NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Still think he's not trying to establish a dictatorship? :rolleyes:

Well, you can kiss democracy goodbye in Venezuela for a while...I feel sorry for that country, because once it slides in to dictatorship their hopes of a better life are going to be destroyed by repression and corruption. I never trusted Chavez from day one, and now it looks like my fears are coming true.

I like this bit the most:
"there will always be opponents, and especially when they know that these laws will deepen the revolution".

I see the newspeak is already starting to settle in. It's always for the "revolution"...and that means the black ravens are going to be making their rounds soon enough.

*sighs* Terffic.

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.

And do you honestly think there would be a difference? State control of the economy is only an excuse for the political mafia to get their share of the nation's wealth.

Honestly, as bad as Bush is he's nowhere near as bad as Chavez. Bush is weakened and is nothing more than a lame-duck president now...unlike the president of Venezuela, who now has a blank check for dictatorship.

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.

Sounds like a Marxist paradise.. plane tickets to Venezuela must be selling like hotcakes, right? :D Mass exodus from Manhattan and San Francisco, I can see it now! Hope it goes better than that whole "Jonestown" thing. :)

Still think he's not trying to establish a dictatorship? :rolleyes:
yep. I'd argue it's more a good-ol' fashioned Dark Ages feudal monarchy he's wanting to set up. King's usually issue decrees, whereas dictators just give orders.

If not a monarchy, then perhaps a theocracy. All hail Lord Chavez!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Still think he's not trying to establish a dictatorship? :rolleyes:


Hey, its his nation, He can do whatever he wants too.

Sounds like a Marxist paradise.. plane tickets to Venezuela must be selling like hotcakes, right? :D Mass exodus from Manhattan and San Francisco, I can see it now! Hope it goes better than that whole "Jonestown" thing. :)
My, but what a lovely person you are. People who don't agree with your narrow political views you wish them to kill themselves.
You must have lots of friends.

Dictatorship of the workers you mean.

Yes, where the workers are slaves producing wealth for the corrupt party officials...we've seen that before in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc. State owned economies are nothing more than cesspools of corruption and poverty, and it looks like Venezuela is sinking once again.

Honestly, what does the West and in particular the US expect. You support murderous bloody tyrants in their country, rape their national resources, keep their population poor and interfere constantly in their politics, and then your gravely surprised when they vote for the socialist? .... Please, get over yourselves.

This kind of socialism is dead; it has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and it will fail here. State socialism is nothing more than a totalitarian ruse where everyone is subjected to poverty and repression while the elites of the society enrich themselves off of the nation's hard work.

And do you honestly think there would be a difference? State control of the economy is only an excuse for the political mafia to get their share of the nation's wealth.

Honestly, as bad as Bush is he's nowhere near as bad as Chavez. Bush is weakened and is nothing more than a lame-duck president now...unlike the president of Venezuela, who now has a blank check for dictatorship.

Dictatorship of the workers you mean.

Honestly, what does the West and in particular the US expect. You support murderous bloody tyrants in their country, rape their national resources, keep their population poor and interfere constantly in their politics, and then your gravely surprised when they vote for the socialist? .... Please, get over yourselves.

yep. I'd argue it's more a good-ol' fashioned Dark Ages feudal monarchy he's wanting to set up. .

though considering the decrees he seems to want to make amount to the abolishment of the actual feudalism that has until recently been in operation in his country, perhaps not.

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.

Proably the only dictatorship on the planet where the "dictator's" party can lose control of the legislature in a free election. Try a little harder next time, maybe somebody will else will confuse your delusions with reality as badly as you have.:rolleyes:

Point 1: Before Americans get off criticizing Chavez; and I say Americans specifically because we tend to be the most arrogant when throwing "democracy" around, they should think before they speak. Just look at the sheisters we have living in OUR White House, criminals, corporate whores, sellouts of all shades and stripes. The "holier than thou" superiority crap is so 1988...

Point 2: While I can understand where Chavez is coming from by taking control of Venezuelan interests from foreign corporations, and the fact that he is trying to shift power from the business elite to the masses, you must not forget that...

Point 3: ...in doing so he is setting himself up as an absolute ruler, and not doing a very good job of it at that. Very rarely do nationalized industries work, most times they end up broken down pieces of antiquated machinery due to corruption and internal profiteering, of which the workers will see none. Taking cues from dinosaurs such as Fidel Castro and mountain yokels like Bolivias Evo Morales is not the smartest thing to do. He should realize that he will end up pissing off not just the US, but all governments with serious investments in the Orinoco fields (UK, Canada, Mexico, etc.) I hope he has a plan B once the nations bank vaults are empty.

In the end, Venezuela will continue to lack an even middle class and the economy will suffer all the more. The rich will get richer and the poor wil stay poor. Just another re-run in the sitcom that is South America.

Nice job avoiding my point of what the US has done in SA. Socialism is not dead, I mean do you think the US or anywhere else in the world are perfect examples of democracy, I don't think so. The US is nothing but survival of the richest. Scandinavian State Welfare Socialism has had a remarkable impact on the lives of many millions.

The US do not care one bit about the people of SA, they care about their oil and gas companies having monopoly to rape and pillage their national resources, keeping the populace poor and docile.

It's time for these nations to take back what is rightfully theres, and destroy US corporate imperialism!

Viva La revolucion!

Yes, where the workers are slaves producing wealth for the corrupt party officials...we've seen that before in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc. State owned economies are nothing more than cesspools of corruption and poverty, and it looks like Venezuela is sinking once again.



This kind of socialism is dead; it has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and it will fail here. State socialism is nothing more than a totalitarian ruse where everyone is subjected to poverty and repression while the elites of the society enrich themselves off of the nation's hard work.
Nice job avoiding my point of what the US has done in SA. Socialism is not dead, I mean do you think the US or anywhere else in the world are perfect examples of democracy, I don't think so. The US is nothing but survival of the richest. Scandinavian State Welfare Socialism has had a remarkable impact on the lives of many millions.

The US do not care one bit about the people of SA, they care about their oil and gas companies having monopoly to rape and pillage their national resources, keeping the populace poor and docile.

It's time for these nations to take back what is rightfully theres, and destroy US corporate imperialism!

Point 1: Before Americans get off criticizing Chavez; and I say Americans specifically because we tend to be the most arrogant when throwing "democracy" around, they should think before they speak. Just look at the sheisters we have living in OUR White House, criminals, corporate whores, sellouts of all shades and stripes. The "holier than thou" superiority crap is so 1988...

Point 2: While I can understand where Chavez is coming from by taking control of Venezuelan interests from foreign corporations, and the fact that he is trying to shift power from the business elite to the masses, you must not forget that...


QFT 100%.

Yay leading the people of Venezuela to ruin!

I wonder how large El Presidente's private Swiss bank account has gotten these past few years.

Nice job avoiding my point of what the US has done in SA. Socialism is not dead, I mean do you think the US or anywhere else in the world are perfect examples of democracy, I don't think so. The US is nothing but survival of the richest.

Agree with you to a certain extent here, but not entirely. "Survival of the richest" that may be, but freedom and democracy are not defined by economics alone.

Scandinavian State Welfare Socialism has had a remarkable impact on the lives of many millions..

If this is what you hope will be implemented in places like Bolivia and Venezuela, think again. You obviously know nothing about the huge cultural differences of these people and systems. And for the record, Scandinavian countries rank at the TOP of the food chain along with the US and the rest of Western Europe when it comes to corporate greed. Remember that nextime you get a call on your cell phone. :rolleyes:


The US do not care one bit about the people of SA, they care about their oil and gas companies having monopoly to rape and pillage their national resources, keeping the populace poor and docile.

Agreed, but the US is not the only foreign investor in SA, so spread the blame if you must but make sure you do so evenly.

It's time for these nations to take back what is rightfully theres, and destroy US corporate imperialism!

Sure... its nice to have a dream... The reality is, South America is to blame for their OWN problems. The biggest being the hypocracy of "Yankee go home, but leave us your dollars". You can't have it both ways.

Yes, where the workers are slaves producing wealth for the corrupt party officials...we've seen that before in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc. State owned economies are nothing more than cesspools of corruption and poverty, and it looks like Venezuela is sinking once again.



This kind of socialism is dead; it has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and it will fail here. State socialism is nothing more than a totalitarian ruse where everyone is subjected to poverty and repression while the elites of the society enrich themselves off of the nation's hard work.

Unfortunately, most people don't read history books. I wish they did, then they would realize just how right you are here. Going from one extreme to the other is not what Venezuela needs.

Subsidising heating fuel for the poor in the U.S.

In 2005, President Chávez initiated a program to provide cheaper heating fuel for poor people in several areas of the United States. The program was expanded in September 2006 to include four of New York City's five boroughs, earmarking 25 million gallons of fuel for low-income New York residents this year at 40% off the wholesale market price. That quantity provides sufficient fuel to heat 70,000 apartments, covering 200,000 New Yorkers, for the entire winter. It has also been reported that Chavez is sending heating oil to poor, remote villages in Alaska.

Source: Wiki.

So he is trying to help poor people internationally, yet he is still some evil tyrant.... right

Just to update some ignorant people, here is the latest data on his 'bad economic management'
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Venezuela_Economic_Indicators.png

This kind of socialism is dead; it has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and it will fail here. State socialism is nothing more than a totalitarian ruse where everyone is subjected to poverty and repression while the elites of the society enrich themselves off of the nation's hard work.

Pretty much.

So he is trying to help poor people internationally, yet he is still some evil tyrant.... right

You actually bought that? That was the most transparent PR move I've ever seen, as should have been garnered by the speeches that accompanied them. The guy thinks himself far more clever than he actually is.

And by the way, Wikipedia is not the end all-be all of "accurate" information...:rolleyes:

Lol, thats putting it mildly.

EDIT: Fastest keyboard in the East, I quoted the post before it was posted. I wonder if this works for the stockmarket too...

So he is trying to help poor people internationally, yet he is still some evil tyrant.... right

First off, there are no poor remote villages in Alaska, and there certainly is no need for heating oil there since THATS where a good portion of it comes from. Second, this whole warm and fuzzy "bring warmth to the world" campaign we saw last year was nothing but a publicity stunt and a jab at Bush and Co. Meaningless and empty gesture that the people who really need it will never see. As a native New Yorker, I have yet to see any Venezuelan charity fuel for my heat. Intead of offering oil to Americans, how about building some schools, hospitals, and social programs to help his own countrymen? And by the way, Wikipedia is not the end all-be all of "accurate" information...:rolleyes:

..trying to establish a dictatorship? I guess thats why he keeps calling elections..
I guess that is why he keeps democratically winning elections..

unlike elbushio.

"For the people"

"for the revolution"

Blah blah blah, played like a true pinko, happens every time.

First off, there are no poor remote villages in Alaska

what?

If you didn't think that he was a dictator already, you're an idiot.

If you didn't think that he was a dictator already, you're an idiot.

I never said he wasn't (then again, I never said he was, either...).

What happened to the NS'er who was from Venzuela?
Can't remember her name, and she hasn't been on here for quite some time.

I'd be interested in hearing what she's got to say about this.

My track Record:
Russia, Paraguay, Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Argentina, Germany, U.K, Canada, Uganda, Nigeria, Mexico, France, Spain, Venezuela, and Costa Rica.

Just another notch on my belt.

Acctually Venezuela IS going up economicly.
Its common trend in socialist dictatorships. Unemployment goes down, money is spread around, and living conditions to alot of poor people goes up.
Unfortunatly its temporary. Very soon goverment controled companies cannot compete, money is thrown around to dubious projects. Corruption grows insanily. And controled economy slows to a crawl.
On the other hand, Venezuelan natural resorces ARE raped by foreigners, and USA HAS supported right wing nuts there before.
Chavez is popular in his country because of a reason, and USA are hated for a reason.

Still think he's not trying to establish a dictatorship? :rolleyes:

Yes.
Example. Italy is a democracy and a parliamentary republic. Nevertheless, the italian executive has the constitutional power to pass bills by decree without any parliamentary vote. Such bills are valid for six months, then they need a parliamentary vote to become permanent.

The reality is, South America is to blame for their OWN problems.

I have to disagree to a point. There is also a thing called "Monroe doctrine" that has created most of the US South-American policy in the last 100 years. The Monroe doctrine went on the lines of "America to the Americans"... I, being a eurocommiebastard and a conspiration theorist, usually read this as meaning "North, Central and South America to the USA". Now, look at the last century and say it ain't so, at least in most cases...

hey there...that's enough of that subtlety. Tell us how you REALLY feel :D

ack! Warped again! Gartref that was a reply to YOU buddy!

Next thing you know, Chavez will start issuing signing statements. Bloody dictator!

http://www.quepasa.com/newsimages/cartoon1043/49/Hugo%20Chavez.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41295000/jpg/_41295906_chavez_story_ap.jpg

hm...

Acctually Venezuela IS going up economicly.
Its common trend in socialist dictatorships. Unemployment goes down, money is spread around, and living conditions to alot of poor people goes up.
Unfortunatly its temporary. Very soon goverment controled companies cannot compete, money is thrown around to dubious projects. Corruption grows insanily. And controled economy slows to a crawl.
On the other hand, Venezuelan natural resorces ARE raped by foreigners, and USA HAS supported right wing nuts there before.
Chavez is popular in his country because of a reason, and USA are hated for a reason.

Exactly right, I for one support the Axis of Good in SA.

This kind of socialism is dead; it has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and it will fail here. State socialism is nothing more than a totalitarian ruse where everyone is subjected to poverty and repression while the elites of the society enrich themselves off of the nation's hard work.

And this would be different to much of the developing part of the capitalist world how?

And this would be different to much of the developing part of the capitalist world how?

It's not.

No matter what rhetoric is used to secure such powers, the end result is usually the same.

What happened to the NS'er who was from Venzuela?
Can't remember her name, and she hasn't been on here for quite some time.

I'd be interested in hearing what she's got to say about this.

What do you exactly want to know?

He has extra powers for 18 months, and that's nothing new, after all, the National Assembly (our congress) is filled with Yes-men that approve anything he says.

Regarding international companies, it is a double edged sword. Many of the concessions given there near the Orinoco were approved by his own goverment, thus that policy of "give and then take" is not going to be seen favorably by foreign investors.

But then, several of those companies believe that part of our soil is their feud, and they need to get humbled a bit.

Chávez is a dictator? NO

Chávez is a demagogue authoritarial president? YES

But in that, he's not different from your Bush, don't you think?

It's time for these nations to take back what is rightfully theres, and destroy US corporate imperialism!

ALL HAIL THE IRON FIST OF COMMUNISM!!


The US do not care one bit about the people of SA, they care about their oil and gas companies having monopoly to rape and pillage their national resources, keeping the populace poor and docile.

And thank you for speaking for me. Gee wiz I had no idea I was such a selfish, self-centered prick bastard. Ad Hominem, just like everything else you have said. Please try again.

At least he is getting congressional approval to tell the congress that they can go fuck themselves while he makes laws.

He has approval from the democratically elected Congress.

He was democratically elected himself, then re-elected, having pledged to accelerate the reforms towards socialism.

This is what a majority of Venezuelan citizens have agreed to.

And so what if he does become a dictator? Is anyone going to do anything about it?

Perhaps the West should stop playing "World Police" and let countries sort themselves out

I wonder how large El Presidente's private Swiss bank account has gotten these past few years.

I know that his cronies are purchasing yachts equipped with some rather nice luxuries, so I'd imagine he's got a nice stash o' change in Zurich somewhere.

I mean, it's like the game Tropico, where your ultimate goal is to maximize your offshore bank account, then retire to a nice, neutral European country like Switzerland.

And so what if he does become a dictator? Is anyone going to do anything about it?

Perhaps the West should stop playing "World Police" and let countries sort themselves out

I think this thread is an "I told you so" type of deal. I know that I've said Mr. Chavez was taking Venezuela down the road to dictatorship (and ruin) for years, but I was derided by those on the left, because they manage to fall in love with every leftist tyrant in the developing world, regardless of his sins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Still think he's not trying to establish a dictatorship? :rolleyes:

Chavez is a bastard. We all saw this one coming.

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.

*dies of laughter*

We are not turning into a theocratic state Prime. that is only in your mind. But then, you are a radical so I know this is going to fall on deaf ears.

Hahahaha!

I was wondering when he'd get round to doing this. Still, rather Chavez than Bush. At least Chavez hasn't invaded anyone. :p

I know that his cronies are purchasing yachts equipped with some rather nice luxuries, so I'd imagine he's got a nice stash o' change in Zurich somewhere.

I mean, it's like the game Tropico, where your ultimate goal is to maximize your offshore bank account, then retire to a nice, neutral European country like Switzerland.

His cronies, yes. Ministers, deputees, congressmen...They have managed to create one of the most corrupt goverments of this country.

In defense of our President, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, I can say that he is no thief. There is no proof of him becoming richer in expense of the public funds. At least he's no into presidency for the money, as a difference from his predecessors.

I guess thats why he keeps calling elections..
I guess that is why he keeps democratically winning elections..

Hitler called elections himself in case you forgot history. And he then promptly abolished them.

unlike elbushio.

:rolleyes:

He has approval from the democratically elected Congress.

He was democratically elected himself, then re-elected, having pledged to accelerate the reforms towards socialism.

This is what a majority of Venezuelan citizens have agreed to.

And the Reichstag gave Hitler his Emergency power too. Yikes. I think History could be repeating itself.

Did I say he was Hitler? No I did not.

You were, however, comparing the two.

Which is a bit rich. :p For one thing, Chavez didn't stop at 'Corporal' in the army, and for another he hasn't got a militia or a thing against Jews, Bolsheviks, and Gypsies.

His cronies, yes. Ministers, deputees, congressmen...They have managed to create one of the most corrupt goverments of this country.

In defense of our President, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, I can say that he is no thief. There is no proof of him becoming richer in expense of the public funds. At least he's no into presidency for the money, as a difference from his predecessors.

How blind can people get? Just because you do not have proof or believe what you believe does not mean it isn't happening.

And the Reichstag gave Hitler his Emergency power too. Yikes. I think History could be repeating itself.


Chávez is no Hitler. but well, What would you know about it?

You don't know even a bit about it.

Chávez is no Hitler. but well, What would you know about it?

You don't know even a bit about it.

Did I say he was Hitler? No I did not. Go back and learn to comprehend what I said. Apparently you do not know that much about history if you are making this type of comment.

I wish I had one of those :upyours:

We all want a militia of our own, comrade... :)

I think this thread is an "I told you so" type of deal. I know that I've said Mr. Chavez was taking Venezuela down the road to dictatorship (and ruin) for years, but I was derided by those on the left, because they manage to fall in love with every leftist tyrant in the developing world, regardless of his sins.

Wrong! As much as i'd like to see some social change in South America, i've been skeptical of his motives from the beginning.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11628583&postcount=40

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11110586&postcount=11

(although the Hitler comparisons are silly)

he hasn't got a militia or a thing against Jews, Bolsheviks, and Gypsies.

I wish I had one of those :upyours:

You were, however, comparing the two.

I was bringing up historical fact and said I THINK history COULD BE repeating itself. I did not say it was. An historical fact does not dissuade from the argument at hand.

Which is a bit rich. :p For one thing, Chavez didn't stop at 'Corporal' in the army, and for another he hasn't got a militia or a thing against Jews, Bolsheviks, and Gypsies.

No fucking shit mate.

Hitler called elections himself in case you forgot history. And he then promptly abolished them.


Ooh, look! A Godwin. How sweet.

You may recall that Chavez has been democratically re-elected.

Chávez is no Hitler. but well, What would you know about it?

You don't know even a bit about it.

He's no Hitler but the lack of balance of power, passing laws without debate or discussion and without given the citizens a chance to express their opinion, is what's worrying. No matter how well intentioned the tyrant is, it still is tyranny.

Whatever stupidity Chavez inflicts on Venezuela, now that no one can tell him "No", only hurts Venezuela and the people who live there.

In the long run, it is of no import to the US.

How blind can people get? Just because you do not have proof or believe what you believe does not mean it isn't happening.

From the other point. You were comparing the two and saying than history could be repeating itself. I said Chávez was no Hitler, being close to his own administration, of which, I would point out you don't know anything worthy of consideration except for what you have read on this forums.

Second, regarding my blindness. I have digged hard to discover said proofs. Hard, using a lot of contacts and resources, and haven't find anything. Actually, all that I found was that his cronies are stealing a lot of money from the public funds, and yet are afraid that he can discover them, so they keep their actions hidden from the boss, trying to not get punished by their actions. If he was stealing, his cronies wouldn't be afraid, as they could just pinpoint at his exploits to cover themselves. We have our history of corrupt presidents, and that is usually what happens.

Chávez is not a thief, although there are plenty of accusations you can spit at him, that are true. The fact that people like you throw said charges at him without any base at all just make the true accusations that people like myself build look like lies. Thanks for nothing, "american".

By the way, Chávez is no bastard, I know his father, and he recognizes him as a son

From the other point. You were comparing the two and saying than history could be repeating itself. I said Chávez was no Hitler, being close to his own administration, of which, I would point out you don't know anything worthy of consideration except for what you have read on this forums.

That's funny as hell considering this is right up my ally in what I am studying here at the University I attend compadre.

Second, regarding my blindness. I have digged hard to discover said proofs. Hard, using a lot of contacts and resources, and haven't find anything. Actually, all that I found was that his cronies are stealing a lot of money from the public funds, and yet are afraid that he can discover them, so they keep their actions hidden from the boss, trying to not get punished by their actions. If he was stealing, his cronies wouldn't be afraid, as they could just pinpoint at his exploits to cover themselves. We have our history of corrupt presidents, and that is usually what happens.

Either that or Chavez is just that good of an actor.

Chávez is not a thief, although there are plenty of accusations you can spit at him, that are true. The fact that people like you throw said charges at him without any base at all just make the true accusations that people like myself build look like lies. Thanks for nothing, "american".

Considering you are technically an american yourself in geographic terms makes that last sentence ironic since it is a lower case A and not a capital A.

He's no Hitler but the lack of balance of power, passing laws without debate or discussion and without given the citizens a chance to express their opinion, is what's worrying. No matter how well intentioned the tyrant is, it still is tyranny.

Well, he already controlled the parliament entirely beforehand, and every law he intended to pass went through without much debate or discussion, so this "Ley Habilitante", is just a formality.

Blame our Yes-men congress.

Considering you are technically an american yourself in geographic terms makes that last sentence ironic since it is a lower case A and not a capital A.

A lower case "A" for "American" is never correct. Not for the étasunien nationality, and not for the inhabitants of the continent.

Nitpicking. :p

Mr Chavez approved 49 laws by decree during the first year of his previous term, after the assembly passed a similar "Enabling Law" in November 2000.

So, he's done this before?

...Sure... its nice to have a dream... The reality is, South America is to blame for their OWN problems. The biggest being the hypocracy of "Yankee go home, but leave us your dollars". You can't have it both ways.

South Americans do shoulder a lot of the blame for the problems of South America, but so do the English, the Spanish, and to a very large extent, the USA. Many socialist experiments in Latin American history failed precisely because of US intervention.

...Intead of offering oil to Americans, how about building some schools, hospitals, and social programs to help his own countrymen? And by the way, Wikipedia is not the end all-be all of "accurate" information...:rolleyes:

You may rightfully criticise his authoritarian reforms, but no-one can deny that he has done a lot to help the poor in Venezuela. Perhaps Aelosia can back me up on this one, but I don't think anyone can intelligently deny that.

Whatever stupidity Chavez inflicts on Venezuela, now that no one can tell him "No", only hurts Venezuela and the people who live there.

In the long run, it is of no import to the US.

Unless the USA feels a need to 'liberate' Venezuela from tyranny if Venezuela cuts off the oil or completely nationalises it.

You know, like when Allende nationalised the copper, paper, and telecom industries in Chile.

Buenos dias, Aelosia. Espero que lo estas pasando bien.

Unless the USA feels a need to 'liberate' Venezuela from tyranny .

Ha! Good luck on that one :D

That's funny as hell considering this is right up my ally in what I am studying here at the University I attend compadre

Then you should be investigating further, and convince yourself that studying is not belonging to a fraternity, gringito. And for you, it's comadre, by the way.



Either that or Chavez is just that good of an actor.

Well, that would be true if I asked him about it, which I didn't.

Considering you are technically an american yourself in geographic terms makes that last sentence ironic since it is a lower case A and not a capital A.

Because I'm using a certain word with a certain significance used by you, lad, that in my book it doesn't have a capital "A".

I really doubt there's any need to liberate Venezuela.

I think the only thing we really can do to respond to Chavez is to ignore him. Whenever he throws a tantrum, just shrug and look at him funny. Maybe giggle a bit.

He's nothing more than that annoying kid on the elementary school playground who isn't big enough to back up his talk, but continues to bother you. If you sock him good, the recess monitors will haul you off, but if you ignore him, he might eventually go away.

Either that, or hold out until the gigantic global game of "smear the queer" (read: Intercontinental Nuclear War where everyone dies anyways) and let him have it then.

So, he's done this before?

Yes. He has

Unless the USA feels a need to 'liberate' Venezuela from tyranny if Venezuela cuts off the oil or completely nationalises it.


Even if nationalized, Venezuela is still likely to sell to the US.

Despite all his rhetoric, he still hasn't cut it off. In fact, he's giving some of it away free to the poor.

I really doubt there's any need to liberate Venezuela.

Then you should be investigating further, and convince yourself that studying is not belonging to a fraternity, gringito. And for you, it's comadre, by the way.

Excuse me. I didn't know you were female.

Because I'm using a certain word with a certain significance used by you, lad, that in my book it doesn't have a capital "A".

I never said there was any significance to me whatsoever. I always respected civilians of other nations but not their leaders. Chavez is an idiot and if he remains in power, Venezuela will be ruined.

You know, Chavez is in a really good position, because unlike Grenada '83, the Septics can't shunt a fuckton of troops in to kill him and 'liberate' the country.

Why?

Well, you're tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 66% of your combat units are no longer properly combat ready, and your Pres isn't so much 'lame' as 'dead duck', and the whole planet is pointing and laughing at you.

And you deserve it.

So: Ha! Ha! Ha! Viva Chavez!

'course I'd prefer it if the Venezuelans had risen up and done stuff themselves but you can't deny that Chavez is actually doing useful stuff even if his cronies are - shock! - corrupt...

Even if nationalized, Venezuela is still likely to sell to the US.

Despite all his rhetoric, he still hasn't cut it off. In fact, he's giving some of it away free to the poor.

I really doubt there's any need to liberate Venezuela.

I was just looking at modern US history with respect to Latin America and extrapolating future behaviour based on previous behaviour.

But maybe you're right and the US has turned over a new leaf. After all, there have been no allegations of US involvement in coups against democratically elected Latin American presidents since at least 2002.

South Americans do shoulder a lot of the blame for the problems of South America, but so do the English, the Spanish, and to a very large extent, the USA. Many socialist experiments in Latin American history failed precisely because of US intervention.

Yes, but others have fallen because of the weight of the corruption generated by themselves. I don't like to blame others for our problems, that at this instance of our history are generated by our own faults. However, the saboutage staged by the US in our countries is open for everyone to see. The case of Allende is the typical example.

You may rightfully criticise his authoritarian reforms, but no-one can deny that he has done a lot to help the poor in Venezuela. Perhaps Aelosia can back me up on this one, but I don't think anyone can intelligently deny that.

He has TRIED. But it hasn't worked, at least not at the extent he and most of us believed to work. It seems that the current administration gives the poor a bit, but just a bit, so they can stay loyal by promising them more.

This country needs real progress and the establishment of an independent economy and welfare, not just "tips", or "gifts" given to appease the hunger for a moment, and to build a certain personality cult.

Each time I see a big propaganda wall with "Gracias Chávez, por darnos el tren", I feel sick. It's his job, and he gets paid for it, of course he should be doing something. Why we need to thank him for it?. Noone thanks me for doing my job.

Unless the USA feels a need to 'liberate' Venezuela from tyranny if Venezuela cuts off the oil or completely nationalises it.

You know, like when Allende nationalised the copper, paper, and telecom industries in Chile.

Buenos dias, Aelosia. Espero que lo estas pasando bien.

And yes, I hope the US stays quiet and avoids an intervention in our country, that wouldn't help anyone, not even us that oppose the current regime.

Y gracias, espero que te vaya bien a tí también. Muy buenos días y gracias por traer un poco de sentido a esta conversación, incluso aunque no esté completamente de acuerdo con los postulados que defiendes.

I never said there was any significance to me whatsoever. I always respected civilians of other nations but not their leaders. Chavez is an idiot and if he remains in power, Venezuela will be ruined.

In that, we agree. We will have a lot of work to rebuild this country after Chávez leaves office in the 2013.

In that, we agree. We will have a lot of work to rebuild this country after Chávez leaves office in the 2013.

What makes you think he'll leave office?

In that, we agree. We will have a lot of work to rebuild this country after Chávez leaves office in the 2013.

Agreed.

Yes. He has

Right. And last time, he didn't declare martial law or some such? I'm just wondering, if he's done this before, why are people convinced that this time, he'll become a permanent dictator?

What makes you think he'll leave office?

I HOPE he does, but to be quite...How can I put it?, honest?

If he does not by then, we will try to force him into leaving, at least.

If he reforms the constitution to allow himself be elected forever, then he needs to be overthrow. I won't allow myself to live in a country not under democratic rule.

And if we fail, and I manage to survive the attempt, I'll exile myself.

Yes, but others have fallen because of the weight of the corruption generated by themselves. I don't like to blame others for our problems, that at this instance of our history are generated by our own faults. However, the saboutage staged by the US in our countries is open for everyone to see. The case of Allende is the typical example.

Tienes toda la razon. South American countries, if we wish to move forward and truly become sovereign, have to accept responsibility for the fate of our nations. Chileans must accept the fact that many countrymen supported Pinochet, not just the evil Yanquis. Yes, they fucked us over, but we let them.

The victim mentality is a problem for all marginalised communities.

He has TRIED. But it hasn't worked, at least not at the extent he and most of us believed to work. It seems that the current administration gives the poor a bit, but just a bit, so they can stay loyal by promising them more.

This country needs real progress and the establishment of an independent economy and welfare, not just "tips", or "gifts" given to appease the hunger for a moment, and to build a certain personality cult.

Each time I see a big propaganda wall with "Gracias Chávez, por darnos el tren", I feel sick. It's his job, and he gets paid for it, of course he should be doing something. Why we need to thank him for it?. Noone thanks me for doing my job.

And yes, I hope the US stays quiet and avoids an intervention in our country, that wouldn't help anyone, not even us that oppose the current regime.

Perhaps they are thanking him for doing his job because the vast majority of other people in his position didn't. And those propaganda walls give me the creeps. I was in Chile for the presidential campaign that Lagos won (5!), and it had the same vibe, with all the campaign propaganda.

Another poster upthread pointed out the vast cultural differences that exist between the Scandinavian social democracy model and the current Venezuelan reality. Chavez has a very long way to go, and a lot of social inertia to overcome. But I think he is moving in the right direction, though not in the most intelligent manner. I hope he cools down before oil impresarios start requesting private meetings with Condie Rice or her replacement(s).

Y gracias, espero que te vaya bien a tí también. Muy buenos días y gracias por traer un poco de sentido a esta conversación, incluso aunque no esté completamente de acuerdo con los postulados que defiendes.

Prefiero hablar con gente con quien no estoy completamente de acuerdo. Asi, aprendo mas.

Pat Robertson was clearly right.

Pat Robertson was clearly right.

Someone should send people to assassinate the bastard.

Why?

If the people of Venezuela are happy with him, then it's just fine.

If they don't like him, and it turns out he wants to be Dictator for Life, then they can assassinate him THEMSELVES and then blame it on our CIA.

If he reforms the constitution to allow himself be elected forever, then he needs to be overthrow. I won't allow myself to live in a country not under democratic rule.


France's Constitution allows our president to be re-elected continuously, forever. Doesn't mean we're "not under democratic rule".

If Venezuelan citizens continuously re-elect Chavez, that's democracy.

While I will be the first to acknowledge that America is more than full of itsself, I also must say two things: anyone who thinks that a representative body voting itsself out of existence is a good idea is a moron, and that Chavez is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig douchebag.

That is all.

Right. And last time, he didn't declare martial law or some such? I'm just wondering, if he's done this before, why are people convinced that this time, he'll become a permanent dictator?

Because he's smart enough to realize that an authoritarial regime is more accepted after a cautious and gradual transition.

France's Constitution allows our president to be re-elected continuously, forever. Doesn't mean we're "not under democratic rule".

If Venezuelan citizens continuously re-elect Chavez, that's democracy.


Canada also has no limits on the number of terms that a Prime Minster can have, and the Head of State is a position for life, as she is our Queen.

But Canada and France have long traditions of safeguarding against corruption in public offices, with elaborate checks and balances. I am not sure that Venezuela has these same methods for countering authoritarian rule.

Hey, its his nation, He can do whatever he wants too.

I'd imagine that the people who live there might disagree with that statement. I know I would have a big problem with it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Still think he's not trying to establish a dictatorship? :rolleyes:

When good men do nothing evil men win.

I'd imagine that the people who live there might disagree with that statement. I know I would have a big problem with it.

Ah yes, but a lot of those people won't have guns and/or political power

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.


Over my dead body :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Tienes toda la razon. South American countries, if we wish to move forward and truly become sovereign, have to accept responsibility for the fate of our nations. Chileans must accept the fact that many countrymen supported Pinochet, not just the evil Yanquis. Yes, they fucked us over, but we let them.

The victim mentality is a problem for all marginalised communities.

Yes, it's out fault, even if they imposed something on us, we accepted it.

That's why I don't blame any of our mistakes on others, that's the easy way.

Perhaps they are thanking him for doing his job because the vast majority of other people in his position didn't. And those propaganda walls give me the creeps. I was in Chile for the presidential campaign that Lagos won (5!), and it had the same vibe, with all the campaign propaganda.

The problem is that said wall is not painted spontaneously by the people, with those I have no problem, if they want to work to please their leader, that's ok. Those walls are payed and placed by the bolivarian goverment of Venezuela. If the goverment is so good, why it needs so many displays of propaganda?


Another poster upthread pointed out the vast cultural differences that exist between the Scandinavian social democracy model and the current Venezuelan reality. Chavez has a very long way to go, and a lot of social inertia to overcome. But I think he is moving in the right direction, though not in the most intelligent manner. I hope he cools down before oil impresarios start requesting private meetings with Condie Rice or her replacement(s).

I hope we one day can become a country similar to the scandinavian ones. With said kind of socialism I have no problem. What I don't want is turn into another Cuba. I have been there and that is entirely pathetic, no matter what they say. That kind of socialism is entirely out of the question.

Sounds like a Marxist paradise.. plane tickets to Venezuela must be selling like hotcakes, right? :D Mass exodus from Manhattan and San Francisco, I can see it now! Hope it goes better than that whole "Jonestown" thing. :)


Didn't the Doctor tell you to not stop taking your meds?

Yeah, Chavez has always been part good social democratic leftist who wants to help his people with his oil wealth, and part mad Castroist. This dosen't bode well for who's winning. Oh well, yet another promising leader buying a one-way ticket into the dustbin of history...:(

France's Constitution allows our president to be re-elected continuously, forever. Doesn't mean we're "not under democratic rule".

If Venezuelan citizens continuously re-elect Chavez, that's democracy.

That is not the idea, and you know it. Don't play fool with me and the rest of the forums.

First, we're not France, second, your constitution allows that. Our constitution, that is also his constitution, doesn't. If we start to change the constitution each time we feel it doesn't fit our current needs, well...

And second, he stated that he wanted to change the law so he can run for a final election, for a life-long term. It's not the same thing as letting him run forever for different terms, but for a life-long term.

Dictatorship of the workers you mean.

Honestly, what does the West and in particular the US expect. You support murderous bloody tyrants in their country, rape their national resources, keep their population poor and interfere constantly in their politics, and then your gravely surprised when they vote for the socialist? .... Please, get over yourselves.


Not all Americans would agree to that type of foriegn policy, I know I would not.

I'd imagine that the people who live there might disagree with that statement. I know I would have a big problem with it.

We have, at least some. At least those who are not easily manipulated by populist measures or bread gags.

And it is not his country. It is ours. He doesn't own it.

We have, at least some. At least those who are not easily manipulated by populist measures or bread gags.

And it is not his country. It is ours. He doesn't own it.


You tell them, don't allow that guy to force you to live under a dictator if you don't want too.

Meh. Democracy's overrated.
It really doesn’t matter whether Venezuela is a democracy or a dictatorship, not that it technically is.


Democracy is great when it works like it is supposed to work.

Meh. Democracy's overrated.
It really doesn’t matter whether Venezuela is a democracy or a dictatorship, not that it technically is.

Meh. Democracy's overrated.
It really doesn’t matter whether Venezuela is a democracy or a dictatorship, not that it technically is.


Don't listen to this crap

And it is not his country. It is ours. He doesn't own it.

This is the most important statement made in this thread so far.

This is the most important statement made in this thread so far.

I agree whole heartedly, power to the people!

Of course, the venezuelan people never reach the international news, but only our ruler making his clown spectacles over the world.

It's "natural" for people of other countries to think that Chávez is the only representation of our nation, or that Venezuela is just an empty plain with oil camps that is under Chávez's control.


Your reaching world news right now.

What happened to the NS'er who was from Venzuela?
Can't remember her name, and she hasn't been on here for quite some time.

I'd be interested in hearing what she's got to say about this.

Me too

This is the most important statement made in this thread so far.

Of course, the venezuelan people never reach the international news, but only our ruler making his clown spectacles over the world.

It's "natural" for people of other countries to think that Chávez is the only representation of our nation, or that Venezuela is just an empty plain with oil camps that is under Chávez's control.

And this would be different to much of the developing part of the capitalist world how?


We can vote for a differant leader and throw out the one causing the problems.

Acctually Venezuela IS going up economicly.
Its common trend in socialist dictatorships. Unemployment goes down, money is spread around, and living conditions to alot of poor people goes up.
Unfortunatly its temporary. Very soon goverment controled companies cannot compete, money is thrown around to dubious projects. Corruption grows insanily. And controled economy slows to a crawl.
On the other hand, Venezuelan natural resorces ARE raped by foreigners, and USA HAS supported right wing nuts there before.
Chavez is popular in his country because of a reason, and USA are hated for a reason.


I am an American and I would not promote a dictatorship anywhere.

We can vote for a differant leader and throw out the one causing the problems.

If you live in the USA, then you are not part of the developing world. You are part of the developed world.

Not natural, my dear. It's ignorant. No nation is its leader. Is the US just Bush? Is Russia just Putin? Is Venezuela just Chavez? Of course not. There are people in each of those nations, people that are far more important.


Important people who can make a differance

It's "natural" for people of other countries to think that Chávez is the only representation of our nation, or that Venezuela is just an empty plain with oil camps that is under Chávez's control.

Not natural, my dear. It's ignorant. No nation is its leader. Is the US just Bush? Is Russia just Putin? Is Venezuela just Chavez? Of course not. There are people in each of those nations, people that are far more important.

Me too

I am the one Demented Hamsters is talking about.

Important people who can make a differance

Like Aelosia.

Like Aelosia.

I have no guns, and no political power. :(

Hardly I desire both.

I have no guns, and no political power. :(

Hardly I desire both.

You have the power of your voice.

You have the power of your voice.

You always complimenting. That's nice to hear, even although my voice of old raven isn't.

At least I have agile fingers :D

Removing checks on the executive branches power = bad. If the man truely wanted to give power back to the people you'd think he'd start pumping it into the legislative branch of his country instead of consolidating all the power to himself.

If you live in the USA, then you are not part of the developing world. You are part of the developed world.


We were a developing country at one time. Your input or lack thereof will shape your countries future. Make sure you can live with the shape it is taking. If you can't live with it and don't want to leave ... change it!

You always complimenting. That's nice to hear, even although my voice of old raven isn't.

At least I have agile fingers :D


I compliment those whom I admire, which, if you check my post history, is actually very few. ;) A journalist bucking a totalitarian jackass? That's definitely worthy of admiration.

Oh, and you've helped me with my Spanish. Gracias, mi querida. :)

Honestly, as bad as Bush is he's nowhere near as bad as Chavez. Bush is weakened and is nothing more than a lame-duck president now...unlike the president of Venezuela, who now has a blank check for dictatorship.

A lame duck in charge of the biggest superpower in the Western Hemisphere is still more damaging than a conniving dictator of a banana republic with a purely defensive insurgency force.

A lame duck in charge of the biggest superpower in the Western Hemisphere is still more damaging than a conniving dictator of a banana republic with a purely defensive insurgency force.

Yes, yes...let's throw in the gratuitous Bush-bashing post... :rolleyes:

A lame duck in charge of the biggest superpower in the Western Hemisphere is still more damaging than a conniving dictator of a banana republic with a purely defensive insurgency force.

Banana republic?

Don't start with offenses, ok?, or at least find another target for your attitude. We can always find funny names for our countries of origin, including yours.

Y gracias, Cluitch. Eres muy agradable. Aprecio tu apoyo.

Yes, yes...let's throw in the gratuitous Bush-bashing post... :rolleyes:

And offensive towards the country in question, I might add.

Banana republic?

Don't start with offenses, ok?, or at least find another target for your attitude. We can always find funny names for our countries of origin, including yours.

Y gracias, Cluitch. Eres muy agradable. Aprecio tu apoyo.

No hay necesidad de agradecerme. Eres asombrosa. Estoy alegre tenerle como amiga.

And offensive towards the country in question, I might add.

And back to English (even though I know how to say this in Spanish as well):

No shit, huh? Yeesh... :rolleyes:

So, Vetalia argued this point:
This kind of socialism is dead; it has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and it will fail here. State socialism is nothing more than a totalitarian ruse where everyone is subjected to poverty and repression while the elites of the society enrich themselves off of the nation's hard work.

Nodinia replied (bolding mine):
And this would be different to much of the developing part of the capitalist world how?

Here is your reply to Nodinia, which does not address Nodinia's point:
We can vote for a differant leader and throw out the one causing the problems.

I replied to you so that I could show you the mistake you made:
If you live in the USA, then you are not part of the developing world. You are part of the developed world.

Your mistake was assuming that capitalist societies in the developing world allow for the same political freedoms that capitalist societies in the developed world do. I assume, by your name, that you are a US citizen.

We were a developing country at one time. Your input or lack thereof will shape your countries future. Make sure you can live with the shape it is taking. If you can't live with it and don't want to leave ... change it!

All that to say: what are you trying to say with this post?

Banana republic?

Don't start with offenses, ok?, or at least find another target for your attitude. We can always find funny names for our countries of origin, including yours.

Y gracias, Cluitch. Eres muy agradable. Aprecio tu apoyo.

Sorry for the comment. But I smirk at how people here can't make up their minds as to whether Venezuela under Chavez is either an irrelevant ranter or a danger to the Western Hemisphere depending on the time of day.

But I'm sure we can all agree that if Hugo was still doing this while kissing Uncle Sam's ass at the same time, this wouldn't stir as much attention and outrage, no?

Please link to the post where I say that Chavez is a danger to the Western Hemisphere.

He's irrelevant outside of Venezuela, especially to the US. I've always believed so.

Did I refer to you specifically? And if he was irrelevant then I don't see why Archbishop Pat Robertsen would call for Hugo's assassination in the first place.

Sorry for the comment. But I smirk at how people here can't make up their minds as to whether Venezuela under Chavez is either an irrelevant ranter or a danger to the Western Hemisphere depending on the time of day.


Please link to the post where I say that Chavez is a danger to the Western Hemisphere.

He's irrelevant outside of Venezuela, especially to the US. I've always believed so.

Not natural, my dear. It's ignorant. No nation is its leader. Is the US just Bush? Is Russia just Putin? Is Venezuela just Chavez? Of course not. There are people in each of those nations, people that are far more important.

Indeed.

Sorry for the comment. But I smirk at how people here can't make up their minds as to whether Venezuela under Chavez is either an irrelevant ranter or a danger to the Western Hemisphere depending on the time of day.

But I'm sure we can all agree that if Hugo was still doing this while kissing Uncle Sam's ass at the same time, this wouldn't stir as much attention and outrage, no?

For me, it would. Believe me it would! Even worse, he would be ruining my country and handling it to the US at the same time!

Bullshit rhetoric, but that's what we've come to expect from you. Archbishop? Come now...

I'm glad to see someone's sarcasm detector is fully charged.

Did I refer to you specifically? And if he was irrelevant then I don't see why Archbishop Pat Robertsen would call for Hugo's assassination in the first place.

Bullshit rhetoric, but that's what we've come to expect from you. Archbishop? Come now...

For me, it would. Believe me it would! Even worse, he would be ruining my country and handling it to the US at the same time!

Don't give credence to his shite by replying to it.

Did I refer to you specifically? And if he was irrelevant then I don't see why Archbishop Pat Robertsen would call for Hugo's assassination in the first place.

Also, the US government has been financially supporting oppostition parties.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article64137.ece

Why would it do that if it did not feel CVhavez was a threat?

Did I refer to you specifically? And if he was irrelevant then I don't see why Archbishop Pat Robertsen would call for Hugo's assassination in the first place.

I posted that he's irrelevant. And you said that people couldn't make up their mind whether he was irrelevant or a threat.

I made up my mind a long, long time ago. And your comment was very specifically pointed at me, because you're insinuating that I'm vacillating on the subject of Chavez.

Pat Robertson isn't an Archbishop, nor is he President. He's a religious hack on TV who is trying to boost his ratings amongst his fringe supporters.

Don't listen to this crap
Why not?

Also, the US government has been financially supporting oppostition parties.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article64137.ece

Why would it do that if it did not feel CVhavez was a threat?


Well, the US haven't offered or given me any money. I wouldn't accept it anyway, accepting money from the US has proven to be a two edged sword.

Viva La revolucion!

And don't you forget it!

Also, the US government has been financially supporting oppostition parties.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article64137.ece

Why would it do that if it did not feel CVhavez was a threat?

if any party here was discovered to be funded by the US government it would become extinct.

I'd rather live under a benevolent dictator, as Chavez surely would be, than under our president.

Did I say he was Hitler? No I did not. Go back and learn to comprehend what I said. Apparently you do not know that much about history if you are making this type of comment.

"I'm going to imply that history's repeating itself and make a reference to Hitler, and then wonder why people are taking it as me calling Chavez the next Hitler!"

Uhh... I don't think there's that much to comprehend.

I'm going to mostly listen to Aelosia here because she is the one actually from Venezuela, and probably has the best idea what's going on. I, personally, am not all that thrilled with the idea. I certainly don't think it's "Smash the tyranny of the US!" like Andras Prime is going on about, but I'm certainly not going to compare him to Hitler like Allegheny County 2 is.

Your reaching world news right now.

The people aren't. Chavez is. We, as Americans, tend to forget that other countries have things like "parliaments" and "legislatures" and things like that. Venezuela is not Chavez. Iran is not Ahmadinejesjadfjajaaa or whatever. There are actually other people in the government. :eek:

Mr Chavez approved 49 laws by decree during the first year of his previous term, after the assembly passed a similar "Enabling Law" in November 2000.

An ironic choice of words... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)

The Enabling Act was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

An ironic choice of words... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)

What? So no one can ever use the word 'Enabling' in legistation ever again? Please.

Mr Chavez approved 49 laws by decree during the first year of his previous term, after the assembly passed a similar "Enabling Law" in November 2000.
Didn't seem to draw uproar then, why now?

Venezuela's political opposition has no representation in the National Assembly since it boycotted elections in 2005.
Sorry, but when you do this, you're asking for trouble.

I'd rather live under a benevolent dictator, as Chavez surely would be, than under our president.

Because living in America under President Bush is soooooo bad, right?

God, I wish the Red Guards would hurry up and get here!

What? So no one can ever use the word 'Enabling' in legistation ever again? Please.
No. I just find it pretty amusing that he is trying to pass a bill with a similar name and the same identical effect as the bill that basically gave birth to Nazi Germany.

Plus, it has a tinge of irony, since Chavez is socialist and Hitler was fascist, and yet they're doing the same thing, legally speaking.

Well they've voted for him for 3 terms in a row, in elections described as 'pretty fair indeed' by observers, so they seem to be supporting him thusfar...

No reason why not if he's up for it - after all, the same moral standards shouldn't be applied to everyone, or we get screwups like the Al-Maliki regime in Iraq for the betterment of 'democracy'.

Democracy is great when it works like it is supposed to work.
Any examples?

Any examples?

Switzerland?

Any examples?
Urmm... hmm...

*wanders around contemplating things*

Don't really think there are any, sadly.

No. I just find it pretty amusing that he is trying to pass a bill with a similar name and the same identical effect as the bill that basically gave birth to Nazi Germany.

Plus, it has a tinge of irony, since Chavez is socialist and Hitler was fascist, and yet they're doing the same thing, legally speaking.

The law he is passing isn't called "Enabling law", because we don't speak english, damn it. That's the way the translator of the news decided to call "Ley Habilitante", in spanish. Always judging from your point of view, your lot, no?

"Hehe, they name their laws in english, weird, no? The germans did that too. And it is weird, because all of them are nationalist. But they picked the same name"

And using the same argument, the one used by Hitler isn't a "Enabling Law" neither. Our german comrades here can tell you the real name.

Just a coincidence of translation, jesus.

And using the same argument, the one used by Hitler isn't a "Enabling Law" neither. Our german comrades here can tell you the real name.

Just a coincidence of translation, jesus.

Das Ermächtigungsgesetz. Literally, I believe it means "Fiat Law" or "Law of Authorization".

Das Ermächtigungsgesetz. Literally, I believe it means "Fiat Law" or "Law of Authorization".

And...Thanks. One argument down the toilet, after all...

A skilled politician uses socialist rhetoric to rally the people into handing over control of the country? Never!

I think the only thing we really can do to respond to Chavez is to ignore him. Whenever he throws a tantrum, just shrug and look at him funny. Maybe giggle a bit.

He's nothing more than that annoying kid on the elementary school playground who isn't big enough to back up his talk, but continues to bother you. If you sock him good, the recess monitors will haul you off, but if you ignore him, he might eventually go away.

Either that, or hold out until the gigantic global game of "smear the queer" (read: Intercontinental Nuclear War where everyone dies anyways) and let him have it then.

lol

Methinks Mr. Chavez has been playing too much Final Fantasy XII...

I'd rather live under a benevolent dictator, as Chavez surely would be, than under our president.

And when Chavez ceases to be benevolent (you are making a huge assumption after all) or his successor is malevolent? You will be happy with your forsaken political rights then?

I'd rather live under a benevolent dictator, as Chavez surely would be, than under our president.

The difference being that Bush fully intends to leave in a couple years, while Chavez recently worked to ensure that he would be able to resecure his position until the end of time.

But, National Assembly President Cilia Flores said "there will always be opponents, and especially when they know that these laws will deepen the revolution".

Nothing like deepening the revolution by establishing a totalitarian.

Nothing like deepening the revolution by establishing a totalitarian.

Hardly. :rolleyes:

It must really stick in some people's craws that the guy actaully has the majority of the population supporting him. Like him or not, they're entitled to vote for who they want.

If he wants to stay on for another term (I personally wouldn't like it) and the people vote to agree to it then its not totalitarian. It's actual democracy.

Hardly. :rolleyes:

It must really stick in some people's craws that the guy actaully has the majority of the population supporting him. Like him or not, they're entitled to vote for who they want.

If he wants to stay on for another term (I personally wouldn't like it) and the people vote to agree to it then its not totalitarian. It's actual democracy.

Its one thing to repeatedly elect the same guy. That is democratic.

For him to secure rule by decree without likely sunsetting of the power is decidedly undemocratic.

Democracy can undo itself, and when it does it ceases to be democratic. Everytime in history that democracy or a people's revolution has undone itself, the results have been disastrous.

Aelosia, tengo una pregunta para ti. Piensas que Chavez esta bueno para tu pais? Me pienso que Chavez solomente esta hablando por lo que los Venezualians querran escuchar, pero el va a hacer que es mas bueno para el, y no para tus personas. Para me, Chavez es el mismo de todos los "presidentes" Sud Americanos que estaban dicendo "dinero para los trabajadores, y comeda para todos!".....pero nosotros sabemos que paso con ellos y sus paises.....Me querro saber que te peinsas.:)

(I'm trying to practice my spanish, and it truley is mine, not a online translator..so dont make fun);)

For the sake of clarification, he has been granted rule by decree for eighteen months, not permanently. (Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070119-chavez-powers.html).) I assume getting that renewed would be a mere formality, but the point is that he's adhering to democratic institutions.

* Chavez was democratically elected, then re-elected, then re-elected yet again by the citizens of Venezuela. That's democracy.

* He campaigned on a promise to make Venezuela a socialist country, and was elected on that promise.

* He has been granted special rights by the democratically elected Parliament, chosen by the citizens.

* The Opposition had opted not to take part in the democratic process. Their problem. Too bad for them.

Chavez has constantly proved his commitment to the democratic process - including when the US government tried to prevent the citizens of Venezuela from exercising their democratic rights.

I find it faintly amusing that Chavez's opponents here simply cannot stand the idea that he's popular with his own people and that it's democracy which is enabling him to implement the socialist policies approved and supported by a majority of citizens.

So, Bush got re-elected and that doesnt stop people from bitching their little asses off about him.;)

Naturally. That's part of democracy too. ;)

But nobody is accusing Bush (seriously) of trying to turn the United States into a dictatorship with him as its permanent leader. Nor should they in Chavez's case.

So, Bush got re-elected and that doesnt stop people from bitching their little asses off about him.;)

Or better yet, Democrats boycott due to the shit from the 2000 election and because of that George Bush gets to have presidential term limits removed along with a removal of congressional checks.

I can't believe the socialists on here (especially of the communist variety) support this, when it is decided hierarchical, non-democratic, and especially since this type of political maneuvering has been the downfall of every real socialistic movement in history.

*SNIP*
So, Bush got re-elected and that doesnt stop people from bitching their little asses off about him.;)

Naturally. That's part of democracy too. ;)

But nobody is accusing Bush (seriously) of trying to turn the United States into a dictatorship with him as its permanent leader. Nor should they in Chavez's case.

And if Bush were able to maneuvre to remove congressional checks and term limits, that accusation wouldn't be valid?

You've gone too far this time Chavez, I once liked you!

It must really stick in some people's craws that the guy actaully has the majority of the population supporting him. Like him or not, they're entitled to vote for who they want.

If he wants to stay on for another term (I personally wouldn't like it) and the people vote to agree to it then its not totalitarian. It's actual democracy.
It's not Chavez's removal of term limits that bothers me; it's the desire to be able to rule without parliament for 18 months (which could easily be changed to 'forever' if history is anything to go by).

I feel that it is anti-democratic and unsocialist of him.

And if Bush were able to maneuvre to remove congressional checks and term limits, that accusation wouldn't be valid?

"Maneouvre"? The elections in Venezuela was recognised as fair and democratic. Poor losers wanting to undermine the democratic system by refusing to take part have only themselves to blame.

And what is this obession with term limits? As I've pointed out many times, in France a president can already stand for re-election as many times as he/she wants: the citizens choose whether to re-elect him. If the Venezuelan people want to re-elect Chavez for a fourth term in office, what could possibly be wrong with that?

"Maneouvre"? The elections in Venezuela was recognised as fair and democratic. Poor losers wanting to undermine the democratic system by refusing to take part have only themselves to blame.

Yes, "manoeuvre". While the elections may have been democratic, the undermining of the democratically elected parliament is undemocratic.

You seriously have no problem with one party rule through the executive office?

Have you learned nothing from history?

And what is this obession with term limits? As I've pointed out many times, in France a president can already stand for re-election as many times as he/she wants: the citizens choose whether to re-elect him. If the Venezuelan people want to re-elect Chavez for a fourth term in office, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Actually I can't even see where it talks about term limits in the article, but oh well.

The US does not have to right to lecture anyone on democratic behavior, since in the US votes are brought through corporate money funneling and mass slander and lie campaigns. Texans for a Republican Majority anyone? I think the redrawing of the boundaries and Soviet-style election rigging over in the US surpasses anything overseas. Chavez is initiating a grass routes state support system to help his people from the cradle to the grave, he is taking back the national resources that rightfully belong to the Venezuelan people, and for them alone, not for money-hungry corporate imperialists who would see them starve to line their own pockets with blood money.

Naturally. That's part of democracy too. ;)

But nobody is accusing Bush (seriously) of trying to turn the United States into a dictatorship with him as its permanent leader. Nor should they in Chavez's case.
The problem here is Chavez is making the moves to turn Venezuala into a dictatorship...and its not exactly an uncommon thing to happen in a South American left-wing state (or right wing at that). So, while Bush is obviously not going to be in office after next year....I wouldnt be so sure about Chavez. History and his current actions seem to pursuade otherwise. I'm also really uncomfterable about this "ruling by decree" thing....the only time I could see this being useful (in a democratic state) is if there was some kind of war (on the home turf) that needed a fully efficient leadership...or something.

The US does not have to right to lecture anyone on democratic behavior, since in the US votes are brought through corporate money funneling and mass slander and lie campaigns. Texans for a Republican Majority anyone? I think the redrawing of the boundaries and Soviet-style election rigging over in the US surpasses anything overseas. Chavez is initiating a grass routes state support system to help his people from the cradle to the grave, he is taking back the national resources that rightfully belong to the Bolivian people, and for them alone, not for money-hungry corporate imperialists who would see them starve to line their own pockets with blood money.
......Perhaps a map? Ok, well its obvious you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You must just be a troll, so please, just spare us.:rolleyes: Perhaps read a book? Or may I suggest, take a look into geo-politics?

......Perhaps a map? Ok, well its obvious you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You must just be a troll, so please, just spare us.:rolleyes: Perhaps read a book? Or may I suggest, take a look into geo-politics?

Lol, I was thinking of Evo Morales, I edited regardless, it's a similar situation.

Hugo Chavez's political career has included:

Leading a failed military coup

Enacting a new constitution and assembly

Getting his "Patriotic Pole" party elected into 95% of seats in the new assembly

Forced labor union elections to be state monitored

Passed Decrees that were protested by labor unions who called for open debate

Countered an anti-Chavez demonstration with military violence and forced airing of Chavez speeches by the media, rather than any coverage of the demonstrations

Fired 18000 dissenting labor union members from the state-owned oil company.

Criminalized the publication of libel or slander against public officials, including a 40 month jail sentence for media outlets guilty of defamation against Chavez.

At every turn relied on decided populist policies and nationalistic hyperbole to round up supporters.


Yet no red flags are raised?

Yet no red flags are raised?
Oh, of course, these things are only red flags when they occur in countries run by people you don't like, as opposed to when they happen in China or Mexico.

US imperialist history has included:

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos

CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua

PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas

MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.

TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.


WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.

GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.

HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC

AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.

PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.

COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.

IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.

Oh, of course, these things are only red flags when they occur in countries run by people you don't like, as opposed to when they happen in China or Mexico.
When has Vittos ever expressed approbation with regard to the happenings in these countries?

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2003. This guide does not include:

* mobilizations of the National Guard
* offshore shows of naval strength
* reinforcements of embassy personnel
* the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
* military exercises
* non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
* the permanent stationing of armed forces
* covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
* the use of small hostage rescue units
* most uses of proxy troops
* U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
* foreign disaster assistance
* military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
* civic action programs
* and many other military activities.

Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.

No, the US isn't imperialist at all.

We never sent troops to Zaire. Try again.

No, I have sourced, now it's your turn.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

We never sent troops to Zaire. Try again.

You provided a list, but no source.

Look up, scroll slowly.

snip

Is the US an imperialist power, of course.

You must consider, however, that the US has warned Chavez of assassination and coup plots that Chavez later blamed on the US.

Oh, of course, these things are only red flags when they occur in countries run by people you don't like, as opposed to when they happen in China or Mexico.

I despise the Chinese government, and the recent crackdown on the APPO by the Mexican government is a travesty.

No, I have sourced, now it's your turn.

You provided a list, but no source.

And what is this obession with term limits? As I've pointed out many times, in France a president can already stand for re-election as many times as he/she wants: the citizens choose whether to re-elect him. If the Venezuelan people want to re-elect Chavez for a fourth term in office, what could possibly be wrong with that?
Yes, and that's not the issue. What would happen if the president of France just did away with the Prime Minister, the Senate and the National Assembly? Don't you think that would be a tad undemocratic?

In most of America the presidents have much more power already than they do in most European countries with a Parliamentary tradition. Chávez had already disappeared the Senate, now he is disappearing the Assembly. It's not about elections, it's about how much power is concentrated now on one single person without any other body to check on him or way to make him accountable.

Damn this time warp is getting on my nerves.

Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.

Look up, scroll slowly.

I don't see it. :(

Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.

Danke.

ahh, dictaros, got love them

Why is the USS Cole being bombed being used as evidence of US imperialism? Or, indeed, what does this: "UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC" mean? Responding to hijackings is imperialist?

Hahahaha!

I was wondering when he'd get round to doing this. Still, rather Chavez than Bush. At least Chavez hasn't invaded anyone. :p

Wrong! As much as i'd like to see some social change in South America, i've been skeptical of his motives from the beginning.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11628583&postcount=40

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11110586&postcount=11
There is social change going on in Venezuela and so far, it has benefitted the majority. Everyone else seems to be jumping the gun, and pointing fingers.

(although the Hitler comparisons are silly)
Corny can tend to be overdramatic at times. :eek:

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.

Wow, someone can actually take news of a foreign enemy forming into a corrupt dictatorship, while hypocritically being outspoken critics of cruelty and authoritarianism, into a hit on the Bush administration.

Twist this:

"Breaking news! Pigs have been spotted flying over South Dakota!"

If someone twists THAT into an attack on the current administration (mind you a sensible, somewhat relevant and legitimate attack) then I will officially eat my goldfish.

So, Bush got re-elected and that doesnt stop people from bitching their little asses off about him.;)
That probably has a lot to do with how Bush got "elected (http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html)" the first time. :eek:

"Breaking news! Pigs have been spotted flying over South Dakota!"

If someone twists THAT into an attack on the current administration (mind you a sensible, somewhat relevant and legitimate attack) then I will officially eat my goldfish.

Uh.. pigs flying = global warming... mutations.. hermaphroditic frogs.. global warming = Bush conspiracy.. illuminati.. oil... Freemasonry... oil... uh..

:)

Uh.. pigs flying = global warming... mutations.. hermaphroditic frogs.. global warming = Bush conspiracy.. illuminati.. oil... Freemasonry... oil... uh..

:)

*sniff* Forgive me Franky....

*swallows goldfish*

*Sniff* ...Heartless bastard.... *Sniff*

Yes, and that's not the issue. What would happen if the president of France just did away with the Prime Minister, the Senate and the National Assembly? Don't you think that would be a tad undemocratic?

In most of America the presidents have much more power already than they do in most European countries with a Parliamentary tradition. Chávez had already disappeared the Senate, now he is disappearing the Assembly. It's not about elections, it's about how much power is concentrated now on one single person without any other body to check on him or way to make him accountable.

The point is that the Venezuelan Parliament itself, the elected house of the citizen's representatives, voted to give Chavez special powers (for a limited period of 18 months).

Chavez has never hidden the fact that his aim is to turn Venezuela into a socialist country: he pledged to do so in his election campaign, and was elected on that basis. He's doing exactly what the citizens have democratically chosen for him to do.

The reason why Parliament is so fully behind him is because the Opposition opted out from taking part in elections that were recognised as fair and democratic by the international community (including, after some reluctance, the United States). The Opposition tried to undermine Venezuelan democracy, depriving citizens of any significant Opposition voice to Chavez, and this is the result.

When the Opposition refuses to take part in democracy, then obviously you end up with a President who has Parliament fully behind him.

The fact that he has democratically been granted short-term rule by decree is virtually a non-issue. Whatever measures he wants to implement, Parliament would rubber-stamp them. Rule by decree does not significantly increase his power; it just enables him to get on with implementing his policies faster.

If something like this were to happen in France, and I were a supporter of the Opposition, I would be furious at the Opposition for refusing to take part in the democratic process and thus depriving me of a voice in government.

Having visited Venezuela and studied South American Political History I would have to say this, I don't like the idea that he is ruling by decree, it reaked of dictatorship (even though it is a democratically elected dictatorship) which is a path all Latin American couties (bar one) have gone down over the years and it has never been pleasant.

I don't think it will be great however for people in this thread to suggest that this situation will lead to corruption have never stepped into the country pre chavez. It has corruption up to it's eye balls and always has. Chaves ruling by decree won't make that much difference to Venezuela in those terms.

The point is that the Venezuelan Parliament itself, the elected house of the citizen's representatives, voted to give Chavez special powers (for a limited period of 18 months).

Chavez has never hidden the fact that his aim is to turn Venezuela into a socialist country: he pledged to do so in his election campaign, and was elected on that basis. He's doing exactly what the citizens have democratically chosen for him to do.

The reason why Parliament is so fully behind him is because the Opposition opted out from taking part in elections that were recognised as fair and democratic by the international community (including, after some reluctance, the United States). The Opposition tried to undermine Venezuelan democracy, depriving citizens of any significant Opposition voice to Chavez, and this is the result.

When the Opposition refuses to take part in democracy, then obviously you end up with a President who has Parliament fully behind him.

The fact that he has democratically been granted short-term rule by decree is virtually a non-issue. Whatever measures he wants to implement, Parliament would rubber-stamp them. Rule by decree does not significantly increase his power; it just enables him to get on with implementing his policies faster.

If something like this were to happen in France, and I were a supporter of the Opposition, I would be furious at the Opposition for refusing to take part in the democratic process and thus depriving me of a voice in government.
I don't think that anyone could state it better then you have. Well done. :cool:

US imperialist history has included:

This is true, but it's not relevant to the thread.

There is social change going on in Venezuela and so far, it has benefitted the majority. Everyone else seems to be jumping the gun, and pointing fingers.
I liked Chavez up until this. The people who think that this "rule by decree" nonsense is justified (but would never accept it if we were talking about Bush or almost anyone else) remind me of the George Bernard Shaw's fawning over Stalin's "socialist paradise".


The fact that he has democratically been granted short-term rule by decree is virtually a non-issue. Whatever measures he wants to implement, Parliament would rubber-stamp them. Rule by decree does not significantly increase his power; it just enables him to get on with implementing his policies faster.

If something like this were to happen in France, and I were a supporter of the Opposition, I would be furious at the Opposition for refusing to take part in the democratic process and thus depriving me of a voice in government.
Fair enough, but this is not without precedent. For example (this being the first that springs to mind, not because I admire him) when Manley's PNP boycotted the 1983 Jamaica elections. It would have been easy for Edward Seaga to create a de facto dictatorship, but he did the right thing, and appointed eight independent senators to form an official opposition. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Seaga)

The point is that the Venezuelan Parliament itself, the elected house of the citizen's representatives, voted to give Chavez special powers (for a limited period of 18 months).

No one is disputing those facts (well, some people in the thread are, but just ignore them). However a republic exists to keep excessive power from a single person or body, and for laws to be discussed openly. The Assembly is supposed, not to rule according to the will of the people because that leads to rule by mob, but to check on the powers of the executive.

Only under the most extreme circumstances should the president be left without this balance, and they're not extreme in Venezuela.

There is a reason why democracy is not pure, and why there is the republic. Read about what Simón Bolívar and Thomas Jefferson though about it. Then you will see why these events in Venezuela are a baaada move.

I liked Chavez up until this. The people who think that this "rule by decree" nonsense is justified (but would never accept it if we were talking about Bush or almost anyone else) remind me of the George Bernard Shaw's fawning over Stalin's "socialist paradise".

However, when you really look at the facts, Bush has been getting everything that he wanted, up until now, because of the Republican majority in the Senate and House of Reps. As far as Chavez is concerned, the early verdict in this thread is that he is guilty of abuse of power before we have seen any results.

So far, Bush's abuse of power has probably been far worse than anything that might be achievable by Chavez.

everything

While I happen to be no fan of Mr. Bush, to say he's gotten everything from the Republican Congress is to greatly oversimplify it.

There are several key things in which he has failed to achieve what he wanted; the Bolton appointment was never ratified, many of his court nominees never passed the Senate (most notably Harriet Miers), a bill against torture and several other things.

So, if you wish to highlight a word, make sure the word you're highlighting is true.

However, when you really look at the facts, Bush
is not relevant to this thread.

Rule by decree is not OK, because it is anti-democratic. No matter what country it's in.

I don't think that anyone could state it better then you have. Well done. :cool:

Thank you; I do try. ;) It's just frustrating when people go on posting points I've tried to refute, without answering what I've said.


Fair enough, but this is not without precedent. For example (this being the first that springs to mind, not because I admire him) when Manley's PNP boycotted the 1983 Jamaica elections. It would have been easy for Edward Seaga to create a de facto dictatorship, but he did the right thing, and appointed eight independent senators to form an official opposition.

That was highly commendable of him. Thanks for telling me about something I didn't know.

It is perfectly legitimate to criticise Chavez for a number of reasons, but one must bear in mind all the facts instead of talking rubbish (as some in this thread have been doing).

I can't really blame Chavez for seizing the opportunity that the Opposition has given him. One can justifiably say it would have been good of him to find some sort of new Opposition, but he was under no obligation to do so. And, as I've already pointed out, ruling by decree for a certain time is, in this case, hardly different at all to ruling with a fully supportive Parliament; it's just quicker.


No one is disputing those facts (well, some people in the thread are, but just ignore them). However a republic exists to keep excessive power from a single person or body, and for laws to be discussed openly. The Assembly is supposed, not to rule according to the will of the people because that leads to rule by mob, but to check on the powers of the executive.

Only under the most extreme circumstances should the president be left without this balance, and they're not extreme in Venezuela.


That's a fair point. You won't find me arguing in favour of more direct democracy and less constitutional restraint on mob rule.

But that brings us back to the question of whether you believe maintaining the Parliamentary process would lead to significantly different policies in this precise case.


Rule by decree is not OK, because it is anti-democratic. No matter what country it's in.

Which brings up the interesting issue of whether or not democracy is "right" for every country. Fiji is a very interesting case study on that issue, with a debate that's being going on since... well, since before the country even became independent. But that's off-topic. Venezuela being, of course, a democracy, and Chavez having proven his commitment to democracy.

yep. I'd argue it's more a good-ol' fashioned Dark Ages feudal monarchy he's wanting to set up. King's usually issue decrees, whereas dictators just give orders.

If not a monarchy, then perhaps a theocracy. All hail Lord Chavez!

Some kings are dictators...
Absolute monarchy, absolutism...

Venezuela being, of course, a democracy, and Chavez having proven his commitment to democracy.

Mainly because he is a master of propaganda. Just about every week he announces that he has heroically thwarted another US backed attempt to overthrow him.

In the 90's he was perfectly willing to lead a military coup to bring himself to power.

It is amazing how much the career of Chavez does mirror the career of Hitler.

Both launched failed military coups.

Both then committed to taking control of the government through democratic measures.

Both worked against any parliamentary system. So far in his presidency, Chavez has eliminated the bicameral system for a unicameral system and enacted two periods of rule by decree.

Hitler did succeed in destroying democracy in Germany; in 1933 he was actually elected democratically. But once he was given the power to rule by decree and suppressed all opposition, his government was no longer democratic. In Mein Kampf, Hitler states his intent for the Nazi Party: "The NSDAP [Nazi] Party must not serve the masses, but rather dominate them" (260;

http://mattbrundage.com/publications/hitlerdemocracy.html

It is amazing how much the career of Chavez does mirror the career of Hitler.


Are you seriously suggesting that's relevent in any way?

Are you seriously suggesting that's relevent in any way?

In making the charge that Chavez is a despot, whose only respect for democracy is in the belief that use of effective propaganda can gain the support of the mob.

That's how it's useful.

While I happen to be no fan of Mr. Bush, to say he's gotten everything from the Republican Congress is to greatly oversimplify it.

There are several key things in which he has failed to achieve what he wanted; the Bolton appointment was never ratified, many of his court nominees never passed the Senate (most notably Harriet Miers), a bill against torture and several other things.

So, if you wish to highlight a word, make sure the word you're highlighting is true.
Bush still appointed Bolton to the UN. Miers, withdrew herself from the nomination, and Bush got a torture bill, that allows human rights violations, and that absolves him of any wrongdoing, retroactive to his Inauguration.

Thanks to his base.

I liked Chavez up until this. The people who think that this "rule by decree" nonsense is justified (but would never accept it if we were talking about Bush or almost anyone else) remind me of the George Bernard Shaw's fawning over Stalin's "socialist paradise".

However, when you really look at the facts, Bush has been getting everything that he wanted, up until now, because of the Republican majority in the Senate and House of Reps. As far as Chavez is concerned, the early verdict in this thread is that he is guilty of abuse of power before we have seen any results.

So far, Bush's abuse of power has probably been far worse than anything that might be achievable by Chavez.

is not relevant to this thread.

Rule by decree is not OK, because it is anti-democratic. No matter what country it's in.
Bush is relevant to the fact that you raised the issue and that it can be supported that Bush has pretty much had a free hand in doing exactly what he wanted to do.

Which brings up the interesting issue of whether or not democracy is "right" for every country. Fiji is a very interesting case study on that issue, with a debate that's being going on since... well, since before the country even became independent. But that's off-topic. Venezuela being, of course, a democracy, and Chavez having proven his commitment to democracy.
Democracy is right for Venezuela if it is to be socialist. There can be no socialism without democracy. I actually liked Chavez up until this point, but I think this is too much of a blatant power grab.

Bush is relevant to the fact that you raised the issue and that it can be supported that Bush has pretty much had a free hand in doing exactly what he wanted to do.
That's true, but how does it justify what Chavez is doing?

I didn't raise the issue of Bush, at least not in the same way that others have done. I could have dropped a number of other names. You really are being deliberately obtuse.

But if you can't bend your mind around that here's a clearer version to respond to:

I liked Chavez up until this. The people who think that this "rule by decree" nonsense is justified remind me of the George Bernard Shaw's fawning over Stalin's "socialist paradise".

This is true, but it's not relevant to the thread.



It is relevant because it shows the manifest hypocrisy of US foreign policy and that they have no right interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state.

The real tyrants of SA are those on US paychecks.

The US does not give a crap about the welfare of SA and it's people, they care only about their gas and oil monopolies, to rape and pillage their rightful national resources.

http://www.junjan.org/weblog/images/Pinochet.jpg

Democracy is right for Venezuela if it is to be socialist. There can be no socialism without democracy. I actually liked Chavez up until this point, but I think this is too much of a blatant power grab.


That's true, but how does it justify what Chavez is doing?

I didn't raise the issue of Bush, at least not in the same way that others have done. I could have dropped a number of other names. You really are being deliberately obtuse.

But if you can't bend your mind around that here's a clearer version to respond to:
I could have been deliberately oblique instead? :p

At any rate, let's see what happens before passing judgement?

The point is that the Venezuelan Parliament itself, the elected house of the citizen's representatives, voted to give Chavez special powers (for a limited period of 18 months).

Chavez has never hidden the fact that his aim is to turn Venezuela into a socialist country: he pledged to do so in his election campaign, and was elected on that basis. He's doing exactly what the citizens have democratically chosen for him to do.

The reason why Parliament is so fully behind him is because the Opposition opted out from taking part in elections that were recognised as fair and democratic by the international community (including, after some reluctance, the United States). The Opposition tried to undermine Venezuelan democracy, depriving citizens of any significant Opposition voice to Chavez, and this is the result.

When the Opposition refuses to take part in democracy, then obviously you end up with a President who has Parliament fully behind him.

The fact that he has democratically been granted short-term rule by decree is virtually a non-issue. Whatever measures he wants to implement, Parliament would rubber-stamp them. Rule by decree does not significantly increase his power; it just enables him to get on with implementing his policies faster.

If something like this were to happen in France, and I were a supporter of the Opposition, I would be furious at the Opposition for refusing to take part in the democratic process and thus depriving me of a voice in government.
That sounds about right :)

It's nothing but blatant hypocrisy by the US, they have democratic elections and the like, but when the people elect a socialist who wants to nationalize industry and take their resources from greedy US companies, it's somehow all undemocratic and despotic. As I said earlier, the US don't care about the people, they couldn't care if a dictator purged the populace, they only care about oil and gas monopolies (Pinochet etc..).

Hypocrisy.

It is relevant because it shows the manifest hypocrisy of US foreign policy and that they have no right interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state.
As a non-American, and a critic of the Bush government, my personal opinion is not an instrument of US foreign policy. I came into this thread to talk about Chavez, and if all you can find to defend him is "Bush is worse" then there's not much of a debate, is there?

At any rate, let's see what happens before passing judgement?
No. There is too much historical precedent for me to be so naive as to ignore this classic stepping stone to dictatorship. What legit excuse can there be for this decree? Chavez should not excercise absolute rule over Venezuela. Unless he is working with the parliament I no longer hold him in good regard.

As a non-American, and a critic of the Bush government, my personal opinion is not an instrument of US foreign policy. I came into this thread to talk about Chavez, and if all you can find to defend him is "Bush is worse" then there's not much of a debate, is there?


No. There is too much historical precedent for me to be so naive as to ignore this classic stepping stone to dictatorship. What legit excuse can there be for this decree? Chavez should not excercise absolute rule over Venezuela. Unless he is working with the parliament I no longer hold him in good regard.

No, the point is, the only criticism of Chavez in the media is coming from right US media. And I was simply stating looking at the US's tainted history of imperialism in SA, it was absolutely no right to interfere in such things.

Chavez is taking back the national resources of his nation, for his people, from greedy US oil and gas corporatists. And as was said, he is working with the parliament, the opposition just refuse to participate.

Do you honestly think US foreign policy should be represented at Venezuelan elections? It's like the anti-national interest.

The real tyrants of SA are those on US paychecks.

Mostly true, but not always.

The US does not give a crap about the welfare of SA and it's people, they care only about their gas and oil monopolies, to rape and pillage their rightful national resources.

Sadly, that is true.

http://www.junjan.org/weblog/images/Pinochet.jpg

I'm no fan of Pinochet, but I must say, I do dig those shades.

"I'm going to imply that history's repeating itself and make a reference to Hitler, and then wonder why people are taking it as me calling Chavez the next Hitler!"

:rolleyes: I never called him Hitler.

I'm going to mostly listen to Aelosia here because she is the one actually from Venezuela, and probably has the best idea what's going on. I, personally, am not all that thrilled with the idea. I certainly don't think it's "Smash the tyranny of the US!" like Andras Prime is going on about, but I'm certainly not going to compare him to Hitler like Allegheny County 2 is.

And I never compared him to Hitler. So why don't you just can it?

The socialists turn to tyranny? Pull the other one! :rolleyes:

Hayek proved correct once again.

Are you seriously suggesting that's relevent in any way?

It is entirely relevant. It shows that Chavez is not the democratic stallwart that you proclaim, and it shows how dangerous and undemocratic Chavez's political strategies truly are.

Nearly all tyrants have come to power in methods similar to those used by Chavez. He has a paranoia (probably for a reason) that have been mirrored by tyrants in the past.

No matter how benevolent you see him to be, you have to admit that he is becoming more and more dangerous.

Better than the corporate theocratic dictatorship that is being established in the US.

Though not by much.

It's nothing but blatant hypocrisy by the US, they have democratic elections and the like, but when the people elect a socialist who wants to nationalize industry and take their resources from greedy US companies, it's somehow all undemocratic and despotic. As I said earlier, the US don't care about the people, they couldn't care if a dictator purged the populace, they only care about oil and gas monopolies (Pinochet etc..).

The US has respected the Venezuelan elections. They have attempted to minitor all elections and have upheld Chavez's victories. The US Govt has used intelligence information to warn Chavez of coup and assassination attempts.

I will agree that the US isn't the great champion of democracy it proclaims itself to be, and it has taken a considerable dump on socialist movements in Central and South America in the past.

I would even say that it is a stretch to call the US democratic, in that our congress has an incredibly low turnover rate, and successors are generally mirror images of the official that came before.


However, Chavez has attempted to come to power through military force, has done away with one parliamentary house permanently, has used a political boycott to create a one party government (that party being the "Patriotic Pole", which routinely uses populist propaganda), and has on two occasions accepted a role of rule by decree.

All of these are decided undemocratic manoeuvres, no matter how hypocritical the individual pointing it out is.

What's happening isn't very good, no. But I'm looking at it this way: if the US had simply let Central and South American nations develop in their own way, chances are there'd have been a Socialist phase that a number of these nations would have passed into - and by now - away from. By constantly micromanaging a successive patchquilt of oppressive, right-wing administrations the Americans have thoroughly sewn the seeds, so to speak - for those like Mr. Chavez.

You can't hold back the world. The longer you try, the worse it's going to be when you finally give up.

I am an American and I would not promote a dictatorship anywhere.

You are not american goverment or CIA.

Hayek proved correct once again.

Salma?

Twist this:

"Breaking news! Pigs have been spotted flying over South Dakota!"

If someone twists THAT into an attack on the current administration (mind you a sensible, somewhat relevant and legitimate attack) then I will officially eat my goldfish.

Only too easy.

The pigs have clearly mutated due to the Bush Administration's unwillingness to harden environmental regulations on Big Oil/the use of depleted uranium in ammunition/toxic waste dumps. The pollution from internal-combustion-engines/DU/toxic waste, and the resulting pig mutatiion is BUSH'S FAULT.

Now, do you want fries with that goldfish?

Aelosia, tengo una pregunta para ti. ¿Piensas que Chávez es bueno para tu país? Yo pienso que Chávez solamente está hablando lo que los Venezolanos quieren escuchar, pero va a hacer sólo lo que es mejor para el, y no para sus ciudadanos. Para mí, Chávez es igual a todos los "presidentes" Suramericanos que decían "¡Dinero para los trabajadores, y comida para todos!".....pero nosotros sabemos que pasó con ellos y sus países.....Me gustaría saber que piensas.:)

(I'm trying to practice my spanish, and it truley is mine, not a online translator..so dont make fun);)

Good to know. I did fixed what you wrote in order to help as much as I can, placing the right corrections regarding grammar and spelling. Keep that good work! :D

For me, it's the same thing. Chávez has made a goverment not at all different than the ones of his predecessors, and hasn't achieved any significant advancement for his people, us. Of course, his masterful use of politics and demagogue measures have helped him to stay in power while maintaining the democratic system, as flawed it might be.

I have something to say, I am ashamed to see that first, a lot of people is coming here to call the Venezuelan people "Bolivians", "Venezulians" and by other words, that simply state they do not have even the basic knowledge about the situation at hand to spit an opinion.

Second, the debate about Venezuela shouldn't be directly aimed at the "Pro-US-Against US" controversy. Too bad most of you, and I include both those pro Chávez and aniti Chávez here, only judge him by his position regarding the United States of America. If you are against Bush and the US, then you are pro Chávez, if you are with Bush and the US, then you are against Chávez. That point of view is extremely limited and only show the lack of insight into the issue that most of you people have regarding our country and situation. I have found that the existence of someone like me, who is both anti Chávez and anti Bush, is difficult to diggest for most, or even impossible to acknowledge.

If I am a venezuelan against the Chávez goverment, then I must work for the CIA, if I am pro Chávez, I am then a cuban marxist leninist hoping for the return of the soviet powers. It's not that simple, folks, stop thinking in such simple parameters. I hope you don't manage to think in the same terms regarding the politics of your own countries.

Actually, I expected more of these forums, (so naive of me, don't you think?), and hoped to find more opinions based in broader perspectives than just to judge the Chávez's regime by its opposite, the Bush administration.

And stop the Hitler thing, it's lame and lacks base entirely. There's a lot of examples more closer to the Chávez intentions.