I had forgotten to include his first election 1998
which allowed him to bring in the constitution that was then voted in by referendum 1999
which was the platform on which he could then carry out his plans.
I made the mistake of only counting from the election after that in 2000.

Please accept my apologies for my unintentional error

(As usual, forgive my non native english grammar)

...
1.- Chávez didn't rigged the elections. He won fairly. OK there are some anomalies, but nothing too strange or definitive.

2.- Chávez is not a dictator, he is a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic.


I would have no issues with either of those points


3.- Poverty in Venezuela dropping 10 per cent? Check twice your sources, the economic indicators have gone nuts. Inflation is rising, and the index of extreme poverty population had a substantial increment.


http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf

I would tend to use that as my source, what do you use?


4.- If you think that Chávez is an excellent international leader because he fights against Bush, wondrous, elect him as the UN secretary or whatever you want. A President should be in chargeof internal politics first, and then his crusade against a particular ideology. Chávez has forgotten about his own people to just take tours around the world rallying the people against the "wild liberalism". Even during the campaign, he was absent for entire weeks.


How he speaks of Bush is neither here nor there, although one must
admit its refreshing to hear someone with the courage to be
less than polite. But when the US showed its colours during the coup
I suppose that level of lack of politeness doesn't generate
a great desire to be pleasant back, however he makes it clear
he has no dislike of the people of the United States just the
leadership of the criminal administration.

Internal politics is of course important but Venezuela has a place in
the world and the president is not wrong tomake that known.
Little was heard of Venezuela around the world before and it does deserve
better than that.


5.- His thugs are responsible for several political affiliated murders, but 90,000? that number is ridiculous. I dont think even Pinochet reached that number.


90,000 is ridiculous
How many do you assign to his "thugs" ?
What relationship do you hold he has with his "thugs".


6.- If you think that every Chávez opposer is member of a rotten elite, as some people is trying to say, think twice. Rosales got 4 millions of votes. Can you imagine an elite of 4 million people?. Pretty big for an elite, I could say.


About 25% of the electorate isn't it?
Wouldn't that be middle class and above?


In a country where
7.- Press freedoms are coerced. True, you don't killed by police men if you say something against the goverment, but yet goverment officials do not answer your questions, do not appear in any media that is not the goverment controlled ones, and you can get an occassional beating from the Chávez supporters if you find yourself in the wrong place. To get an idea, in 2002 we stopped using the vests and caps with the word "PRESS" over it because it helped shooters to aim at us first.


Given the support of the private media outlets for the coup
and in some cases showing cartoons rather than reporting on the
end of it, the fact they still broadcast at all shows remarkable restraint
from the government. Lack of access in such a situation is hardly
surprising, reporters and organisations have found themselves shut out
of whitehouse briefings for rather less than supporting the overthrow
of a democratically elected president, government and constitution.

I hope however that violence towards media even the highly biased kind
can be done away with. I guess there is still a long way to go.



8.- Insecurity is this country's first problem. The number of murders on an average weekend with guns in Caracas is higher than the death toll in Irak. No, no bullshit, no kidding. True. Talk about civil wars then. 180 deaths every friday night due to violent acts, mostly attempts of kidnap//murder/assault means almost civil war.


Truly horrendous gun death rates no question about that.
Hopefully the next 6 years will see that as a major focus of the government.
What would you say needs to be done to reduce it to anything
like acceptable levels (no deaths are acceptable but at least into line with
even the US would be an improvement)


9.- The police forces are corrupted to the core, and the goverment is facing an internal problem, recognized by Chávez himself, who already promised to purge his own ministeries.


Hopefully he will stick to it.
Will he get support or are the middle and higher echelons in society going
to continue to make the situation more difficult?


10.- Term limitation. If he really do that, he will become a dictator like his praised mentor Fidel Castro. Yet those are now just words. (On opinions about Castro and Cuba, about the "Dreamland" that it is, please I just advise to go there first. I have been there and it is one of the most miserable places in earth).

Two of the best things he did was bring in term limitations to the constitution
and include the recall possibility.
He needs to not try to change that even if he is so popular that people
clamour for it.
Even if he were a saint and was the best person who will ever be president
of Venezuela he must not set a precedent that less saintly or wonderful
future presidents might use for their own benefit.(nb he is of course
not a saint and while he might maybe in some peoples minds be the best to date
if Venezuela is lucky there will be better to follow)

Chavez running for a third term under this constitution would be letting
himself, his supporters and his country down.

Really ?

My understanding was the while Chavez did fire 7 rebellious executives
of PDVSA in April 2002 and 12 more took early retirement due to the
month long strikes of the time as well as warning that any other workers
who continued leading such protests would be fired.

Then there was the coup in May

Then came December 2002 and appx 2 months of a strike
in an effort by PDVSA to shut down the countries oil revenue
in an attempt to force Chavez out as the coup had failed to do
and indeed he did fire 18,000 skilled PDVSA employees (90%
of its white collar workforce which was about 33% of total staff)
heavily involved in the strike, but that did not
happen until after they striked.

Are you saying the timings were different?

It is pleasant and valuable to have someone living in the country
to give their views, I'd hate to be under a false impression of the situation.


You are really, but really wrong. The oil strike, and main general strike afterwards, started in 2001. After a horrible december and holidays, continued the next year, throwing the country in chaos due to the fact that neither the goverment or those who were opposing them refused to negotiate or relinquish their views. The final stage of that was the confusion created by the last march of April 11th. (No coup in May, what you can refer as a "coup" happened in April 11th. I don't know what are you talking about).

I was right there that day. A march protesting against the goverment decided to approach the presidential palace. Half way they met sniper fire from the buildings, and several Chávez's supporters ambushed the UNARMED CIVILIANS firing with handguns from hiding over a bridge. (there's a video of that).

People got crazy, and they dispersed. Unsurprisingly, the snipers took as favoured targets the journalists and the few police men present. I got a photographer shot in the head few steps away of my own cover, and one of the men of my team got injured in the chest. The identity of the snipers according the goverment is still unknown, but those that appear in the video received a presidential indult because they were "answering fire against the police, who were serving the traitors to the country". There you got.

Chávez ordered the main military command to issue a state of emergency, a curfew and the suspension of the constitutional guarantees, along with a plan that included to send tanks into the streets to disperse the march and any other public reunion. He got a NO, he didn't like it. Then most military high officers refused to follow his orders anymore.

He had a reunion with the Minister of Defense, who later declared that Chávez did resign to him during that reunion. The military took him to a safe base on an island, to decide what would happen to him. A quite trustworthy rumor says that he offered to leave to Cuba.

One of the leaders of the strike, a business man, Carmona Estanga, thought it was a good chance for him to rise to power, and called himself President, after securing support from certain generals that did not know what to do next they deposed the president. That proposal is rejected by most of the military commanders, the opposition parties and the community in general. Ch'avez's supporters then took the streets, and finally loyal generals reinstated Ch'avez in power.

Why it wasn't a coup? It wasn't organized. Back then, none of the military generals that staged the "coup" knew what to do next. They didn't want to place themselves in charge, as they believed that was precisely to give the general idea of a coup. Second, the guy that precisely told that Chávez had resigned, and started all the chaos, wasn't punished as the rest of the officials involved. He was telling the truth or not...But then why he wasn't punished by lying to the nation saying that he convinced Chávez of resigning?

It was a vacuum of power, with some opportunistic people getting a swing at biting more than they could chew. Precisely that failed because noone, Chavez follower or opposer, wanted a coup or some guy just getting into the seat. Most of the guys that opposed Chavez wanted new elections, not a seizure. The rest is propaganda.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf

I would tend to use that as my source, what do you use?

Eyes and ears usually are my best sources when talking about the situation in my country. The inflation and general depression of the economy also hits my own style of living. You can get UNESCO report too, if you really need something written about it that it's not in spanish. Just this year, the goverment announced a big reduction in inflation promising to keep it under 10%. It already reached 15%, and we still have december, the month with the most higher demand during the entire year, just to give an example.

Your numbers come directly from the INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, in other words, from the Chávez administration itself. No wonder they are fictional, goverments investing a lot in propaganda are not going to make up the papers a bit to look good.

How he speaks of Bush is neither here nor there, although one must admit its refreshing to hear someone with the courage to beless than polite. But when the US showed its colours during the coup I suppose that level of lack of politeness doesn't generate a great desire to be pleasant back, however he makes it clear
he has no dislike of the people of the United States just the
leadership of the criminal administration.

Internal politics is of course important but Venezuela has a place in
the world and the president is not wrong to make that known.
Little was heard of Venezuela around the world before and it does deserve
better than that.

I didn't see US officials around here April 11th. They might be involved perhaps behind the lines, and without doubt were dumb enough to recognize a goverment not even recognized by those who overthrew Chávez. But Chávez don't have proof of that, and like to use it as a weapon every time he can.

Venezuela has a place in the world, yes. That is why we have to spend trillions to gain support for a place in the UN Security Council after we were there recently, and we need that money for new houses, infrastructure and development of jobs? Please. When we reach social equality, development and a stable economy, then we can talk about being world leaders. Until then, we should focus on internal crisis, not international ones.

90,000 is ridiculous
How many do you assign to his "thugs" ?
What relationship do you hold he has with his "thugs".

At least 13 people on April's 11th. One guy killed at least 6 all by himself. Two others by gunmen who jumped out of a motorbike. I saw the guys with the red shirts firing. Those are the Chávez thugs. If he orders them around or they work all by themselves appeased and encouraged by Chávez administration line of thinking and lax justice, I don't know, I'm not in the cupola of power, but it is true that Chávez supporters have murdered people, and that is it.

About 25% of the electorate isn't it?
Wouldn't that be middle class and above?

40%, Rosales got 40 %. And do you think everyone that vote for Chávez is low class? I would be amazed if a goverment can sustain itself without not even one university and college graduate. A good part of the middle, and even the high class of this country votes for Chávez. And lots of people of the lower classes oppose him. the class war they are selling to you is not entirely true.

Given the support of the private media outlets for the coup and in some cases showing cartoons rather than reporting on the
end of it, the fact they still broadcast at all shows remarkable restraint
from the government. Lack of access in such a situation is hardly
surprising, reporters and organisations have found themselves shut out
of whitehouse briefings for rather less than supporting the overthrow
of a democratically elected president, government and constitution.

I hope however that violence towards media even the highly biased kind
can be done away with. I guess there is still a long way to go.

We didn't supported the coup. We supported him out of the office, but not a coup or an authoritorial seizure. We hoped for the vice-president to take the charge until new elections could appoint a new ruler. An entirely different thing, don't you think? Didn't happen. The main issue with Chávez is that the private media disobeyed the order of transmit a national compulsory broadcasting when Chávez supporters were firing against a mass of unarmed civilians out in the street. I would do it again, and again, if I could go back in time. That was censorship of a crisis, and the people deserved better.


Truly horrendous gun death rates no question about that. Hopefully the next 6 years will see that as a major focus of the government.
What would you say needs to be done to reduce it to anything
like acceptable levels (no deaths are acceptable but at least into line with
even the US would be an improvement)

I cannot see how. He hasn't improved it in eight years, so I don't expect an improvement for the next six. Actually, every month that pass it gets worst, and he refuses to comment on the issue.

Hopefully he will stick to it.
Will he get support or are the middle and higher echelons in society going
to continue to make the situation more difficult?

Still in the class war speech, don't you? I cannot see how said sectors of society can "make it difficult" for a goverment that holds every instance of power, in any case.

Two of the best things he did was bring in term limitations to the constitution
and include the recall possibility.
He needs to not try to change that even if he is so popular that people
clamour for it.
Even if he were a saint and was the best person who will ever be president
of Venezuela he must not set a precedent that less saintly or wonderful
future presidents might use for their own benefit.(nb he is of course
not a saint and while he might maybe in some peoples minds be the best to date
if Venezuela is lucky there will be better to follow)

Before him the term limitation was five years, he didn't bring it in, but raised it to six, and has been in power for eight taking advantage of a constitutional loophole. In the end, he will rule for 14 years in a country with presidential periods of 6. My math works and I cannot see how is that possible and legal at the same time.

Half way they met sniper fire from the buildings, and several Chávez's supporters ambushed the UNARMED CIVILIANS firing with handguns from hiding over a bridge. (there's a video of that).

If you've actually looked at the pictures, you might have noticed that the people who were shooting were ducking.

Why? Probably because they were being shot at.

If you've actually looked at the pictures, you might have noticed that the people who were shooting were ducking.

Why? Probably because they were being shot at.

I looked at them from afar, looked at pictures and looked at the video.

They started ducking like ten minutes after they started firing. Guess who started firing at them? The Police. Guess why? Because they fired at the police. If you can find me a place in the world where you can open fire against the police and the police don't fire back at you, congratulations.

The police didn't know what to do, back then too, they were surprised, hopefully they managed to take the wounded and the lost children and the like out. They fired back?, of course they did. In front of me one fired back to cover us while we left the street. Did that become a shootout minutes later?, of course it did.

You are really, but really wrong. The oil strike, and main general strike afterwards, started in 2001. After a horrible december and holidays, continued the next year, throwing the country in chaos due to the fact that neither the goverment or those who were opposing them refused to negotiate or relinquish their views. The final stage of that was the confusion created by the last march of April 11th. (No coup in May, what you can refer as a "coup" happened in April 11th. I don't know what are you talking about).

I was right there that day. A march protesting against the goverment decided to approach the presidential palace. Half way they met sniper fire from the buildings, and several Chávez's supporters ambushed the UNARMED CIVILIANS firing with handguns from hiding over a bridge. (there's a video of that).

People got crazy, and they dispersed. Unsurprisingly, the snipers took as favoured targets the journalists and the few police men present. I got a photographer shot in the head few steps away of my own cover, and one of the men of my team got injured in the chest. The identity of the snipers according the goverment is still unknown, but those that appear in the video received a presidential indult because they were "answering fire against the police, who were serving the traitors to the country". There you got.

Chávez ordered the main military command to issue a state of emergency, a curfew and the suspension of the constitutional guarantees, along with a plan that included to send tanks into the streets to disperse the march and any other public reunion. He got a NO, he didn't like it. Then most military high officers refused to follow his orders anymore.

He had a reunion with the Minister of Defense, who later declared that Chávez did resign to him during that reunion. The military took him to a safe base on an island, to decide what would happen to him. A quite trustworthy rumor says that he offered to leave to Cuba.

One of the leaders of the strike, a business man, Carmona Estanga, thought it was a good chance for him to rise to power, and called himself President, after securing support from certain generals that did not know what to do next they deposed the president. That proposal is rejected by most of the military commanders, the opposition parties and the community in general. Ch'avez's supporters then took the streets, and finally loyal generals reinstated Ch'avez in power.

Why it wasn't a coup? It wasn't organized. Back then, none of the military generals that staged the "coup" knew what to do next. They didn't want to place themselves in charge, as they believed that was precisely to give the general idea of a coup. Second, the guy that precisely told that Chávez had resigned, and started all the chaos, wasn't punished as the rest of the officials involved. He was telling the truth or not...But then why he wasn't punished by lying to the nation saying that he convinced Chávez of resigning?

It was a vacuum of power, with some opportunistic people getting a swing at biting more than they could chew. Precisely that failed because noone, Chavez follower or opposer, wanted a coup or some guy just getting into the seat. Most of the guys that opposed Chavez wanted new elections, not a seizure. The rest is propaganda.

Gods I always embarass myself with minor errors don't I.
Of course the coup was in April

I didn't say there weren't strikes before december 2002
merely that the one that did start in December 2002
went on for appx 2 months until Feb 2003
and it was after that strike began that thousands of people were fired.
I did point out that 7 executives had been fired and others took
early retirement (no doubt with some encouragement) after the strikes that
came before the time of the coup.

My sources for that have been
NEW YORK TIMES, Business, March 11, 2004
Thursday, Oct 19, 2006
Robert Collier - San Francisco Chronicle
I can find no source that places the firing of the 18,000
whether approving or believing it shows Chavez as a disaster
earlier than that December 2002 strike.

I would be happy to look at any sources you can point me to.

As for the coup/non coup

It is interesting though that while the US originally claimed to have nothing
to do with the coup or know about it in advance;
documents were obtained showing that they had prior information
and in response to those documents
the spokesperson for the State Department said that the U.S. government had warned president Chavez about a possible coup and assassination attempt before it happened

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,,688153,00.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/29/1448220

Which really begs the question of how anyone could have prior knowledge
if it wasnt organised?


I also find it a little unconvincing that
"Chávez ordered the main military command to issue a state of emergency, a curfew and the suspension of the constitutional guarantees"
(the same constitution he himself brought in)", along with a plan that included to send tanks into the streets to disperse the march and any other public reunion.
He got a NO, he didn't like it. Then most military high officers refused to follow his orders anymore."
But then promptly put Carmona (one of the organisers of the strike
begun on 9/4) in power who with the Carmona decree
quickly moved to suspend the constitution, and the national assembly
and effectively assuming dictatorial powers.
There were over 400 signatories to that document
its an awful lot to get within 24 hours after an unplanned coup.

Even on sources with strong anti chavez bias I have found none
that present the events on 11/4 as you have stated them.
Of course I can't read castillian which means there are probably many
sites I would not find. But if you could point me in the direction
I'd be glad to take a look via the blurry lens of babelfish.

Eyes and ears usually are my best sources when talking about the situation in my country. The inflation and general depression of the economy also hits my own style of living. You can get UNESCO report too, if you really need something written about it that it's not in spanish. Just this year, the goverment announced a big reduction in inflation promising to keep it under 10%. It already reached 15%, and we still have december, the month with the most higher demand during the entire year, just to give an example.

Many things affect inflation, high growth rates for instance or
falling unemployment, high spending.
15% is definitely on the high side though so I do hope you all can
get to grips with it.




Your numbers come directly from the INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, in other words, from the Chávez administration itself. No wonder they are fictional, goverments investing a lot in propaganda are not going to make up the papers a bit to look good.


Government numbers do tend to come from governments, its funny that way.
The previous numbers came from the previous governments too.
The link I gave however was to the analysis of those figures
by the
Centre for Economics and Policy Research
based in
Washington, DC.
Which I believe is a fairly well respected by everyone.


I didn't see US officials around here April 11th. They might be involved perhaps behind the lines, and without doubt were dumb enough to recognize a goverment not even recognized by those who overthrew Chávez. But Chávez don't have proof of that, and like to use it as a weapon every time he can.


Tell me truthfully, if it had been you or even a president you supported
would you have the slightest doubt that the only country in the world
to recognise the coup leaders as legitimate, which is known to have interfered
with the governments of many countries in the past,
which had shown antagonism to said president and his policies
probably had some involvement.


Venezuela has a place in the world, yes. That is why we have to spend trillions to gain support for a place in the UN Security Council after we were there recently, and we need that money for new houses, infrastructure and development of jobs? Please. When we reach social equality, development and a stable economy, then we can talk about being world leaders. Until then, we should focus on internal crisis, not international ones.


If the country isn't to fall back to the state it was in before Chavez
came to power, it needs to have made its place.
Maybe going for the security council seat is a mistake, maybe
the fact the US opposes it makes it seem all the more desirable.


At least 13 people on April's 11th. One guy killed at least 6 all by himself. Two others by gunmen who jumped out of a motorbike. I saw the guys with the red shirts firing. Those are the Chávez thugs. If he orders them around or they work all by themselves appeased and encouraged by Chávez administration line of thinking and lax justice, I don't know, I'm not in the cupola of power, but it is true that Chávez supporters have murdered people, and that is it.


Were all the people who died on 11/4 anti chavez ?
Any idea how many people died on the 12/4?

I'm one of those people who think every death is a bad thing, not
just of the people I support or the people I believe are doing what
is right.



40%, Rosales got 40 %. And do you think everyone that vote for Chávez is low class? I would be amazed if a goverment can sustain itself without not even one university and college graduate. A good part of the middle, and even the high class of this country votes for Chávez. And lots of people of the lower classes oppose him. the class war they are selling to you is not entirely true.

Rosales got 40% of those who voted in a turnout of 62%
Total Electorate is what? about 15.9 million
Rosales got 3.7million votes (you said 4 million) so lets go with 4
4 million is about 25% of 15.9 million no?
Which is what I said! 25% of the electorate

Its a little hard to buy that there isnt a pretty major class war issue
when its the leaders of the chambers of commerce
who organise strikes and get instated as leaders after a coup.
Chambers of commerce rarely organise strikes in other countries,
they're generally considered bad for business so business people don't like them.



We didn't supported the coup. We supported him out of the office, but not a coup or an authoritorial seizure. We hoped for the vice-president to take the charge until new elections could appoint a new ruler. An entirely different thing, don't you think? Didn't happen. The main issue with Chávez is that the private media disobeyed the order of transmit a national compulsory broadcasting when Chávez supporters were firing against a mass of unarmed civilians out in the street. I would do it again, and again, if I could go back in time. That was censorship of a crisis, and the people deserved better.


The coup itself of course not being a crisis
so much so that there was no need to report on it ending?



Still in the class war speech, don't you? I cannot see how said sectors of society can "make it difficult" for a goverment that holds every instance of power, in any case.

More difficult for them now than before he replaced them in the pdvsa.
Being able to shut down the nations principle source of income and plunging
the country into a recession was an immense amount of power.
No country would have tolerated that
you can see that can't you?



Before him the term limitation was five years, he
raised it to six, and has been in power for eight taking advantage of a constitutional loophole. In the end, he will rule for 14 years in a country with presidential periods of 6. My math works and I cannot see how is that possible and legal at the same time.

The length of the term was 5 years and he did indeed change the length
of the term to 6 years. But there had been no limitation on the NUMBER
of terms a president could have until the bolivarian constitution.
Which is what I was saying.

He was elected in 1998, brought in the new constitution
with the change to the length of the term
and limiting the number of terms to two
The constitution passed in referendum in 1999 he then stood
in 2000 under the terms of the new constitution.
He probably could have served out the
5 year term before running for election again
that election coming under the terms of the new constitution.
But the constitution he was elected on was no more, that one which had no limit on the
number of terms you could serve,
so he stood on the new one, as someone with democratic
principles would.
But you already know that, because I know you are not stupid and it
is your country and your government and your constitution.
Which should make people wonder why you would put it as if it's
some kind of dodgy dealing.

I didn't say there weren't strikes before december 2002
merely that the one that did start in December 2002
went on for appx 2 months until Feb 2003
and it was after that strike began that thousands of people were fired.
I did point out that 7 executives had been fired and others took
early retirement (no doubt with some encouragement) after the strikes that
came before the time of the coup.

The one that started in DECEMBER 2001, before what happened in April 2002. Those same executives were in accord with the Chávez administration. Remember that PDVSA is, and was back then, a goverment company. The goverment reserves the right to appoint high executives. Nothing wrong there. The problem happened in the middle management sector, and the blue collar workers were sympathetic with their claims of being fired without any warning or reason.


I would be happy to look at any sources you can point me to.

www.abn.info.ve
www.eud.com
www.el-nacional.com
www.unionradio.net

Just to name a few. Again, a visit to this country would be good for you, if you really want to create yourself an objetive view. No source is better than first source, we journalist say.


As for the coup/non coup

It is interesting though that while the US originally claimed to have nothing
to do with the coup or know about it in advance;
documents were obtained showing that they had prior information
and in response to those documents
the spokesperson for the State Department said that the U.S. government had warned president Chavez about a possible coup and assassination attempt before it happened

I didn't deny USA involvement, I said I had no proofs about it. About suspicions, well, I already told you that perhaps they encouraged Carmona to do the stupid thing he did.

I also find it a little unconvincing that
"Chávez ordered the main military command to issue a state of emergency, a curfew and the suspension of the constitutional guarantees"
(the same constitution he himself brought in)", along with a plan that included to send tanks into the streets to disperse the march and any other public reunion.
He got a NO, he didn't like it. Then most military high officers refused to follow his orders anymore."
But then promptly put Carmona (one of the organisers of the strike
begun on 9/4) in power who with the Carmona decree
quickly moved to suspend the constitution, and the national assembly
and effectively assuming dictatorial powers.
There were over 400 signatories to that document
its an awful lot to get within 24 hours after an unplanned coup.[QUOTE=Dunlaoire;12047928]

Here the goverment reserves the right to do the suspension of the rights and guarantees stated in the constitution in times of crisis. Even your "own" constitution. He planned on do such a thing back then. It wouldn't be the first time a goverment did that, it happened before in 1989 and in 1992. Most sectors of the population, supporters and opposers, didn't agree with that.

Noone put Carmona in power, he appointed himself, with the aid of his own supporters, (and perhaps the US goverment) but the same military commanders that asked for Chávez's resign didn't support Carmona.

We were more than 1000 people gathered in the presidential palace that day. 400 people went with the decree, more people didn't. I was there, and I didn't sign the thing, I said it was anti constitutional, as most people there did. However, both the decree and the appoint of Carmona was a surprise for all present, that wasn't in the plans, because at least for the most, there was no "plan". If Carmona had his agenda, well, that doesn't mean the rest of the people did.

[QUOTE=Dunlaoire;12047928]Even on sources with strong anti chavez bias I have found none
that present the events on 11/4 as you have stated them.
Of course I can't read castillian which means there are probably many
sites I would not find. But if you could point me in the direction
I'd be glad to take a look via the blurry lens of babelfish.

Check the same archives of the sites I linked you to, I tried to be quite...fair selecting them, those are newspapers and news services, not entirely PRO or AGAINST the goverment. The news that reach outside are pretty biased, pro or contra the goverment. They reduce the situation here to "Do you like the USA or not?", which enrages me quite a bit.

Many things affect inflation, high growth rates for instance or
falling unemployment, high spending.
15% is definitely on the high side though so I do hope you all can
get to grips with it.

The wages haven't improved more than 10 percent. That means we have lost a standard of living more or less equivalent to 5 percent. Well, we that earn wages, the higher echelons of society do not depend on wages, so they don't suffer the same as the middle and lower classes. Every month everything is more expensive, and yet we keep earning the same amount of money.

The main point is that the goverment is hardly capable of fulfill their own promises. Plus, with the oil prices so high, we expected something a lot better. Remember, the Chávez administration has received more revenues due to oil exports than any goverment before this one, and yet the economy doesn't seem to be improving. Can you imagine how would we live with the oil prices at 7$?


Government numbers do tend to come from governments, its funny that way.
The previous numbers came from the previous governments too.
The link I gave however was to the analysis of those figures
by the
Centre for Economics and Policy Research
based in
Washington, DC.
Which I believe is a fairly well respected by everyone.

I usually don't believe the numbers spawned by my goverment, really. The bolívar value, for example, it's a proof of why. I didn't contest the analysis per se, but the credibility of the data it's based on.


Tell me truthfully, if it had been you or even a president you supported
would you have the slightest doubt that the only country in the world
to recognise the coup leaders as legitimate, which is known to have interfered
with the governments of many countries in the past,
which had shown antagonism to said president and his policies
probably had some involvement.

I already said I don't deny the US goverment involvement, I said I had no proofs of that.

If the country isn't to fall back to the state it was in before Chavez
came to power, it needs to have made its place.
Maybe going for the security council seat is a mistake, maybe
the fact the US opposes it makes it seem all the more desirable.

Is then our duty to oppose the US goverment, we as people? I think there are countries in better shape that can do that job, meanwhile we fix our deep internal crisis.


Were all the people who died on 11/4 anti chavez ?
Any idea how many people died on the 12/4?

No. 24 were opposers, 9 were supporters.

13/4, I think you were referring. And no, I was sleeping that day after more of 48 hours of continous work (thus I wasn't in the streets), and the goverment does not want to disclose said information, Why?, I don't know.

And yes, every death is a bad thing, not just of the people I do support. Although I think that the death of someone armed and firing during a shootout is a bit more logical than someone with a camera in hand, or waving a flag.


Rosales got 40% of those who voted in a turnout of 62%
Total Electorate is what? about 15.9 million
Rosales got 3.7million votes (you said 4 million) so lets go with 4
4 million is about 25% of 15.9 million no?
Which is what I said! 25% of the electorate

More or less, Chávez got 6 million votes, and Rosales got 4 millions, overall a difference of 61% against 39%. 25 % of abstention. Those are aproximates of the official numbers. Want to check them yourself?

www.cne.gov.ve


Its a little hard to buy that there isnt a pretty major class war issue
when its the leaders of the chambers of commerce
who organise strikes and get instated as leaders after a coup.
Chambers of commerce rarely organise strikes in other countries,
they're generally considered bad for business so business people don't like them.

The last big strike was in 2002, FOUR years ago, the chamber of commerce was pretty disbanded and lost power after his president, the infamous Carmona, tried to seize power in an inconstitutional move. A divided society?, yes. A Class war?, no. This december elections proved otherwise. Chávez himself recognized that in his last speechs. I cannot see why you can't do the same.


The coup itself of course not being a crisis
so much so that there was no need to report on it ending?

Everyone reported the retun of Chávez to the presidency. News agencies and broadcasting stations were occupied by military personnel. Do you really think the end wasn't reported? Everything was reported.




The length of the term was 5 years and he did indeed change the length
of the term to 6 years. But there had been no limitation on the NUMBER
of terms a president could have until the bolivarian constitution.
Which is what I was saying.

Before Chávez, the constitution stated thee were NO instant reelection for two consecutive terms. You have a lack of information in that part. Chávez is the first president since the arrival of democracy that serves two consecutive terms, thanks to what the constitution says now.


He was elected in 1998, brought in the new constitution
with the change to the length of the term
and limiting the number of terms to two
The constitution passed in referendum in 1999 he then stood
in 2000 under the terms of the new constitution.
He probably could have served out the
5 year term before running for election again
that election coming under the terms of the new constitution.
But the constitution he was elected on was no more, that one which had no limit on the
number of terms you could serve,
so he stood on the new one, as someone with democratic
principles would.
But you already know that, because I know you are not stupid and it
is your country and your government and your constitution.
Which should make people wonder why you would put it as if it's
some kind of dodgy dealing.

The dodgy dealing enters when you realize that if he gets elected, and then changes the constitution, he can extend his period several times. Guess what?, they're reforming the constitution next year, and they're going to extend Chávez rule further than 2013. Do you know who was the opposing candidate back then in 2000? Another military buddy of Chávez, who is now the ambassador of Venezuela to the UN. Pretty fair, that election, I would say, the internal election of the Chávez party. It is legal?, yes, as you write the laws? It is really legitimate?, perhaps, as the people of this country to not have the ability to realize what is happening.It is fair?, I don't think so. It is usually called a "continuity manouver".

As I said, old constitution didn't allow a president to run for reelection. you have a confusion over there. with the new, (and the new, and the new, and the new reform every time he gets elected) you can run forever.

You (....)propaganda.

i went through this point by point before and it was bollocks. However


I was right there that day. A march protesting against the goverment decided to approach the presidential palace. Half way they met sniper fire from the buildings, and several Chávez's supporters ambushed the UNARMED CIVILIANS firing with handguns from hiding over a bridge. (there's a video of that)..

Had you been there as you claim, you would have known that there was nobody below that bridge, and that the Chavez supporters were firing at the buildings where the snipers were located. The Snipers were firing at the Chavez supporters. The full and unedited footage shows this quite clearly. Thanks for confirming that you are in fact not a "concerned citizen" but a propogandist for the people ready to sup with the devil to depose Chavez.

If you've actually looked at the pictures, you might have noticed that the people who were shooting were ducking.

Why? Probably because they were being shot at.

Quite true, and according to those I've talked to who were there, thats what happened - regardless of what one thinks of Chavez.

Had you been there as you claim, you would have known that there was nobody below that bridge, and that the Chavez supporters were firing at the buildings where the snipers were located. The Snipers were firing at the Chavez supporters. The full and unedited footage shows this quite clearly. Thanks for confirming that you are in fact not a "concerned citizen" but a propogandist for the people ready to sup with the devil to depose Chavez.

The snipers were behind the Chávez supporters, inside buildings, and the men firing were aiming down. You don't aim down when firing at buildings, wonderful use of logic. I think the one that has a clear agenda here is you.

I was there, you wasn't. You are here defending a particular ideology, I am not. I am not even trying to say that those men were ordered by Chávez to do what they did. I am just stating that "Chávez supporters, clearly identified as such, opened fire against an unarmed group of civilians and against the police escorting them", that is all I know, and that I will keep defending forever. You are the one trying to sustain suspicions based on your own beliefs. I don't even know who the hidden snipers were. Perhaps they were US marines, who knows? The point is that noone even knows who they were, not me, not you, and not even our goverment.

The firing men were not "below" the bridge, but over it. And firing at people approaching the avenue that passes under the bridge, and at the police escorting said people.

And yes, for sure I am a steadfast Bush supporter, as I have shown in other threads. Sure, I love the US, and I am being sacastic, in case you misunderstood that part. For people like you the venezuelan situation degenerates into a fight regarding the international policy of the US, and not about the internal strife we live in.

In your video, taken five minutes after the shootout started, there is noone in the street. Of course. Unarmed people tend to run or look for cover in the corners when a firefight starts, except the police, and the Chávez's supporters, who are armed and willing to continue said firing.

The full and unedited footage taken from us by the goverment and then "showed" properly. Yeah, of course. I didn't imagined it. Should the CIA would be paying me for spreading lies, I would be richer, and I wouldn't be complaining that much, don't you think?

I don't know from where your agenda come from, although.

And you haven't talked with anyone around here. You have already showed that plenty of times. It's awesome your ability to pull out things out of your creativity to support your own claims over the matter. You don't even know common knowledge of this country, not even by googling.

The snipers were behind the Chávez supporters, inside buildings, and the men firing were aiming down. You don't aim down when firing at buildings, wonderful use of logic. I think the one that has a clear agenda here is you.

I was there, you wasn't. You are here defending a particular ideology, I am not. I am not even trying to say that those men were ordered by Chávez to do what they did. I am just stating that "Chávez supporters, clearly identified as such, opened fire against an unarmed group of civilians and against the police escorting them", that is all I know, and that I will keep defending forever. You are the one trying to sustain suspicions based on your own beliefs. I don't even know who the hidden snipers were. Perhaps they were US marines, who knows? The point is that noone even knows who they were, not me, not you, and not even our goverment.

The firing men were not "below" the bridge, but over it. And firing at people approaching the avenue that passes under the bridge, and at the police escorting said people.

And yes, for sure I am a steadfast Bush supporter, as I have shown in other threads. Sure, I love the US, and I am being sacastic, in case you misunderstood that part. For people like you the venezuelan situation degenerates into a fight regarding the international policy of the US, and not about the internal strife we live in.

In your video, taken five minutes after the shootout started, there is noone in the street. Of course. Unarmed people tend to run or look for cover in the corners when a firefight starts, except the police, and the Chávez's supporters, who are armed and willing to continue said firing.

The full and unedited footage taken from us by the goverment and then "showed" properly. Yeah, of course. I didn't imagined it. Should the CIA would be paying me for spreading lies, I would be richer, and I wouldn't be complaining that much, don't you think?

I don't know from where your agenda come from, although.

And you haven't talked with anyone around here. You have already showed that plenty of times. It's awesome your ability to pull out things out of your creativity to support your own claims over the matter. You don't even know common knowledge of this country, not even by googling.

Which all goes to show again that (a) you're lying and (b) you're one of those prepared to go any lengths to get rid of Chavez. Hopefully you arent the type that would approve of death squads, but given the way you have skirted the issue of who killed the man investigating the coup, even thats not beyond the bounds of possibilty.

Given the fact that you love the circus of "You are lying no matter what", and given the fact that I don't, and I have been already there and I don't want to start again, I don't think I will keep arguing with you. I will answer any other posts, but not yours. It's tiresome to see that someone miles away from the place the discussion is about, seems to hold every answer for what happened, just because he reads things in the internet, and call a liar to anyone who seems to disagree with him, even as said person has more contact with the subject. Sad.

Given the fact that you love the circus of "You are lying no matter what", and given the fact that I don't, and I have been already there and I don't want to start again, I don't think I will keep arguing with you. I will answer any other posts, but not yours. It's tiresome to see that someone miles away from the place the discussion is about, seems to hold every answer for what happened, just because he reads things in the internet, and call a liar to anyone who seems to disagree with him, even as said person has more contact with the subject. Sad.

......which of course presumes that I've had "no contact with the subject".

Nor do I "call a liar to anyone who seems to disagree".

You've never addressed the assasination of the man investigating the coup attempt on any occassion I've brought it up so being officially ignored only clairifies a pre-existing arrangement.

You'll also find that the unedited footage backs up entirely the version thats in direct opposition to yours.

......which of course presumes that I've had "no contact with the subject".

Nor do I "call a liar to anyone who seems to disagree".

You've never addressed the assasination of the man investigating the coup attempt on any occassion I've brought it up so being officially ignored only clairifies a pre-existing arrangement.

You'll also find that the unedited footage backs up entirely the version thats in direct opposition to yours.

I don't know, I think the Chávez administration ignores said case on purpose, after being unable to solve it in all these years.

I already answered to your question in the other thread when you asked about Danilo Anderson's case (see?, I know his name, you don't even know it, refering to him as the "prosecutor", when that word is merely a simile to his former title). If you didn't see it, your fault.

The link to my response is in this thread...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509858&page=3

Where you asked for it, not here, as usual, you are talking rubbish.

Oh, and I gave my opinion there, as you asked for it. If you wanted your opinion written by me it is another matter.

The one that started in DECEMBER 2001, before what happened in April 2002. Those same executives were in accord with the Chávez administration. Remember that PDVSA is, and was back then, a goverment company. The goverment reserves the right to appoint high executives. Nothing wrong there. The problem happened in the middle management sector, and the blue collar workers were sympathetic with their claims of being fired without any warning or reason.

This discussion we are having about the timings of strikes is only relevant
because you have informed us
"Oh, by the way, the oil strike back in 2002 was caused by the firing of thousands of workers and managers to appoint political friends and collaborators on their posts. ..."

There are so many strikes from back then it is hard to choose, you say the one in December
2001 was the one you were referring to when you made your statement about
thousands of workers having been fired. But it was my understanding that that one was
in objection to the 49 laws passed in november 2001.

An indefinite strike was called on 9/4/2002 (please correct me
if I am inaccurate here I do hate getting my dates wrong and you know
it does happen all too often)
on 11/4/2002 pro Chavez and anti Chavez marches clashed ,
snipers killed people and many were injured
on 12/4/2002 what most people would call a coup took place
and one of the organisers of the strike was named head of the transitional government.

That is the strike that I believed you were referring to when you
said the firing of thousands of workers had prompted it, because while
as far as I can tell only executives were fired at that time, at least people
had been fired.

But as far as I can tell while of course there were very many strikes from
2001 through 2002 before and after the coup with the last one in 2002
starting in december 2002, I have no information from any source
that shows thousands of workers being fired before that December
2002 strike, whatever your opinions of the firing of 18,000 workers are.


It may simply be a translation problem,
your english being vastly better than my nonexistent
spanish but still not being your first language.
But, unless you can show there were thousands of workers fired
before the start of the December 2002 strike then the statement you
made about any strike in 2002 being caused by the firing of thousands
of workers really should be withdrawn.

Perhaps you meant to say that thousands of workers stayed home from work and
later striked due to the firing of
7 executives and what can presumably only be the forced
early retirement of 12 other executives in April 2002.

But perhaps what I have looked to has been incorrect after
all,
there are presumably many that I cannot find and if you can just
point me in the direction of any news report that shows that thousands
were fired from pdvsa before April 9 2002 I would be obliged.


For all I know there may even be on the sites you have kindly provided
and soon as I have some time to search them I will discover that
the other sites have been in error.

Many thanks for providing them btw


www.abn.info.ve
www.eud.com
www.el-nacional.com
www.unionradio.net

Just to name a few. Again, a visit to this country would be good for you, if you really want to create yourself an objetive view. No source is better than first source, we journalist say.