NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like Chavez is moving more toward a Dictatior form of government. He is shutting down a TV station that opposes him as of midnight tonight. What can we expect next?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070527/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv_6;_ylt=Are5pnFZRPE1Q2FAv8qBp.ZlM3wV

Looks like Chavez is moving more toward a Dictatior form of government. He is shutting down a TV station that opposes him as of midnight tonight. What can we expect next?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070527/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv_6;_ylt=Are5pnFZRPE1Q2FAv8qBp.ZlM3wV


That wouldn't be the one that supported the coup against him, would it?

what's a dictorial grip?

what's a dictorial grip?
Sounds kinky.

It speaks volumes about Socialism that the only way you can implement it is to censor out any opposition.

Sounds like what Putin's doing in Russia. :p

It speaks volumes about Socialism that the only way you can implement it is to censor out any opposition.

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.

Or Denmark or Norway or Finland or Germany or Switzerland or France or Italy or Australia or the UK.

That wouldn't be the one that supported the coup against him, would it?

That's the one, yes.

Let's see. They supported a military coup that tried, yes, to set up a dictatorship, against Chavez (freely elected. Thrice.), but then cry "freedom"?

9-letter word beginning with H...

Channel 8 is the only state-run television station in Venezuela, to my knowledge.

RCTV, the station that Chavez is shutting down, is one that has consistently produced reams of outright falsehood and anti-working/lower class hate propaganda. There is documented evidence that reveals the owners and higher-ups who run the station directly conspired with elements of the military elite and the U.S. government to put together the 2002 coup, successfully subverting democracy in Venezuela for about 47 hours before Chavez's return. The morning after the coup, the private media openly gloated about their role - even admitting that one of the buildings (either RCTV or Venevision, I can't remember which) was used as a base of operations in which the plot was hatched.

The various private media stations also staged information blackouts when their co-conspirators in the military figured out that they were in trouble. For example, when Chavez was on the verge of regaining power, the media stations maintained that they were in 'total control', and passed the day playing cartoons and movies. Also worth mentioning is the fact that during the coup, they seized control of the state's one government television station, Channel 8.

What speaks volumes is not the fact that the station is being shut down, but the fact that it was able to stay in business for four years without a drastic change in its programming, and for the most part, with the same people in charge. Could you image what would happen in the U.S. if say, CNN or FOX news openly supported aggression against a democratically elected government, and entered into conspiracy with rogue elements of the military to overthrow the administration of a democratically elected president? I'm fairly sure they would be put away immediately... Many of the conspirators continue to hold prominent positions in the political opposition!

RCTV is an openly and aggressively seditious organization that never ceases to insult and ridicule Chavez supporters, guilty of associating itself with rogue elements of the military seeking to subvert democracy. This information isn't hard to discover on the internets ;p.

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.

Or Denmark or Norway or Finland or Germany or Switzerland or France or Italy or Australia or the UK.

I'm assuming that you 2 don't have a freaking clue what a socialist system is. All of the nations mentioned are variants of capitalism.

I'm assuming that you 2 don't have a freaking clue what a socialist system is. All of the nations mentioned are variants of capitalism.

With aspects of socialism mixed in..

I’m assuming that you 2 don’t have a freaking clue what a socialist system is. All of the nations mentioned are variants of capitalism.
socialism =/= ¬capitalism

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.
Since when are Keynesian economies socialist?

Since when are Keynesian economies socialist?

It's actually quite simple logic. Keynesian economics are flawed. Socialism is flawed. Therefore, Keynesian economics are socialism.

Hey, I never said the logic was correct.

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.

Sweden and Canada aren't socialist by a long shot. For one, the state does not control the economy; there's a big government, but the state itself does not own the means of production.

In fact, Sweden has lower corporate taxes than the US...they're a free market society with a large social security net, but not socialist.

Dictatorship my ass, the only dictatorship these people have suffered is under the rich US oil firms that plundered the country under conservative governments to line their own pockets with corrupt deals, Chavex has brought the assets and wealth of the country to the common people, and has prevented the vast oil reserves from being concentrated into a tiny elite oligarchy. This radio station tried to do an Allende on Chavez and set up their own Pinochet to please their american profiteers, hypocrisy.

Or Denmark or Norway or Finland or Germany or Switzerland or France or Italy or Australia or the UK.

You stole Fizzy Lifting Drink! You broke the rules, you get NOTHING! You LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!

All you crazy Statists...

If it’s not support for someone like Bush, it’s support for someone like Chavez.

Dear me...

For one, the state does not control the economy; there's a big government, but the state itself does not own the means of production.
That's a requirement for communism, not socialism.

That's a requirement for communism, not socialism.

No, communism is a stateless system; socialism is the intermediate phase where the economy passes through government ownership before the abolition of the state that is a hallmark of communism.

Socialism involves communal control of the economy by workers or the government. Sweden has corporations, private property, management systems and everything else that are hallmarks of a capitalist, free market system. They have a large government, but they are not socialist by any stretch.

I've actually pointed out many times before that Chavez is the next Idi Amin.

No one listens however, despite the fact that he is obviously nuts.

When he begins his purges it will no doubt be a 'surprise' to everyone.

I've actually pointed out many times before that Chavez is the next Idi Amin.

No one listens however, despite the fact that he is obviously nuts.

When he begins his purges it will no doubt be a 'surprise' to everyone.

Your full of crap, if any purges happened it would be if the CIA supported a military coup which then engaged in making leftists 'disappear'.

Your full of crap, if any purges happened it would be if the CIA supported a military coup which then engaged in making leftists 'disappear'.

Someone here likes oppression. A cookie for you stupidity.

Your full of crap, if any purges happened it would be if the CIA supported a military coup which then engaged in making leftists 'disappear'.

The CIA never engages in purges of leftists: it's against their own self interest. In point of fact, I have no doubt they are helping Chavez all they can so they can get more sweet tax dollars.

At any rate, Chavez is clearly a madman. That no one else can see it speaks volumes about politics.

The CIA never engages in purges of leftists: it's against their own self interest. In point of fact, I have no doubt they are helping Chavez all they can so they can get more sweet tax dollars.

At any rate, Chavez is clearly a madman. That no one else can see it speaks volumes about politics.

cough*pinochet*ngo dinh diem*cough

cough*pinochet*ngo dinh diem*cough

That was all the executive branch, not the CIA. But I doubt you'll actually start whining about the democrats or Hank K, so you probably shouldn't opine.

cough*pinochet*ngo dinh diem*cough
Pinochet was the action of the Nixon administration, even as that administration was falling apart. They'd lost all sense of bearing, and decent governance was beyond RMN. It was only a matter of time until he was forced to resign.

Diem was put in to place nearly fifty years ago, the policymakers who decided to carry out that action are mostly dead, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

The CIA never engages in purges of leftists: it's against their own self interest. In point of fact, I have no doubt they are helping Chavez all they can so they can get more sweet tax dollars.


What rock have you been hiding under? Support right wing dictatorships who loved to purge leftists is a CIA speciality.

What rock have you been hiding under? Support right wing dictatorships who loved to purge leftists is a CIA speciality.

Not so much. The last of the right-wing dictators the CIA "supported" (Pinochet was a special project of Nixon-Kissinger, not an action undertaken by the CIA because it felt like it) were leaving power in the eighties and nineties. I mean, who all is left of that old, Cold War breed?

What rock have you been hiding under? Support right wing dictatorships who loved to purge leftists is a CIA speciality.

I'm not hiding under any rock. You are in law school now, haven't you got the lecture about going 'behind' the pleadings?

The CIA needs leftists the same way that a fish needs water. The US has, indeed, instigated purges, but the weren't a CIA thing. Mostly the CIA has been against them.

And Chavez is still the next Idi Amin. Anyone who saw him at Buenos Aires would tell you that.

Chavez is obviously a would-be tyrant pinko who wants to steal money from hard working successful americans, he has done terrible things like remove US firm monopolies on oil reserves, sure he hasn't invaded a foreign country and started a civil war, created numerous torture prisons and made his country into a quasi-fascist state, but I am sure he's bad because these people say so.

I'm assuming that you 2 don't have a freaking clue what a socialist system is. All of the nations mentioned are variants of capitalism.

Very true, and good point. :)

Chavez is obviously a would-be tyrant pinko who wants to steal money from hard working successful americans, he has done terrible things like remove US firm monopolies on oil reserves, sure he hasn't invaded a foreign country and started a civil war, created numerous torture prisons and made his country into a quasi-fascist state, but I am sure he's bad because these people say so.

Actually, the firms that have suffered at the hands of Mr. Chavez have been European or Brazilian, not US.

Beyond that, you're making a strawman, with irrelevant emotional appeals.

If Chavez had called RCTV "The Liberal Media" from the start, how many of the people here howling at him now would be applauding instead?

Seriously, people don't mind when media moguls like Rupert Murdoch consolidate stations which is practically narrowing down the viewpoints but when a foreign leader takes a more hands-on approach it's suddenly 3b1l.

I think a simple reading of the RCTV 'donation' record would set this straight.

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.

Or Denmark or Norway or Finland or Germany or Switzerland or France or Italy or Australia or the UK.

so basically every developed country in the western world except America...:p

I've actually pointed out many times before that Chavez is the next Idi Amin.

No one listens however, despite the fact that he is obviously nuts.

When he begins his purges it will no doubt be a 'surprise' to everyone.

WTF...everytime someone becomes dislike by the US government they are "nuts" or "insane"....Chavez, Ahmedinejad, Saddam....whatsupwiththat :confused::confused:

so basically every developed country in the western world except America...:p

To one degree or another, yes (depending on how you count Russia), although Japan is solidly capitalist, and there are a number of other European countries I didn't bother to list.

And while said countries are not technically Socialist, in that the means of production are not directly controlled by the government, the level of regulation of business and the collectivist attitude of said countries generally qualifies them as socialist societies.

WTF...everytime someone becomes dislike by the US government they are "nuts" or "insane"....Chavez, Ahmedinejad, Saddam....whatsupwiththat :confused::confused:

Funny thing that Cacadaemon leaves out is, many of the "nuts" and "insane" dictators started off being Uncle Sam's bitch at the beginning. Like Ngo Dinh Diem, Gus Pinochet, The Shah, Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein.

Chavez was never friends with the U.S. so unlike the others mentioned he ostensibly has a chance of surviving a coup or at least surviving, period.

:D

And while said countries are not technically Socialist, in that the means of production are not directly controlled by the government, the level of regulation of business and the collectivist attitude of said countries generally qualifies them as socialist societies.
They, just like the USA, are Keynesian mixed economies. The USA and some other countries use the so-called Anglo-saxon system, the others use the so-called continental model - these are variants of the (neo-)Keynesian mixed economy. In the end none are predominantly capitalist or socialist. I wish people would get this.

socialism =/= ¬capitalism
Venezuela isn't completely Socialist... yet.

And I have a feeling he might backdown on this eventually, even some of his supporters are pissed.

If he has any reason perhaps he's just realize that the channel was full of Capitalist pricks and let them off with a warning.

Venezuela isn't completely Socialist... yet.

And I have a feeling he might backdown on this eventually, even some of his supporters are pissed.

If he has any reason perhaps he's just realize that the channel was full of Capitalist pricks and let them off with a warning.

I just hope they come to their senses before people really get hurt. No one wants that. :(

To one degree or another, yes (depending on how you count Russia), although Japan is solidly capitalist, and there are a number of other European countries I didn't bother to list.

And while said countries are not technically Socialist, in that the means of production are not directly controlled by the government, the level of regulation of business and the collectivist attitude of said countries generally qualifies them as socialist societies.
Dude, you don't know what you are talking about if you put Japan higher than the nations you listed.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom
That link shows the levels of economic freedom per nation according to the conservative think tank known as the Heritage Foundation. If you'll note, Japan is below every single freaking nation you listed!

Funny thing that Cacadaemon leaves out is, many of the "nuts" and "insane" dictators started off being Uncle Sam's bitch at the beginning. Like Ngo Dinh Diem, Gus Pinochet, The Shah, Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein.

Chavez was never friends with the U.S. so unlike the others mentioned he ostensibly has a chance of surviving a coup or at least surviving, period.

:D

Maybe I should crash some planes into a building. Maybe I should organize a book burning. These are all godly things.

I swear, you better prey to your god that you never meet me personally,.

They, just like the USA, are Keynesian mixed economies. The USA and some other countries use the so-called Anglo-saxon system, the others use the so-called continental model - these are variants of the (neo-)Keynesian mixed economy. In the end none are predominantly capitalist or socialist. I wish people would get this.
I know that a few listed were nations that used the Anglo-saxon model. If it has markets then it isn't socialist. "Nothing that is in any way connected with the operation of a market is in the praxeological or economic sense to be called socialism." This ultimately means that we can call it state interventionist capitalism, distorted market capitalism, whatever name you want to call it but it is a market system within a bunch of regulations, subsidies, restrictions, taxes, etc.

Funny thing that Cacadaemon leaves out is, many of the "nuts" and "insane" dictators started off being Uncle Sam's bitch at the beginning. Like Ngo Dinh Diem, Gus Pinochet, The Shah, Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein.

Not exactly true,

Hussein, for example, really wasn't so much of an American installation, though. He was primarily a Soviet stooge. Even then, the US only aided Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, and in rough proportions to those that it aided Iran. We played each side off of the other in order to weaken each. Even at that, our contributions to the Hussein regime were negligible. Far less than that of the USSR, Egypt, France, China or Brazil.

"Nothing that is in any way connected with the operation of a market is in the praxeological or economic sense to be called socialism."
Well there is market socialism, but that is another beast entirely. ;)

One day people will see Chavez for what he really is, a blustering little assclown.

He is not some great populist like the Che wankers make him out to be, nor is he a evil genius bent on regional domination. He's a politician who uses the US as a scapegoat for all Venezuela's problems and the sheep that make up his populace lap it up. At the same time he uses his flawed, but popular, economic policies to create short term gains in the standard of living for the lower classes, but at the cost of long-term eonomic health. Record high oil prices are allowing him to finance his grassroots socialism, right now but what happens when the oil runs out or prices drop again?

We should all just ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

One day people will see Chavez for what he really is, a blustering little assclown.

He is not some great populist like the Che wankers make him out to be, nor is he a evil genius bent on regional domination. He's a politician who uses the US as a scapegoat for all Venezuela's problems and the sheep that make up his populace lap it up. At the same time he uses his flawed, but popular, economic policies to create short term gains in the standard of living for the lower classes, but at the cost of long-term eonomic health. Record high oil prices are allowing him to finance his grassroots socialism, right now but what happens when the oil runs out or prices drop again?

We should all just ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

Thanks for pointing out the interesting facts.

That wouldn't be the one that supported the coup against him, would it?

Oh no, that was Venevisión, that now is allied with the goverment after giving it large donations in exchange for such "slip".

And I won't even start on this debate, but I want to just to state that although I didn't like RCTV's programs, shutting down a TV station by negating the renewal of the concession is censorship, nothing more, nothing less, if you like Chávez or if you don't. And no, 8 channel Venezolana de Televisión isn't the only state-controlled channel, for the ones that highlighted that fact. Vive TV is state controlled, ANTV is state controlled, Telesur is state controlled, and of course, VTV is state controlled.

Please do not take this discussion again into the fields of "Do I like the US or not?", actually, you are insulting Venezuela when you do that.

Well there is market socialism, but that is another beast entirely. ;)
Hey, I quoted my intellectual. I refuse to take responsibility for the content of his thoughts!!:D Isn't that managed by planning boards rather than an actual market though? I thought it was a socialist approximation of a market more than a real one.

Maybe I should crash some planes into a building. Maybe I should organize a book burning. These are all godly things.

I swear, you better prey to your god that you never meet me personally,.

The bolded words are hilarious coming from a bitter-ass athiest who "finds all religions equally stupid". And I'm sure that threat is somewhat Mod-worthy.

The bolded words are hilarious coming from a bitter-ass athiest who "finds all religions equally stupid". And I'm sure that threat is somewhat Mod-worthy.

Yah, all religions are equally stupid. You are just too retarded to see why.

Yah, all religions are equally stupid. You are just to retarded to see why.

Actually, this topic is about Hugo Chavez. What the hell does religion have to do with it? Besides your bitter-ass pathological hatred of it that is.

Actually, this topic is about Hugo Chavez. What the hell does religion have to do with it? Besides your bitter-ass pathological hatred of it that is.

My hatred is not pathological. It's actually based in reason. Doubtless it is beyond your ken, but you can't help that.

Tell you what, go pray to allah that I will get my just deserts at the end time. That should make you feel better.

My hatred is not pathological. It's actually based in reason. Doubtless it is beyond your ken, but you can't help that..

Hatred is a mockery of reason.

Hatred is a mockery of reason.

Agreed. :cool:

Hatred is a mockery of reason.

Well that is just high sounding rubbish.

There are plenty of things that one can hate quite reasonably: Racism, the holocaust, &c.

Don't hide behind euphony.

And I will not apologize for being an atheist. At least I have never used the excuse of the sky fairy to organize mass book burnings, and I never will.

Well that is just high sounding rubbish.

There are plenty of things that one can hate quite reasonably: Racism, the holocaust, &c.

Don't hide behind euphony.

And I will not apologize for being an atheist. At least I have never used the excuse of the sky fairy to organize mass book burnings, and I never will.

Yes, but, as Goethe once noted, "resentment is impotent hatred." Might be best to keep that in mind. :)

Central point: democracy does not necessarily guarantee a free society. Chavez might well be democratically elected (I tend to question the validity of his elections, especially given his attitude to anti-Chavez speech), but he is making his country ever less free. Make no mistake, unless Chavez is stopped, he will turn his country into a Castroite dictatorship, where the wrong word will get you locked up for 30 years in a tiny cell ... with free health care.

Not so much. The last of the right-wing dictators the CIA "supported" (Pinochet was a special project of Nixon-Kissinger, not an action undertaken by the CIA because it felt like it) were leaving power in the eighties and nineties. I mean, who all is left of that old, Cold War breed?

Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith et al.

Make no mistake, unless Chavez is stopped, he will turn his country into a Castroite dictatorship, where the wrong word will get you locked up for 30 years in a tiny cell ...

You people are so boring.

One thinks you would make up new propaganda lines once in a while.

Soheran, you can't deny that Castro, and people like him lock people up in horrific conditions for acts that no decent person would consider questionable, never mind warranting a sentence that would otherwise be reserved for a major felony.

30 years for owning the wrong books, or giving a seminar on Martin Luther King? And decent government would mind its own business, and decent person would regard operating a library, and giving seminars about Martin Luther King as positive goods. Yet in Castro's Cuba, both will get you the sort of sentence a rapist can expect in the West.

I see nothing in Chavez that indicates that his regime is anything other than a slow boat to outright communism.

Well that is just high sounding rubbish.

There are plenty of things that one can hate quite reasonably: Racism, the holocaust, &c.

So, religion is equal to racism and the Holocaust? That makes perfect sense.

And I will not apologize for being an atheist. At least I have never used the excuse of the sky fairy to organize mass book burnings, and I never will.

Yet plenty of atheists have done it before...

There are mass attending Catholics (and protestants) who hold almost the same politics as me, and Athiests who don't. Some of those who stood up for the least represented in the world on social issues have been what might be termed "religous".

I suggest you Americans look to your own house before criticizing anything abroad, otherwise I may have to mention the H word.

I suggest you Americans look to your own house before criticizing anything abroad, otherwise I may have to mention the H word.

We're not all Busheviks here pal. We know the White House stinks just as much as Hugo's presidential palace.

Or Denmark or Norway or Finland or Germany or Switzerland or France or Italy or Australia or the UK.

UK? Australia? Socialist? These nations have actually less taxes/government then the US.

UK? Australia? Socialist? These nations have actually less taxes/government then the US.

Some people choose to ignore that most Socialist states quickly fail. As you rightly note, those are solidly capitalist states, to their credit. :)

I believe what CthulhuFhtagn and Thedrom mean by listing Canada, Sweden, Norway, et al. as Socialist states is that they have strong Social Democratic attributes, or at least parties that advocate them.

For example, as for owning the method of production, I can think immediately of BC Hydro in my own province, owned by the provincial rather than the federal government (but that's Canada for you). A quick glance at a list of Crown corporations gives me the idea that most of the other provinces have public power companies as well.

The New Democratic Party is a social democrat party, at both federal and provincial levels. They've never formed a federal ruling party, but in the 2006 federal elections they got 18% of the popular vote (and half again as many seats as they got last time), and Manitoba and Saskatchewan are currently under NDP governments.

So while I hesitate to call Canada a socialist state, I wouldn't say it's completely not either. I couldn't speak for Norway or the rest of that list, however.

Some people choose to ignore that most Socialist states quickly fail. As you rightly note, those are solidly capitalist states, to their credit. :)
I don't particularly like socialism or capitalism. I know there's a happy medium, but I doubt any country would ever adopt it. Much better to just try to have the best life you can, whoever's in charge. Chavez does sound like a dick, though. Never trust someone with 6 letters in their name. I despise the number 6.

All you crazy Statists...

If it’s not support for someone like Bush, it’s support for someone like Chavez.

Dear me...

I'm a statist. Chavez is concentrating way too much power in the executive individual. Even if he looked after all the Venezuelan people and did no harm to them I would worry about what the next person would do.

UK? Australia? Socialist? These nations have actually less taxes/government then the US.

*Looks at Australia's tax system* Hmmm, I always thought that it was larger.

Anyway Socialism is broad enough to cover a vast array of different philosophies. Libertarian socialism for instance would want as little government as possible.

I'm a statist. Chavez is concentrating way too much power in the executive individual. Even if he looked after all the Venezuelan people and did no harm to them I would worry about what the next person would do.

A valid criticism. Its far too "Hugo" based in many ways.

I was thinking about this yesterday and realized something, the best he can do at being a dictator is not renew a broadcast license? He isn't so much forcibly shutting it down as deciding it can't legally broadcast any more. Sure, it opposed him as a leader, but all he did was decide not to renew a license, even after it supported a coup against him. That isn't quite Hitler there...

I agree with Soleichunn. Benevolent dictator is a fine method of government, fuck all the "democracy or nothing" idiots from a country without a democracy, but once the benevolent guy is gone, what happens?

I see nothing in Chavez that indicates that his regime is anything other than a slow boat to outright communism.
And the mention of communism discounts everything you said because you obviously have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Communism as a government model != ruthless dictatorship.

what's a dictorial grip?
Better yet, what is a Dictatior? :eek:

I was thinking about this yesterday and realized something, the best he can do at being a dictator is not renew a broadcast license? He isn't so much forcibly shutting it down as deciding it can't legally broadcast any more. Sure, it opposed him as a leader, but all he did was decide not to renew a license, even after it supported a coup against him. That isn't quite Hitler there...

I agree with Soleichunn. Benevolent dictator is a fine method of government, fuck all the "democracy or nothing" idiots from a country without a democracy, but once the benevolent guy is gone, what happens?
ah... Why in the world would he forcibly shut them down, when all he had to do is not renew their license, and thus look less the bad guy?!

Soheran, you can't deny that Castro, and people like him lock people up in horrific conditions for acts that no decent person would consider questionable, never mind warranting a sentence that would otherwise be reserved for a major felony.

30 years for owning the wrong books, or giving a seminar on Martin Luther King? And decent government would mind its own business, and decent person would regard operating a library, and giving seminars about Martin Luther King as positive goods. Yet in Castro's Cuba, both will get you the sort of sentence a rapist can expect in the West.

I have no intention of defending Castro. I don't particularly like this particular action of Chávez's, either.

What I find boring are the repeated cries of "Ah! Evil communist dictator!" when with more than eight years in office and the excellent excuse of having a coup launched against him, Chávez still hasn't repressed the opposition in anything close to dictatorial fashion.

How many elections has he won? How many more must he win until it is admitted that at worst he is a democrat with an egotistical bent whose respect for civil liberties is probably less absolutist than it should be?

I see nothing in Chavez that indicates that his regime is anything other than a slow boat to outright communism.

That says more about your eyesight than it does about Chávez's presidency.

Castro's government has nothing even approaching the democratic legitimacy of Chávez's.

I'm not hiding under any rock. You are in law school now, haven't you got the lecture about going 'behind' the pleadings?

The CIA needs leftists the same way that a fish needs water. The US has, indeed, instigated purges, but the weren't a CIA thing. Mostly the CIA has been against them.

And Chavez is still the next Idi Amin. Anyone who saw him at Buenos Aires would tell you that.
Why are you stressed about Chavez?

Deep in the closet:

The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf)

Another article by John Pilger:

Chavez is a threat because he offers the alternative of a decent country (http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=269)

I have no intention of defending Castro. I don't particularly like this particular action of Chávez's, either.

What I find boring are the repeated cries of "Ah! Evil communist dictator!" when with more than eight years in office and the excellent excuse of having a coup launched against him, Chávez still hasn't repressed the opposition in anything close to dictatorial fashion.

How many elections has he won? How many more must he win until it is admitted that at worst he is a democrat with an egotistical bent whose respect for civil liberties is probably less absolutist than it should be?

Pretty much of an accurate view. However, the fact that he has been democratically elected shouldn't give him the right to do whatever he want.

Central point: democracy does not necessarily guarantee a free society. Chavez might well be democratically elected (I tend to question the validity of his elections, especially given his attitude to anti-Chavez speech), but he is making his country ever less free. Make no mistake, unless Chavez is stopped, he will turn his country into a Castroite dictatorship, where the wrong word will get you locked up for 30 years in a tiny cell ... with free health care.

Well, Chávez was democratically elected, we opposed to Chávez even in this country have to recognize that. Yet, yes, the actions of the venezuelan goverment are a proof that just democracy doesn't guarantee a free society, because always we have to fear a tyranny of the majority. And yes, he already announced even more tough measures towards socialism.

What I find boring are the repeated cries of "Ah! Evil communist dictator!" when with more than eight years in office and the excellent excuse of having a coup launched against him, Chávez still hasn't repressed the opposition in anything close to dictatorial fashion.

The trend in his regime is clear, he is moving towards a dictatorship, true, he is moving at a snail's pace, but that is the direction in which he is moving, and I see nothing to indicate that he will ever reverse his course.

How many elections has he won? How many more must he win until it is admitted that at worst he is a democrat with an egotistical bent whose respect for civil liberties is probably less absolutist than it should be?

A democrat does not rule by decree, the act that gives him the right to rule by decree removes his regime from democratic accountability. He might have got in democratically, but his Enabling Act makes it pretty clear that he wants to stay in, regardless of what the people, or their elected representatives think.

The days of Venezuelan democracy are numbered, anyone who can't see this is either blind, or looking away. I suspect that Venezuela will remain democratic for as long as the people vote "correctly", while they keep voting for Chavez.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2514

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

http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/2007/01/hugo-chavez-venezuelas-democratically.html

The trend in his regime is clear, he is moving towards a dictatorship, true, he is moving at a snail's pace, but that is the direction in which he is moving, and I see nothing to indicate that he will ever reverse his course.
By not renewing the broadcast license for a company that supported a coup against him? If such subtle moves count as moving towards dictatorship, the US has been moving towards dictatorship for years, especially the last 8.

A democrat does not rule by decree

Why not... when the parliament is entirely made up of his supporters, since the opposition boycotted the elections?

The people's "elected representatives" themselves must approve the act that enables him to rule by decree, and it does not exempt him from having to be re-elected.

By not renewing the broadcast license for a company that supported a coup against him? If such subtle moves count as moving towards dictatorship, the US has been moving towards dictatorship for years, especially the last 8.

Does Chávez have "signing statements"?

RCTV, the station that Chavez is shutting down...

From what I read from many newspapers, looks like RCTV is being closed dows because the term of the state licence has expired - very different from what happens here in Italy, with Silvio Berlusconi's TV channel Rete 4 occupying abusively the analog TV frequencies that the Parliament gave to another station, and the police doing nothing about that... hey, guess what, Berlusconi was PM at the time Rete 4 should have stopped the analog broadcasting and gone to digital.
In Venezuela, many opposition voices (radio and newspapers) continue to work without problems, hence I doubt that the shutdown of RCTV proves that Chavez is a dictator.

A democrat does not rule by decree, the act that gives him the right to rule by decree removes his regime from democratic accountability.

Say this to G.W.Bush... oh, wait, he isn't a democrat after all, he's a republican!;)

Pretty much of an accurate view. However, the fact that he has been democratically elected shouldn't give him the right to do whatever he want.

Some things just have to be done using referrendum.

Well, Chávez was democratically elected, we opposed to Chávez even in this country have to recognize that. Yet, yes, the actions of the venezuelan goverment are a proof that just democracy doesn't guarantee a free society, because always we have to fear a tyranny of the majority. And yes, he already announced even more tough measures towards socialism.

What kind of socialism though? Socialism encompasses many conflicting parts and is a nebulous thing to move towards.

Better yet, what is a Dictatior? :eek:

A Dictati or Question. A conflict between a known element and an unknown one. In other words; A gamble about to begin.

From what I read from many newspapers, looks like RCTV is being closed dows because the term of the state licence has expired - very different from what happens here in Italy, with Silvio Berlusconi's TV channel Rete 4 occupying abusively the analog TV frequencies that the Parliament gave to another station, and the police doing nothing about that... hey, guess what, Berlusconi was PM at the time Rete 4 should have stopped the analog broadcasting and gone to digital.
In Venezuela, many opposition voices (radio and newspapers) continue to work without problems, hence I doubt that the shutdown of RCTV proves that Chavez is a dictator.

Is he still around in government? Damn, I feel sorry for you.

Deep in the closet:

The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf)


Secret? We in Italy call these secrets "Pulcinella's secrets", meaning that anyone knows that.

It was the evil, antiamerican, sovietophile Vietnam who put an end to the US-and-China-supported Khmer Rouge regime, if doublethink hasn't occurred yet.

Is he still around in government? Damn, I feel sorry for you.

He's just the opposition leader now. He is a parliament member, chief of the largest party, richest man in Italy, owner of AC Milan, owner of 3 nationwide analog TV channels, 6 nationwide (iirc) digital TV channels, controls directly 3 or 4 (unclear property assets) nationwide newspapers, about 10 local radio stations, more than 60% of the advertising market, etc, etc...

I'm not going to weep when Berlusconi will leave this valley of tears.

He's just the opposition leader now. He is a parliament member, chief of the largest party, richest man in Italy, owner of AC Milan, owner of 3 nationwide analog TV channels, 6 nationwide (iirc) digital TV channels, controls directly 3 or 4 (unclear property assets) nationwide newspapers, about 10 local radio stations, more than 60% of the advertising market, etc, etc...

I'm not going to weep when Berlusconi will leave this valley of tears.

I thought he controlled a lot of the private media but that much...

He's the Murdoch of Italy!

I thought he controlled a lot of the private media but that much...

He's the Murdoch of Italy!

Yes, but more treacherous and likable, in the typical Italian way.

Channel 8 is the only state-run television station in Venezuela, to my knowledge.

RCTV, the station that Chavez is shutting down, is one that has consistently produced reams of outright falsehood and anti-working/lower class hate propaganda. There is documented evidence that reveals the owners and higher-ups who run the station directly conspired with elements of the military elite and the U.S. government to put together the 2002 coup, successfully subverting democracy in Venezuela for about 47 hours before Chavez's return. The morning after the coup, the private media openly gloated about their role - even admitting that one of the buildings (either RCTV or Venevision, I can't remember which) was used as a base of operations in which the plot was hatched. Source?

The various private media stations also staged information blackouts when their co-conspirators in the military figured out that they were in trouble. For example, when Chavez was on the verge of regaining power, the media stations maintained that they were in 'total control', and passed the day playing cartoons and movies. Also worth mentioning is the fact that during the coup, they seized control of the state's one government television station, Channel 8. Source?

RCTV is an openly and aggressively seditious organization that never ceases to insult and ridicule Chavez supporters, guilty of associating itself with rogue elements of the military seeking to subvert democracy. This information isn't hard to discover on the internets ;p.Source?

Source?
Source?
Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCTV

On December 28, 2006, President Chávez announced that the government would not renew RCTV's broadcast license, which expires on May 27, 2007, therefore forcing the channel to cease operations on that day.[1] The government maintains that the non-renewal is caused by RCTV's support for the 2002 coup attempt against the democratically elected government of Chávez; nevertheless, many individuals, international organizations and NGOs — including the OAS's Secretary General José Miguel Insulza[2] and its Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression,[3] the Inter American Press Association,[4] and the Committee to Protect Journalists[5] — have expressed concerns for freedom of the press.[6] However, Secretary Insulza said it was up to Venezuelan courts to solve this dispute and that no country had addressed this issue at the OAS Permanent Council.[7]

(The numbers in brackets being links to actual sources in Wiki-article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCTV

On December 28, 2006, President Chávez announced that the government would not renew RCTV's broadcast license, which expires on May 27, 2007, therefore forcing the channel to cease operations on that day.[1] The government maintains that the non-renewal is caused by RCTV's support for the 2002 coup attempt against the democratically elected government of Chávez; nevertheless, many individuals, international organizations and NGOs — including the OAS's Secretary General José Miguel Insulza[2] and its Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression,[3] the Inter American Press Association,[4] and the Committee to Protect Journalists[5] — have expressed concerns for freedom of the press.[6] However, Secretary Insulza said it was up to Venezuelan courts to solve this dispute and that no country had addressed this issue at the OAS Permanent Council.[7]

(The numbers in brackets being links to actual sources in Wiki-article)

I'm sorry were there two coup attempts? 'cause nothing there says US backed or sponsored.

Actually, the firms that have suffered at the hands of Mr. Chavez have been European or Brazilian, not US.

Funny. I'm Brazilian and I know for a fact that the right-wing of Brazil would go NUTS if Chavez harmed a Brazilian company. Morales did so and the Brazilian right-wingers suggested military action before trying to even negotiate (negotiations that are going very well now, TYVM).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCTV

On December 28, 2006, President Chávez announced that the government would not renew RCTV's broadcast license, which expires on May 27, 2007, therefore forcing the channel to cease operations on that day.[1] The government maintains that the non-renewal is caused by RCTV's support for the 2002 coup attempt against the democratically elected government of Chávez; nevertheless, many individuals, international organizations and NGOs — including the OAS's Secretary General José Miguel Insulza[2] and its Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression,[3] the Inter American Press Association,[4] and the Committee to Protect Journalists[5] — have expressed concerns for freedom of the press.[6] However, Secretary Insulza said it was up to Venezuelan courts to solve this dispute and that no country had addressed this issue at the OAS Permanent Council.[7]

(The numbers in brackets being links to actual sources in Wiki-article)

Wiki...Heh.

Morales did so

And the sky fell!

Oh, wait....

I'm sorry were there two coup attempts? 'cause nothing there says US backed or sponsored.

We were over that before. There was a coup. It did have US backing. Or did the leaders concidentally have talks with US officials beforehand and hideout in Miami after?

We were over that before. There was a coup. It did have US backing. Or did the leaders concidentally have talks with US officials beforehand and hideout in Miami after?

So the US warned Chavez about a coup we were plotting.

God damn no wonder we failed!

Wiki...Heh.

There are links to the sources.

Wiki...Heh.


Thousands of people have demonstrated in Caracas as Venezuela's oldest TV network went off air after President Hugo Chavez did not renew its licence. (my bold)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6696699.stm

Being old-fashioned, normally I see if the facts are true first, regardless of the source, then deride it if applicable.

And the sky fell!

Oh, wait....

Morales did so and there were people here calling for WAR against Bolivia!

I'm sorry were there two coup attempts? 'cause nothing there says US backed or sponsored.

No, there was a "coup" in April 2002. Even although our Supreme Court labeled the situation of that day as a "void of power" with a intent of usurpation by Carmona, people, including the president Chávez and half the foreigners around here that read Wiki label it as a "coup".

Wonder why Chávez kept the guy that "forced" him to resign around after the "coup"? No, don't do it, it might mess your mind.

Do you know who made a totally and entirely true military coup? Chávez back in 1992. Oh my God!, your champion of democracy involved in a military coup? In a military coup with him as the main commander that also left a lot more dead venezuelans than in april 2002? Way to go to such a champion of democracy. I may remind you that he has said several times lately that he doesn't repent of his actions and that he would do it again. As someone else also pointed in this thread, Venezuela will stay democratic as long as the voters keep supporting Chávez, the day they stop voting for him (And that is going to happen when the oil prices go down), he will start another coup.

Of course, it is not the duty of any of you to know even a bit of what happen in Venezuela, or why or how, just come here and debate it using the postures of "I like the US", or "I don't like the US". Some people, actually a lot of people like the US and Chávez at the same time, while others actually hate both Chávez and the US current regime, as myself.

Morales did so and there were people here calling for WAR against Bolivia!

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just remembering that particular event and the predictions of imminent catastrophe that surrounded it.

No, there was a "coup" in April 2002. Even although our Supreme Court labeled the situation of that day as a "void of power" with a intent of usurpation by Carmona, people, including the president Chávez and half the foreigners around here that read Wiki label it as a "coup".

Wonder why Chávez kept the guy that "forced" him to resign around after the "coup"? No, don't do it, it might mess your mind.

Do you know who made a totally and entirely true military coup? Chávez back in 1992. Oh my God!, your champion of democracy involved in a military coup? In a military coup with him as the main commander that also left a lot more dead venezuelans than in april 2002? Way to go to such a champion of democracy. I may remind you that he has said several times lately that he doesn't repent of his actions and that he would do it again. As someone else also pointed in this thread, Venezuela will stay democratic as long as the voters keep supporting Chávez, the day they stop voting for him (And that is going to happen when the oil prices go down), he will start another coup.

Of course, it is not the duty of any of you to know even a bit of what happen in Venezuela, or why or how, just come here and debate it using the postures of "I like the US", or "I don't like the US". Some people, actually a lot of people like the US and Chávez at the same time, while others actually hate both Chávez and the US current regime, as myself.

I'm not a Chavez cheerleader, exactly, but I do fear that the US will attack Venezuela, and that'd be way worse than a coup by Chavez. Furthermore, as Venezuela shares a border with Brazil, I have no reason to believe that such an attack would make the US decide to attack Bolivia and, then, my country itself to install, yes, a puppet dictatorial regime.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just remembering that particular event and the predictions of imminent catastrophe that surrounded it.

Well, that crisis was averted, but the point remains that, if Chavez were harming Brazilian interests, the Right here would be calling for his evisceration.

I'm not a Chavez cheerleader, exactly, but I do fear that the US will attack Venezuela, and that'd be way worse than a coup by Chavez. Furthermore, as Venezuela shares a border with Brazil, I have no reason to believe that such an attack would make the US decide to attack Bolivia and, then, my country itself to install, yes, a puppet dictatorial regime.
The USA attack Brazil? Really? :confused: I'm not Brazilian, so I suppose you know better, but Brazil is pretty damn big and has the largest military in the region, right? And jungles. We all know the US army's love for jungle wars.

I'm not a Chavez cheerleader, exactly, but I do fear that the US will attack Venezuela, and that'd be way worse than a coup by Chavez. Furthermore, as Venezuela shares a border with Brazil, I have no reason to believe that such an attack would make the US decide to attack Bolivia and, then, my country itself to install, yes, a puppet dictatorial regime.

If the US attack Venezuela, you can count me in to try to snipe Marines in the back in dark alleys, (yeah right, I can see myself gathering intelligence, more likely, and tricking people to get them into those dark alleys), even if that mean to tag alongside some bolivarian guerrilla, a bit like what happened with italian resistance against Mussolini and German armies at the end of WWII.

But that doesn't mean I like my own wacko. I'm really pretty close to start thinking about going all the way against Chávez, taking even the illegal way. (And yes, that could mean sniping bolivarian supporters in the back in dark alleys). I'm getting tired of getting sniped myself.

The USA attack Brazil? Really? :confused: I'm not Brazilian, so I suppose you know better, but Brazil is pretty damn big and has the largest military in the region, right? And jungles. We all know the US army's love for jungle wars.

And Brazil HAD a nuclear bomb. I don't know if they still have one. Plus, Brazil has been lately the "big good older brother" in Latin America lately. I can't think of someone actually picking on Brazil, but well, the US lately has no restraint...

Or Denmark or Norway or Finland or Germany or Switzerland or France or Italy or Australia or the UK.

I'm assuming you've never heard of Canada or Sweden.

None of which are actually socialist.

And Brazil HAD a nuclear bomb. I don't know if they still have one. Plus, Brazil has been lately the "big good older brother" in Latin America lately. I can't think of someone actually picking on Brazil, but well, the US lately has no restraint...

We don't have nuclear bombs, never had. The 1988 Constitution saw to that. And some far-right people in the US called for attacks, coup support and all these fun things which would make me go after whoever caused it, to kill them. In an interesting way. After a while.

The USA attack Brazil? Really? :confused: I'm not Brazilian, so I suppose you know better, but Brazil is pretty damn big and has the largest military in the region, right? And jungles. We all know the US army's love for jungle wars.

We only have jungles up northwest. And our infrastructure is mainly in the southeast. So am I, for that matter.

If the US attack Venezuela, you can count me in to try to snipe Marines in the back in dark alleys, (yeah right, I can see myself gathering intelligence, more likely, and tricking people to get them into those dark alleys), even if that mean to tag alongside some bolivarian guerrilla, a bit like what happened with italian resistance against Mussolini and German armies at the end of WWII.

But that doesn't mean I like my own wacko. I'm really pretty close to start thinking about going all the way against Chávez, taking even the illegal way. (And yes, that could mean sniping bolivarian supporters in the back in dark alleys). I'm getting tired of getting sniped myself.

And you'd join with... who?

None of which are actually socialist.

Sweden, not socialist? On the contrary, Sweden is at least somewhat socialist and is a good example of socialism working.

We only have jungles up northwest. And our infrastructure is mainly in the southeast. So am I, for that matter.
Well, if the USA attacks from Venezuela into Brazil, they have to go through the jungles, no?

Sweden, not socialist? On the contrary, Sweden is at least somewhat socialist and is a good example of socialism working.

Don't be silly. Sweden is more capitalist then it is socialist.

Well, if the USA attacks from Venezuela into Brazil, they have to go through the jungles, no?

True, but it doesn't mean they'd not be attacking from the sea, in Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo, as well. The point is that a government that attacked Venezuela for being "too left-wing" (as we all know that Bush doesn't give a damn about democracy) would have no qualms about attacking Brazil for the same reason. Or staging a coup. Plus, I don't know that our jungles have as much disease as the ones in Vietnam. As fun as it would be knowing that piranhas are being well-fed with the soft flesh of whoever dared attack.

No, there was a "coup" in April 2002. Even although our Supreme Court labeled the situation of that day as a "void of power" with a intent of usurpation by Carmona, people, including the president Chávez and half the foreigners around here that read Wiki label it as a "coup".

Wonder why Chávez kept the guy that "forced" him to resign around after the "coup"? No, don't do it, it might mess your mind.

Do you know who made a totally and entirely true military coup? Chávez back in 1992. Oh my God!, your champion of democracy involved in a military coup? In a military coup with him as the main commander that also left a lot more dead venezuelans than in april 2002? Way to go to such a champion of democracy. I may remind you that he has said several times lately that he doesn't repent of his actions and that he would do it again. As someone else also pointed in this thread, Venezuela will stay democratic as long as the voters keep supporting Chávez, the day they stop voting for him (And that is going to happen when the oil prices go down), he will start another coup.

Of course, it is not the duty of any of you to know even a bit of what happen in Venezuela, or why or how, just come here and debate it using the postures of "I like the US", or "I don't like the US". Some people, actually a lot of people like the US and Chávez at the same time, while others actually hate both Chávez and the US current regime, as myself.

Aelosia, I love You:fluffle:

Whenever a discussion about Chavez et al. begins, You arrive and smash everyone's (mostly Socialists and other leftists somehow :) ) vision of events with first-hand reports:fluffle:

Aelosia, I love You:fluffle:

Whenever a discussion about Chavez et al. begins, You arrive and smash everyone's (mostly Socialists and other leftists somehow :) ) vision of events with first-hand reports:fluffle:

You do realize that she also shatters to bits the notions that the Right has, I hope. Because, yes, the Right couldn't care less about the people of Venezuela either: It won't criticize governments that are WAY worse than Chavez, let alone suggest ASSASSINATION and military actions and coups! I've seen an Op/Ed in the Washington Times calling for another US-backed coup HERE, in MY country, Brazil, as they claimed Lula was "too left-wing".

And you'd join with... who?

I know a few. I wouldn't accept any international help, even if it comes in the form of money. I know that people that loan you money when you are in such dire need hope to collect a lot of humiliating favors afterwards. I've seen it happen. I can't see how changing Chávez by a puppet regime of the US can improve things for my people.

Perhaps if Lula gives some aid, I could rethink about it...

Aelosia, I love You:fluffle:

Whenever a discussion about Chavez et al. begins, You arrive and smash everyone's (mostly Socialists and other leftists somehow :) ) vision of events with first-hand reports:fluffle:

Thanks, although I tend to debate also the notion of "Chávez is a bloodthristy usurper and dictator" that the right wing tend to spawn. Extremes lead to nowhere, my professional experience has told me that the truth is always closer to the middle, if such thing as truth exists at all. Of course, first hand experience is a must to a true approach on a situation.

For example, although I have an opinion, you don't see me arguing a lot about Bush, or about the Middle East, all I can do is to form a rather open opinion, completely debatable. Again for example, I read somewhere in a nuclear weapons international report that Brazil had a nuclear bomb, only one, yet I defer to Heikoku's superior knowledge about the matter when he negated it. After all, he's over there and he has more reliable sources than me, that just read it somewhere over the internet.

You do realize that she also shatters to bits the notions that the Right has, I hope. Because, yes, the Right couldn't care less about the people of Venezuela either: It won't criticize governments that are WAY worse than Chavez, let alone suggest ASSASSINATION and military actions and coups! I've seen an Op/Ed in the Washington Times calling for another US-backed coup HERE, in MY country, Brazil, as they claimed Lula was "too left-wing".

Ditto. The right of the United States only hopes to have us as another puppet and squeeze all the benefits they can. Actually, our current crisis was caused by the weakness of former goverments treating the problem of misery here.

I hope this clears my role as a moderate political activist, and avoids my identification with any political extreme.

It speaks volumes about Socialism that the only way you can implement it is to censor out any opposition.

I think he'd have an easier time maintaining his government without the threat of force if the US hadn't twice tried to have him removed from office.

If there was a TV network here that orchestrated an almost-successful effort to have Dubya removed from office how long would it be before it's owners were shipped off to Gitmo. Hell! O'Reilly has called for that to be done to the Air America people more than once.

Chavez is not a dictator.

A demagogue, yes. A populist? Certainly. But hardly a dictator. He's been elected three times in a row, by an overwhelming majority of the populace. Dictators aren't elected, they take power by force and refuse to relinquish it.

Also, seems to me the only ones who are calling him a dictator are americans. And the irony of it all is that americans themselves are ruled by a man that could probably be called a dictator, in light of the suspected widespread election frauds, the Supreme Court meddling that put him into power, and the fact that even though he might have won the electoral votes in the 2000 election, popular vote actually went to Al Gore.

Some people should do their homework and re-read the definitions of "democracy" and "dictatorship" before they start trying to give lessons to the rest of the world.

what's a dictorial grip?
It's when you get cornered at a party by someone who keeps talking and talking and talking and there's no escape.

I think he'd have an easier time maintaining his government without the threat of force if the US hadn't twice tried to have him removed from office.

If there was a TV network here that orchestrated an almost-successful effort to have Dubya removed from office how long would it be before it's owners were shipped off to Gitmo. Hell! O'Reilly has called for that to be done to the Air America people more than once.

Actually, my own analysis, that here is just another opinion and is completely debatable on normal terms, is that without the americans giving him such opposition he wouldn't be in power already. The US opposition to his regime gives him an easy enemy to identify and attack on political basis, that helps to gather support from his followers and keep them loyal. Demagogue policies sustain themselves better when you have an easy enemy to point at.

Chavez is not a dictator.

A demagogue, yes. A populist? Certainly. But hardly a dictator. He's been elected three times in a row, by an overwhelming majority of the populace. Dictators aren't elected, they take power by force and refuse to relinquish it.

Also, seems to me the only ones who are calling him a dictator are americans. And the irony of it all is that americans themselves are ruled by a man that could probably be called a dictator, in light of the suspected widespread election frauds, the Supreme Court meddling that put him into power, and the fact that even though he might have won the electoral votes in the 2000 election, popular vote actually went to Al Gore.

Some people should do their homework and re-read the definitions of "democracy" and "dictatorship" before they start trying to give lessons to the rest of the world.

Yes, Chávez is not a dictator, he is a democratically elected president, (I'm getting tired of repeating this, please accept it at once. He's a demagogue, and an abusive president, but nevertheless he has been elected thrice)

And can we really stop the comparations to the US?, they are pretty worthless, they aren't anymore a valid argument, and distorts the general view about the issue. Venezuela isn't a US province or something, so please take the debate towards the situation at hand. Noone is talking about the US here.

Chavez is not a dictator.

A demagogue, yes. A populist? Certainly. But hardly a dictator. He's been elected three times in a row, by an overwhelming majority of the populace. Dictators aren't elected, they take power by force and refuse to relinquish it.


Saddam was also elected "by an overwhelming majority of the populace" so I guess he wasn't a dictator either. :rolleyes:

That wouldn't be the one that supported the coup against him, would it?

Could you imagine what would happen if a television station advocated a coup against Bush? They wouldn't be shut down, they'd be shot.

It's actually quite simple logic. Keynesian economics are flawed. Socialism is flawed. Therefore, Keynesian economics are socialism.

Hey, I never said the logic was correct.

Sneaky devil.

Why not... when the parliament is entirely made up of his supporters, since the opposition boycotted the elections?

The people's "elected representatives" themselves must approve the act that enables him to rule by decree, and it does not exempt him from having to be re-elected.

Nope, missed the point completely. Democracy does not mean electing a dictator who is then completely unaccoutable during his term.

The way a real democracy functions is when the executive wants to do something, they go to the legislature, and ask their permission to do it.

Say this to G.W.Bush... oh, wait, he isn't a democrat after all, he's a republican!

When Bush wants to do something, he has to go to Congress, when Chavez wants to do something, he merely issues the order.

The way a real democracy functions is when the executive wants to do something, they go to the legislature, and ask their permission to do it.

Yes, right.

And guess who passed the act allowing Chávez to rule by decree?

Aelosia, I love You:fluffle:

Whenever a discussion about Chavez et al. begins, You arrive and smash everyone's (mostly Socialists and other leftists somehow :) ) vision of events with first-hand reports:fluffle:

Yeah, its so fucking devastating I weep myself to sleep.

Saddam was also elected “by an overwhelming majority of the populace” so I guess he wasn’t a dictator either. :rolleyes:
There’s a clear difference between a fake electoral victory, and three real ones. IIRC electoral monitors were pretty much happy with the way the Venezuelan elections were handled. I’m sure Aelosia could tell us more.

However, that’s not to say anyone who’s democratically elected must be an honest politician and a good person for that country to be led by. He-who-shall-not-be-named-in-fear-of-Godwining-this-thread was elected. As was many other unpopular and terrible leaders.

But, as I said earlier:

Pffft. Statists...

Saddam was also elected "by an overwhelming majority of the populace" so I guess he wasn't a dictator either. :rolleyes:
I hear he refused to renew the living licenses on people who supported coups against him :rolleyes:

When Bush wants to do something, he has to go to Congress, when Chavez wants to do something, he merely issues the order.
Who until a few weeks ago nodded their heads like bobblehead dolls and signed off on anything he wanted that put more and more power into the hands of the executive without any check on it by the legislative or judicial branches.

If those who run the station were involved with an attempted coup of a democratically elected government then close it down, why is this an issue?

If those who run the station were involved with an attempted coup of a democratically elected government then close it down, why is this an issue?

Because it is done by a bad commie! Then suddenly everything that person does is a threat to Freedom and Democracy!

Personally I think CHavez has just learned a lesson from Allende. He was, if I can call it that way, soft on his Right Wing opponents and where did that lead him to?

[...]

Thanks, although I tend to debate also the notion of "Chávez is a bloodthristy usurper and dictator" that the right wing tend to spawn. Extremes lead to nowhere, my professional experience has told me that the truth is always closer to the middle, if such thing as truth exists at all. Of course, first hand experience is a must to a true approach on a situation.
[...]
Ditto. The right of the United States only hopes to have us as another puppet and squeeze all the benefits they can. Actually, our current crisis was caused by the weakness of former goverments treating the problem of misery here.

I hope this clears my role as a moderate political activist, and avoids my identification with any political extreme.

To clear the situation up:
I once thought I am a mild leftist, then began to move towards center and now consider myself as also a moderate. I've noticed that You oppose the right-wing version too, yet the leftists here somehow draw my attention (hardcore socialists aren't common breed among people I know, and on NS they seem to be quite numerous). Because of this and the fact that among rightwingers one may consider me a leftie and among leftists a rightwinger (a mixture of moderate political views and "be different" attitude to everything), my opinions can drift to the right at moments.

Hey, I quoted my intellectual. I refuse to take responsibility for the content of his thoughts!!:D Isn't that managed by planning boards rather than an actual market though? I thought it was a socialist approximation of a market more than a real one.
That is correct. I wasn't disputing the author, as no doubt their invocation of markets is one in which the means of production are privately owned.

Could you imagine what would happen if a television station advocated a coup against Bush? They wouldn't be shut down, they'd be shot.

No actually they'd be protected under the First amendment.

Have a look around some of the more extreme right wing nutter groups in the USA and what they publish

Back to the topic though

Guess ol' president Chavez cant stand being critized by 1 media station
I wonder how long it is before he cant stand people critizing him and has them sent for 're-education'?

But as for the various left wing 'we love chavez' people that dont live in Venuzala, they'd support him even if he was seen on TV eating babies while his troops rounded up and shot people so long as he finished the broadcast with 'Death to the USA.. death to Bush':rolleyes:

No actually they'd be protected under the First amendment.

Have a look around some of the more extreme right wing nutter groups in the USA and what they publish

Back to the topic though

Guess ol' president Chavez cant stand being critized by 1 media station
I wonder how long it is before he cant stand people critizing him and has them sent for 're-education'?

But as for the various left wing 'we love chavez' people that dont live in Venuzala, they'd support him even if he was seen on TV eating babies while his troops rounded up and shot people so long as he finished the broadcast with 'Death to the USA.. death to Bush':rolleyes:
Whoah, he totally didn't renew the broadcasting license of a station that supported an actual coup against him. Maybe he should have done what the US does - institute a federal agency that tells them what they can and can't broadcast on the airwaves under penalty of discouraging fines.

Yes, right.

And guess who passed the act allowing Chávez to rule by decree?

When the executive wants do to anything, they must go to the legislature.

You're like a bad marksman, you keep missing the point. One of the requirements of a democracy is that the executive branch is constantly accountable for everything to the legislature. Enabling acts by their nature are undemocratic.

No actually they'd be protected under the First amendment.

Have a look around some of the more extreme right wing nutter groups in the USA and what they publish

Back to the topic though

Guess ol' president Chavez cant stand being critized by 1 media station
I wonder how long it is before he cant stand people critizing him and has them sent for 're-education'?

But as for the various left wing 'we love chavez' people that dont live in Venuzala, they'd support him even if he was seen on TV eating babies while his troops rounded up and shot people so long as he finished the broadcast with 'Death to the USA.. death to Bush':rolleyes:
Of course the Leftists could say the same thing about some of the Righties.

So to invert it, Some Rightwingers would worship Bush even if he was eating Fetuses and shouting "Freedom is evil".

When the executive wants do to anything, they must go to the legislature.

You're like a bad marksman, you keep missing the point. One of the requirements of a democracy is that the executive branch is constantly accountable for everything to the legislature. Enabling acts by their nature, such as the signing statements Bush has, are undemocratic.

Bolded part is mine.

One day people will see (the president) for what he really is, a blustering little assclown.
What do you mean "One day" ???

http://www.blueflamepolitix.org/media/gallery/FunnyBushPhotos/thumbnails/bush_internets.jpg

That TV Station (US) would prefer a Venezuelan leadership more like these guys:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Pinochetjunta.jpg

*hasn't read entire thread*

What exactly does "involved in coup" mean? There are very, very few things that I would see as bad enough to justify closing down a station. Running his address on TV on split screen with the protests against him ain't one of them. Even if the editorials of that station said they supported the coup does in no way justify a backlash by the government, Chavez or otherwise.

Here is the story from the point of view of various journalists' bodies: http://www.ifex.org/eng/layout/set/print/layout/set/print/content/view/full/80452/
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20218

It's pretty obvious what is going on. Chavez silences some media that opposes him both to shut it up and as a warning to others. Putin is doing the same thing.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think that too many Chavez supporters are too willing to condone virtually anything he does. However much you may agree with his ends, that doesn't have to justify the means, you know.

EDIT: Protests (undoubtedly all organised and funded by the CIA...) have been put down by the national guard and ten students have been injured. Tear gas, water cannons and apparently rubber bullets were used.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_CHAVEZ_VS_TV?SITE=MAHYC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,485314,00.html

*hasn't read entire thread*

What exactly does "involved in coup" mean? There are very, very few things that I would see as bad enough to justify closing down a station. Running his address on TV on split screen with the protests against him ain't one of them. Even if the editorials of that station said they supported the coup does in no way justify a backlash by the government, Chavez or otherwise.

Here is the story from the point of view of various journalists' bodies: http://www.ifex.org/eng/layout/set/print/layout/set/print/content/view/full/80452/
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20218

It's pretty obvious what is going on. Chavez silences some media that opposes him both to shut it up and as a warning to others. Putin is doing the same thing.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think that too many Chavez supporters are too willing to condone virtually anything he does. However much you may agree with his ends, that doesn't have to justify the means, you know.

EDIT: Protests (undoubtedly all organised and funded by the CIA...) have been put down by the national guard and ten students have been injured. Tear gas, water cannons and apparently rubber bullets were used.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_CHAVEZ_VS_TV?SITE=MAHYC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,485314,00.html

Did you have a stroke or something? You're not supporting the left.

Did you have a stroke or something? You're not supporting the left.
That's because I'm not a man of the left (and haven't been for well over a year).

I'm a man of liberalism. That means the liberty to do with your money as you please (which Chavez is definitely opposed to), to do as you please in politics (which it seems like Chavez is also opposed to), to do as you please with your body and to do as you please with other bodies (as long as there's agreement between you and the owner of the other body).

You should know that this also means that people should be free to live wherever the hell they want, so I oppose migration restrictions and even most migration controls. That too is a liberal point of view.

My views and those of "the left" overlap sometimes and at other times stand diametrically opposed to each other. I call it on a case by case basis.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think that too many Chavez supporters are too willing to condone virtually anything he does. However much you may agree with his ends, that doesn't have to justify the means, you know.

I'll support whatever keeps the US pawns-in-uniform the hell out of MY backyard. Remember, I live in Brazil, and there was talk in the US about staging a coup here if we didn't vote to US tastes. I don't condone the things Chavez does, but I do condemn the US interfering when it doesn't interfere with - for instance - Vlad Putin.

I'll support whatever keeps the US pawns-in-uniform the hell out of MY backyard.
I see no interfering. I see Chavez use the US "imperialists" as an excuse to do whatever the hell he wants. This was about shutting up a private (hence not directly under his editorial control) station that had dared to oppose him, among other things during the coup. A very domestic issue.

There is a legitimate distrust when it comes to the US' involvement in Latin America. I would argue that the threat of a US-instigated coup is less now than it was a decade or two ago, simply because the US is starting to worry about other things than whether a dictator is left or right wing. I think there's a group of politicians coming to the front in Washington at the moment which has experienced the Cold War differently and to whom democracy is a much more genuine word. So I wouldn't equate every criticism of Chavez that comes from Washington with a simple "well, they don't like him because he's from the left". There is a genuine problem of him reducing political freedoms in the country, and unlike a possible US-sponsored dictatorship it's a very current, very real and very observable problem.

I'm not gonna talk about Chavez' other policies because it's been covered and won't lead anywhere. Suffice to say that I think he's about to repeat the mistakes predecessors of his have made all over Latin America.

As for Putin, you have no idea how much I would wish for the world to finally open its mouth. There is nothing natural or unavoidable about autocracy in Russia. What the man is doing is a crime, in my view, and it's most unfortunate that world politics at the moment doesn't seem to offer the West the freedom of movement to actually put some pressure on Russia. Another happy side effect of George's Iraq Adventure, I suppose.

But that doesn't have any effect on what Chavez is doing or how it should be judged. Just because it's not possible to attack policies of Mr. 'I've got most of the world's natural gas and a few thousand nukes to boot' Putin more directly doesn't mean we should shut up about what Chavez is doing to Venezuela, regardless of whether or not you support his economic policies.

Snip.

Maybe so, but you still have to admit that most of the Right's criticism towards Chavez are based on his economic policy. Basically, YOU get to call Chavez an autocrat and not be laughed at, Bush doesn't. Because Bush would do the same things and much worse if he had the power, and is, in fact, doing some of them. Further, wouldn't the same people that call for an assassination be perfectly willing to call for a coup? Chavez was couped out (if for a bit) before.

That TV Station (US) would prefer a Venezuelan leadership more like these guys: (Pinochet image follows)

Totally seconded. Might I add, Bush would be delighted, too.

hey if say Al Qaeda tried to start a tv station here in the USA spewing their message to overthrow the govt and such, how long do you think they would last on tv?

hey if say Al Qaeda tried to start a tv station here in the USA spewing their message to overthrow the govt and such, how long do you think they would last on tv?

You mean before or after being sent to Gitmo, which is an example of Bush's love for civil rights?

It's pretty obvious what is going on... If Venezuela affairs are so obvious to you, tell me how many times is Chavez going to be re-elected?
.


Putin is doing the same thing.there we go, sooner or later someone was going to say Chavez is just like Hitler.. or Putin.. it never fails.

hey if say Al Qaeda tried to start a tv station here in the USA spewing their message to overthrow the govt and such, how long do you think they would last on tv?

Are you asking how long it would last, or whether or not the Bush Administration would try to get it off the air?

If it is the former, the answer is not long. Its viewership would not justify an advertising price sufficient to give the investors the return they seek.

If it is the later, they will not.

If Venezuela affairs are so obvious to you, tell me how many times is Chavez going to be re-elected?

He's censoring people for disagreeing with him. That is pretty clear, and it makes the legitimacy of any future elections (if he bothers holding elections again) questionable at best.

And, he's turning on a second station that is committing the worst crime in Venezuela (opposing Chavez).

http://bigpond.com/news/technology/content/20070530/1937035.asp

Are you asking how long it would last, or whether or not the Bush Administration would try to get it off the air?

If it is the former, the answer is not long. Its viewership would not justify an advertising price sufficient to give the investors the return they seek.

If it is the later, they will not.

Bullshit. Bullshit. You do not understand advertising. If people tune in, marketers will flock to it in droves.

He's censoring people for disagreeing with him. That is pretty clear, and it makes the legitimacy of any future elections (if he bothers holding elections again) questionable at best.

And, he's turning on a second station that is committing the worst crime in Venezuela (opposing Chavez).

http://bigpond.com/news/technology/content/20070530/1937035.asp

He's slapping down a group of people caught red-handed trying to aid and abet the toppling of his government through a coup d'etat. They're lucky they aren't being put in front of a firing squad. Wake up.

Maybe so, but you still have to admit that most of the Right's criticism towards Chavez are based on his economic policy.
Well, that's why they're called "the right": because they're not "the left".

Point being: there is criticism of Chavez which is valid regardless of who says it or even economics. The fact that he's undermining freedom and variety of opinion in the country is one such criticism.

Basically, YOU get to call Chavez an autocrat and not be laughed at, Bush doesn't. Because Bush would do the same things and much worse if he had the power, and is, in fact, doing some of them.
I don't know about that, and I don't think you saying "Bush would do the same thing" takes anything away from this crime or is even a valid way or arguing.

Further, wouldn't the same people that call for an assassination be perfectly willing to call for a coup? Chavez was couped out (if for a bit) before.
I don't think anyone in the US government called for an assassination. Some nutcase TV preacher did that. But so far, Chavez is comfortably in the lead when it comes to ridiculous rhetoric.

If Venezuela affairs are so obvious to you, tell me how many times is Chavez going to be re-elected?
He's going to keep being reelected because the opposition will
a) not be able to offer an electable alternative
b) not be able to counter the "I hate America" niche that Chavez has built for himself
c) find itself more and more sidelined by the government's rules regarding elections

How many times has Castro been re"elected" now? There basically is no limit to what Chavez is going to be able to do unless a significant street-based opposition movement can develop in Venezuela which reacts to the very real problems the country's people face in their daily lives (price controls that don't work with resulting shortages etc). Make no mistake, I think the current protests and the way the government is reacting to them are right now developing that base.

there we go, sooner or later someone was going to say Chavez is just like Hitler.. or Putin.. it never fails.
Oookay. Putin is doing the same thing: shutting down private or opposition news services and replacing them with biased state television. The few "independent" services that are still around are scared into toeing the government line.

To be honest, I don't see the difference.

He's slapping down a group of people caught red-handed trying to aid and abet the toppling of his government through a coup d'etat.
I'm sure you'll be happy to produce the evidence for us.

I'm sure you'll be happy to produce the evidence for us.

Well, watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=The+Revolution+Will+Not+be+Televised

A couple of Irish Reporters were making a documentary on venezuela and Chavez when the Coup happened in 2002. It's an hour, but it's worth watching.

Well, watch this...
No, I mean evidence.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3378761249364089950

Bullshit. Bullshit. You do not understand advertising. If people tune in, marketers will flock to it in droves.

What makes you think people would tune in, to a degree that will make marketers flock to it in their droves? Particularly since they can get Arabic services online, or over cable.

It requires a sufficient number of people to tune in to drive the price of the advertising spots up to the point that the station is economically viable.

He's slapping down a group of people caught red-handed trying to aid and abet the toppling of his government through a coup d'etat. They're lucky they aren't being put in front of a firing squad. Wake up.

Firstly, in a free country, you have the right to call for the overthrow of the government. Since you do not acknowledge that Venezeulans have the right to call for the overthrow of their government, one can only assume that you are not only conceding the point that Chavez is a dictator, but you are saying that it is a good thing.

Secondly, what evidence do you have that the second opposition station Chavez is shutting down in involved in any criminal activity?

Thirdly, since when does any government have the right to shut media outlets down for opposing the government?

Fourth, what right does Chavez have to force all Venezuelan TV stations to air his party political speeches. One could argue that a government should have the right to take over the airwaves to warn people of imminent emergencies such as floods and cyclones, but forcing everyone to air the tripe he calls oratory is way over that line.

He's slapping down a group of people caught red-handed trying to aid and abet the toppling of his government through a coup d'etat. They're lucky they aren't being put in front of a firing squad. Wake up.

Our constitution gives us the right to advocate for the overthrow of the goverment. Of course, you didn't know that.

Are you really advocating the execution of the opposers to a determinate regime? And you say we the opposing media in Venezuela wants another Augusto Pinoshit? Looks like YOU are advocating for a Pinoshit, lad.

I can't stay around to tell you about the latest news, but they are already all over the internet media services. As you may imagine, I'm pretty busy, because I have to go and change this fancy paycheck the CIA gives me each month for my services, and try to restraint the freedom of my people.

All those university kids out there protesting are also payed by the CIA, to earn more than some tear gas. (I hate that stuff)

Oookay. Putin is doing the same thing: shutting down private or opposition news services and replacing them with biased state television. The few "independent" services that are still around are scared into toeing the government line.

To be honest, I don't see the difference.

Very well, may the Right call for HIS removal first, as opposed to calling for the military pawns to be sent right to my backyard, where they might decide to "spread the freedom" to Brazil. Aelosia and other Venezuelans get to try to overthrow Chavez. The US doesn't. The reason is simple: The US would just as soon try to overthrow Chavez if his human rights record were pristine; it DID overthrow Allende and did support overthrowing João Goulart. I'm not eager for a repeat. And about using the US as a scapegoat, it should have thought of that before installing Castelo Branco in Brazil, Pinochet in Chile, and on the list goes.

I can't stay around to tell you about the latest news,

How about the weather?

but they are already all over the internet media services. As you may imagine, I'm pretty busy, because I have to go and change this fancy paycheck the CIA gives me each month for my services, and try to restraint the freedom of my people.

You might even be able to live in the really good part of Caracas!

Anyway, thats not a CIA paycheck, it is an ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service). Get your facts correct next time you divulge classified information :rolleyes: .

All those university kids out there protesting are also payed by the CIA, to earn more than some tear gas. (I hate that stuff).

*Shrug* It is better than rubberised bullets.

What does it smell like?

Very well, may the Right call for HIS removal first, as opposed to calling for the military pawns to be sent right to my backyard...
You don't get what I'm saying, do you.

Chavez is using the US boogeyman as an excuse to do whatever the hell he wants.

You buying into it isn't exactly helpful.

In an a region where any weak or slightly fragile politician is likely to come into the pocket of rich US firms and/or the CIA for personal profit and disavow his public responsibilities, I think a strong and ideological leader is needed to safeguard their national resources from extravagant abuse (Menem etc etc) and ensure that through economic means Venesuala does not become a US dependency like so much of that Latins already has. It's interesting, if this was some rabid right wing autocracy, all you reactionists would be saying the TV channel was liberal media bias blah blah blah partisan rubbish.

Still waiting for oil prices to collapse, or demand to decrease (go alternative energy!). Then we'll see how'll Venezuela would fare. (And cheap gas is great for my pockets too.)

It's interesting, if this was some rabid right wing autocracy, all you reactionists would be saying the TV channel was liberal media bias blah blah blah partisan rubbish.

And You (how should I call You - progressivist? I guess not 'actionist'?) would be saying this TV station was doing its best to depose the enemy of the people blah blah blah partisan rubbish?:D

By the way, what You wrote abut this 'strong and ideological leader' could make many a fascist agree with You. :D

And You (how should I call You - progressivist? I guess not 'actionist'?) would be saying this TV station was doing its best to depose the enemy of the people blah blah blah partisan rubbish?:D

By the way, what You wrote abut this 'strong and ideological leader' could make many a fascist agree with You. :D

Expect that in this case the Chavez is the progress and the US (his opponents, or those in the pocket of them) are reaction.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you.

Chavez is using the US boogeyman as an excuse to do whatever the hell he wants.

You buying into it isn't exactly helpful.

Oh, do relax, I know that. I'm not buying into it, but I know - without Chavez's help - that your current government is currently ran (as it was in the 60s) by a psychopath prone to overthrowing governments he doesn't like.

Plus I'll assume you also know why he uses the US and not, say, Mexico, Canada, Trinidad & Tobago, France or Swaziland, right? Power? No, else he might be criticizing Japan or Germany. Proximity? Brazil. Conflict history? Colombia. Fiery rhetoric by its government plus a history of overthrowing disliked governments, plus a proneness by the current psychopath-in-chief to do exactly that... Who?

Oh, do relax, I know that. I'm not buying into it, but I know - without Chavez's help - that your current government is ran (as it was in the 60s) by a psychopath prone to overthrowing governments he doesn't like.
Though unlike in 2003, today he doesn't have the means to actually do so.

Plus I'll assume you also know why he uses the US and not, say, Mexico, Canada, Trinidad & Tobago, France or Swaziland, right? History.
Of course.

Look, my theory on Chavez and the US is pretty simple. I don't think he cares a whole lot about the US. I don't think he knows a lot about it or would bother to learn. To him, being anti-American is probably the smartest thing he could do:

1) It allows him to present himself to the economic losers as one of them. For whatever reason, being poor in Latin America is usually being blamed on the US (though it would be more apt to blame being rich on the US, but that's another story). The IMF's blunders in the region further strengthen this effect because that organisation is often equated with the US (however ridiculous that might be).

2) It allows him to be friends with anti-Americans of all types, from the potentially important ones (like Castro or Ahmadinejad) to the less important ones (like Andaras Prime). He's pretty much got a guaranteed host of supporters all over the world that doesn't care what he does or why he does it, as long as he occasionally rants about how evil America is.

3) It allows him to pretend he's important as a leader. At the moment he's trying to build an alternative to the World Bank for Latin America. That reflects the way that he can use his anti-American image to build up "alternative" organisations and viewpoints to which some 3rd World governments might flock. If he was just another moderate, normal president of just another country, he'd never wield that sort of influence.

Unfortunately, the US has in the past played right into his hands by actually taking his flamebait. What they should have done is just ignore him, but I suppose that's why there aren't any smart foreign policy people anymore in Washington.

What I mean to say with all this is that we need to stop mystifying Chavez. The man is a politician (a fairly smart one) who has found an image, a PR ploy, that serves him well. By continuing to look at that image while ignoring what's going on behind it we're just being stupid. You wouldn't buy that shit from a Brazilian politician, so why a foreign one?

How about the weather?

It rained yesterday. It didn't stop people from keep protesting, even as they were soaked already. Seems like it is going to rain today again. I already catched a lovely summer flu.



You might even be able to live in the really good part of Caracas!

I live in a neighbourhood called "El Paraíso" (The Paradise), what else can I expect?

Anyway, thats not a CIA paycheck, it is an ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service). Get your facts correct next time you divulge classified information :rolleyes: .

ASSIS? I didn't know the ausralian goverment opposed the venezuelan one.

*Shrug* It is better than rubberised bullets.

What does it smell like?

I have a flak jacket, but not a gas mask. I need to buy one, but they are still too expensive. Please note that the flak jacket didn't stopped a national guard to give me a new nipple. Did you see the video of that peruvian reporter who got buckshot all over? I'm the girl standing next to him with the flak jacket with the yellow word "PRENSA" on it. Buckshots are nasty little fellows, they spread like shrapnel all over.

And according to a friend of mine that works for CNN, "I love the smell of tear gas in the afternoon, smells like freedom". So, I guess it smells like freedom, or victory. For real, depends on the brand and type of tear gas grenade, some are harder than others, and have different effects (National Guard ones are more powerful than the ones the metropolitan police uses, for example). Some are so hard that make you puke your innards out, or make you tear so much you end blinded, wanting to scratch your eyeballs out, but others are barely noticeable. I think a more or less accurate word in english would be..."pungent".

We fight the effects with vinegar, menthol and toothpaste applied to the nostrils and face, but I am willing to hear new methods from the gun-hos over here. In the end, with the exception of the specially powerful, you slowly get accustomed to the stuff and even joke about it.

You wouldn't buy that shit from a Brazilian politician, so why a foreign one?

Because, should, for instance, Brazilian fascist nut Enéas Carneiro (deceased, thanks the gods), become president, I'd be the first to move to overthrow him. But, should the US offer its "help", I'd wage a Gothic (not Goth :p) fight against it. I don't buy any shit from Chavez, but I do see him as a GREAT alternative to US-backed coups and little toy soldiers in my backyard. Not because he's good, but because anything is better than the risk of Lula suffering the same fate as João Goulart in 64. Basically, and I think Aelosia would feel the same, I don't care what Chavez is doing, keep your toys out of my backyard, or I'm keeping them to play with them!

Because, should, for instance, Brazilian fascist nut Enéas Carneiro (deceased, thanks the gods), become president, I'd be the first to move to overthrow him. But, should the US offer its "help", I'd wage a Gothic (not Goth :p) fight against it. I don't buy any shit from Chavez, but I do see him as a GREAT alternative to US-backed coups and little toy soldiers in my backyard. Not because he's good, but because anything is better than the risk of Lula suffering the same fate as João Goulart in 64. Basically, and I think Aelosia would feel the same, I don't care what Chavez is doing, keep your toys out of my backyard, or I'm keeping them to play with them!

Yes, I hate the Comando Sur and the US strategy for the Americas. We are free and determined people, not your puppets. YET, I must disagree with you in something Heikoku, I care a lot about Chávez is doing, and even more, about what he is doing. Actually, it is my main concern. Yet, I fully understand you. I think both you and Neu Leonstein hold valid postures about what is happening.

Yes, I hate the Comando Sur and the US strategy for the Americas. We are free and determined people, not your puppets. YET, I must disagree with you in something Heikoku, I care a lot about Chávez is doing, and even more, about what he is doing. Actually, it is my main concern. Yet, I fully understand you. I think both you and Neu Leonstein hold valid postures about what is happening.

Well, yes, but your position would be the same as mine were Lula the demagogue nut. The "I don't care" part would mean "regardless of". I do care, but not enough to let the US G.I. Joes anywhere near my borders. And the reason I call them toys is simple: The US government treats them as such.

Though unlike in 2003, today he doesn't have the means to actually do so.

The military means, no. The CIA means, yes.

It rained yesterday. It didn't stop people from keep protesting, even as they were soaked already. Seems like it is going to rain today again. I already catched a lovely summer flu.

Summer colds are the most annoying.

What were you protesting?

I live in a neighbourhood called "El Paraíso" (The Paradise), what else can I expect?

Is that in inner Caracas?

ASSIS? I didn't know the ausralian goverment opposed the venezuelan one.

Meh, federal government does a lot of sucking up. They more than likely do a bit of stuff (low level surveilance and liasons most likely) in south america.

I have a flak jacket, but not a gas mask. I need to buy one, but they are still too expensive. Please note that the flak jacket didn't stopped a national guard to give me a new nipple. Did you see the video of that peruvian reporter who got buckshot all over? I'm the girl standing next to him with the flak jacket with the yellow word "PRENSA" on it. Buckshots are nasty little fellows, they spread like shrapnel all over.

Try padding out the Flak jacket. If it against 'non-lethal' buckshot the padded jacket would help a lot (along with some kind of eye guard).

I have not seen the vid.

What does PRENSA stand for?

And according to a friend of mine that works for CNN, "I love the smell of tear gas in the afternoon, smells like freedom". So, I guess it smells like freedom, or victory. For real, depends on the brand and type of tear gas grenade, some are harder than others, and have different effects (National Guard ones are more powerful than the ones the metropolitan police uses, for example). Some are so hard that make you puke your innards out, or make you tear so much you end blinded, wanting to scratch your eyeballs out, but others are barely noticeable. I think a more or less accurate word in english would be..."pungent".

That person is a bit odd if riot control chemicals=freedom.

Some also make the skin very irritable.

Try wearing some kind of goggles, like swimming ones to keep the gas out of your eyes along with somthing to shove in your nose to stop it going into the sinuses.

Summer colds are the most annoying.

What were you protesting?

Not exactly protesting, but giving help in the coverage of a student protest pro free speech, after the goverment decided to shut down a private TV channel. Of course, I agree with the protestors.

Is that in inner Caracas?

West Caracas, near the city "center", or "downtown"

Meh, federal government does a lot of sucking up. They more than likely do a bit of stuff (low level surveilance and liasons most likely) in south america.

Never heard of that. You have some journalists working here, although.

Try padding out the Flak jacket. If it against 'non-lethal' buckshot the padded jacket would help a lot (along with some kind of eye guard).

It is against non lethal buckshot. It isn't bulletproof, although.

And it is already padded, but too much armor, under the rain and heavy sun (yes, here it rains and we have a heavy sun), will wear you down in a pair of hours. Sometimes we need to stay put for 6 or 7 hours.

I have not seen the vid.

What does PRENSA stand for?

I'll upload it in Youtube, seems like someone took it out.

PRENSA = Spanish for PRESS.

That person is a bit odd if riot control chemicals=freedom.

Some also make the skin very irritable.

Try wearing some kind of goggles, like swimming ones to keep the gas out of your eyes along with somthing to shove in your nose to stop it going into the sinuses.

It was a reference to "Apocalypse now"

I need to wear glasses. Corrective glasses. To put googles on top of them is bothersome. And well, I shove a hankerchief soaked in vinegar to my face in order to fight the effects, but I was guessing if someone knew a more effective method.

And yes, Heikoku, I entirely agree with you.

It was a reference to "Apocalypse now"

I love the smell of "Apocalypse now" references on the sunrise. Smells like... Victory.

And yes, Heikoku, I entirely agree with you.

That's because I'm a genius. :D

Not exactly protesting, but giving help in the coverage of a student protest pro free speech, after the goverment decided to shut down a private TV channel. Of course, I agree with the protestors.

If there was a state tv station that was purposely designed to disallow government involvement do you think the protester crowd would have been as annoyed?

Never heard of that. You have some journalists working here, although.

Really? Cool.

Most sizeable external (foreign intelligence) intelligence agencies probably have low level surveilance all over the world. It wouldn't be anything big, just general info and the such.

And it is already padded, but too much armor, under the rain and heavy sun (yes, here it rains and we have a heavy sun), will wear you down in a pair of hours. Sometimes we need to stay put for 6 or 7 hours.

You could always just carry another jacket then chuck it on if the police start firing.

It was a reference to "Apocalypse now"

Ahh, I only watched a bit of the 'Redux' version.

That's because I'm a genius. :D

http://i11.tinypic.com/5y1f04p.gif?

http://i11.tinypic.com/5y1f04p.gif?

Maybe.

Maybe.

One of it's many quotes is "Ahhhh...I, am a genius."

One of it's many quotes is "Ahhhh...I, am a genius."

Uhm, okay :p

The military means, no. The CIA means, yes.
But the CIA is, like all organisations, made up of people. Who runs the CIA today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kappes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Rodriguez_%28intelligence%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kringen

These are anti-terror people. Most of them started their careers in intelligence long after the Cold War ended. The skills in demand in the CIA these days are things that will allow the organisation to fight Al Qaeda.

I just don't see why these people would waste their precious money, time and other resources on fighting Chavez with anything more than occasionally sending a cheque to opposition groups.

But the CIA is, like all organisations, made up of people. Who runs the CIA today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kappes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Rodriguez_%28intelligence%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kringen

These are anti-terror people. Most of them started their careers in intelligence long after the Cold War ended. The skills in demand in the CIA these days are things that will allow the organisation to fight Al Qaeda.

I just don't see why these people would waste their precious money, time and other resources on fighting Chavez with anything more than occasionally sending a cheque to opposition groups.

*Shrugs*

All of them still serve at the pleasure of the psychopathic POTUS. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm implying about what I'll be doing if it does.

Most sizeable external (foreign intelligence) intelligence agencies probably have low level surveilance all over the world. It wouldn't be anything big, just general info and the such.


Usually Official Cover types working within embassy or consular staff, whose usual methods revolve around collecting OSINT stuff on the side, I might add. It's important to understand the vital statistics of another country, and to take its public opinion pulse, if you want to have intelligible, open discussion, it's important to be able to understand the atmosphere of another country, to take the temperature of the people. Information is gold, even if all it is is collated and translated newspaper articles and letters to the editor.

Usually Official Cover types working within embassy or consular staff, whose usual methods revolve around collecting OSINT stuff on the side, I might add. It's important to understand the vital statistics of another country, and to take its public opinion pulse, if you want to have intelligible, open discussion, it's important to be able to understand the atmosphere of another country, to take the temperature of the people. Information is gold, even if all it is is collated and translated newspaper articles and letters to the editor.

Even if the only value of it was keeping some information as to how to infiltrate a particular region then it would be continued.

Oh, do relax, I know that. I'm not buying into it, but I know - without Chavez's help - that your current government is currently ran (as it was in the 60s) by a psychopath prone to overthrowing governments he doesn't like.

Gee, we don't seem to be in Venezuela.

It only took a few weeks to overthrow Iraq, and then have to deal with insurgents forever.

Venezuela has a much smaller military than Iraq had. How long do you think it would take for US forces to overthrow Chavez?

We're not overthrowing him. We're not even trying to assassinate him.

All of that conspiracy talk is bullshit peddled by Chavez to keep the minds of the people off their actual problems.

Gee, we don't seem to be in Venezuela.

It only took a few weeks to overthrow Iraq, and then have to deal with insurgents forever.

Venezuela has a much smaller military than Iraq had. How long do you think it would take for US forces to overthrow Chavez?Iraq, being less than forestry country, is easy to conquer with tanks and aircrafts.

Jungles, mountains and forests make a big difference in war against superior technological power: Where Iraq's forces couldn't practice asymmetric warfare outside urban areas in Venezuela there's practically the whole country ideal for that type of warfare.

Consider eg. Russia & Chechnya or USA and Vietnam.

Gee, we don't seem to be in Venezuela.

It only took a few weeks to overthrow Iraq, and then have to deal with insurgents forever.

Venezuela has a much smaller military than Iraq had. How long do you think it would take for US forces to overthrow Chavez?

We're not overthrowing him. We're not even trying to assassinate him.

All of that conspiracy talk is bullshit peddled by Chavez to keep the minds of the people off their actual problems.

Right, you don't even have a history of overthrowing elected governments to put people you like, such as Pinochet and Castelo Branco, in power. And with the trash talk Bush did about Venezuela, plus the fact that the Washington Times suggested sponsoring a coup here, back in 2002, when Lula was close to his first election, yes, I get to be a little worried.

Iraq, being less than forestry country, is easy to conquer with tanks and aircrafts.

Jungles, mountains and forests make a big difference in war against superior technological power: Where Iraq's forces couldn't practice asymmetric warfare outside urban areas in Venezuela there's practically the whole country ideal for that type of warfare.

Consider eg. Russia & Chechnya or USA and Vietnam.

Thanks the gods for that.

Right, you don't even have a history of overthrowing elected governments to put people you like, such as Pinochet and Castelo Branco, in power. And with the trash talk Bush did about Venezuela, plus the fact that the Washington Times suggested sponsoring a coup here, back in 2002, when Lula was close to his first election, yes, I get to be a little worried.

Since when is the Washington Times editorial page an arm of the US Government?

We haven't done the overthrowing governments by the CIA in AGES.

Bush certainly has no history of doing it through the CIA. Can you name one nation we overthrew by the CIA during his Administration?

Since when is the Washington Times editorial page an arm of the US Government?

We haven't done the overthrowing governments by the CIA in AGES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Attempted_coup_in_Venezuela

Bush certainly has no history of doing it through the CIA. Can you name one nation we overthrew by the CIA during his Administration?

I can name one he overthrew militarily with the CIA providing an excuse. And one failed overthrowing attempt. Rest assured your toy soldiers would be well-received (like they are in Iraq) by us should they ever dare set foot in my country.

I can name one he overthrew militarily with the CIA providing an excuse. Rest assured your toy soldiers would be well-received (like they are in Iraq) by us should they ever dare set foot in my country.

No, you have to supply an example like Pinochet, which was your original assertion.

I think you can't provide one, which makes your conspiracy theory bullshit.

No, you have to supply an example like Pinochet, which was your original assertion.

I think you can't provide one, which makes your conspiracy theory bullshit.

I edited it. Kindly take a look.

I edited it. Kindly take a look.

Sorry, we haven't had the CIA overthrow anyone successfully since the days of Pinochet.

Can you name a country that the CIA overthrew? Saying the military overthrew the country is not the same example as Pinochet.

You're full of excuses today.

You said overthrew. The CIA did get involved and did overthrow Chavez, if for 47 hours.

Looks like he's still there. Obviously not successful, and I don't see any proof other than Chavez says so.

Sorry, we haven't had the CIA overthrow anyone successfully since the days of Pinochet.

Can you name a country that the CIA overthrew? Saying the military overthrew the country is not the same example as Pinochet.

You're full of excuses today.

You said overthrew. The CIA did get involved and did overthrow Chavez, if for 47 hours.

You said overthrew. The CIA did get involved and did overthrow Chavez, if for 47 hours.

Actually the CIA had nothing to do with the failed coup d'etat of Chavez. The coup was entirely an internal affair of Venezuela. The US neither encouraged or discouraged the coup plotters, although there was foreknowledge, which the US attempted to pass on through a consular official (who was met with the response that he was an imperialist merely trying to sow discord amongst the Venezuelan government).

Following the coup, Chavez sought to redirect blame from his beloved military to sources abroad, specifically the US, so he started creating tales of American involvement that were of more than questionable validity.

Not every action in Latin America has a US tint to it.

Actually the CIA had nothing to do with the failed coup d'etat of Chavez. The coup was entirely an internal affair of Venezuela. The US neither encouraged or discouraged the coup plotters, although there was foreknowledge, which the US attempted to pass on through a consular official (who was met with the response that he was an imperialist merely trying to sow discord amongst the Venezuelan government).

Following the coup, Chavez sought to redirect blame from his beloved military to sources abroad, specifically the US, so he started creating tales of American involvement that were of more than questionable validity.

Not every action in Latin America has a US tint to it.

Shhh. Heikoku actually believes the CIA is competent.

It's pretty much a historical fact that they can't tie their own shoelaces, without help from a five year old kid.

Further, Chavez has a history of boasting and bombast from his position. In 2006 he claimed that Oliver Stone and John Daly were planning to make a film about the 2002 coup d'etat. He further claimed that they were in discussion with the Venezuelan government about it, and that they had all come to an agreement about such a film. Shortly thereafter Stone and Daly called bullshit, and said they had never even discussed it.

Why did Chavez make this entirely false claim? It's pretty simple, he's attempting to rally the Venezuelan poor around him by making him and his ideology seem like a big deal on the international stage (which it is not). He's merely an old style caudillo unafraid to make bold-faced lies just to win support. OD, Heikoku and all the other Chavez apologists have all fallen for this type of "Big Lie", and have lost touch with the reality on the ground.

Not every action in Latin America has a US tint to it.

Very well, but 1964 is still fresh in the minds of many here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#U.S._involvement

Unfortunately, the CIA was competent enough. If it weren't, they might have died instead of the actual people here.

Henry Kissinger is a famous, and cursed, name among the intelectuals here, for a reason.

Heikoku and all the other Chavez apologists have all fallen for this type of "Big Lie", and have lost touch with the reality on the ground.

Not a Chavez apologist. Do what you will to him, I don't care, never did, never will. Foreign powers don't get to, though, and I'd be opposing just as firmly an action pro or against him from Brazil. Especially considering the loose cannon that, right now, defiles the White House with his presence. Chavez can be forced to have sexual relations with a rhino, for all I care, as long as the US keeps the hell away from South America.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm implying about what I'll be doing if it does.
So you see how unlikely it is, yet you keep talking about it, for reasons that I don't fully understand. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

And for the record, Lula and "the West" get along quite well, as I'm sure you're aware. In fact, Brazil is the best candidate for limiting the damage done by Chavez because it can naturally provide an alternative role for leadership (example (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9149736)). I can guarantee you that we're not hiding under your bed to get you if you close your eyes for a second.

So you see how unlikely it is, yet you keep talking about it, for reasons that I don't fully understand. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

And for the record, Lula and "the West" get along quite well, as I'm sure you're aware. In fact, Brazil is the best candidate for limiting the damage done by Chavez because it can naturally provide an alternative role for leadership (example (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9149736)). I can guarantee you that we're not hiding under your bed to get you if you close your eyes for a second.

I find Lula to be too right-wing to my tastes. There was another candidate here, Heloísa Helena. She's true left. My point is still that some people there would just as soon criticize Chavez had he a pristine human rights (and so on) record. And would, yes, call for assassination or couping out. Furthermore, some of the neocons from the US did call for a coup here back in 2002, in case Lula was elected. I will only forget this when the US is governed by sane people again.

My point is still that some people there would just as soon criticize Chavez had he a pristine human rights (and so on) record.
And criticism is their good right. Every politician gets criticised.

And would, yes, call for assassination or couping out.
Care to provide any proof of that allegation? Are there any leftist leaders out there with pristine human rights records and fair democratic elections who have that happen to them?

And besides, if you can't find any proof of actual members of government wanting to assassinate anyone, you should probably drop it.

Furthermore, some of the neocons from the US did call for a coup here back in 2002, in case Lula was elected. I will only forget this when the US is governed by sane people again.
And you should have noticed that the power of the neocons in the US is pretty much broken. Bush never was a neocon, he's just a simple guy who looks at the world in too simplistic a fashion.

The neocons around him are mostly gone. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (the two most important ones) have been removed. Cheney's still there, but these days he hasn't been saying much. Fukuyama (not that he would have called for an overthrow of anyone anyways) has quit neoconservatism. Which leaves a few media pundits who are widely discredited in the US thanks to the Iraq disaster.

Add to that a democratic congress, and I think at the moment the US is being governed as sanely as it has been for six years.

And again "some neocons" was one opinion writer in one newspaper. You don't want me to start searching all of Brazil's newspaper for unsavoury things said by obscure journalists, do you?

Bay of Pigs, embargo, blockade and 638 assassination attempts, the US did it too Castro, Chavez must be ready for it as well.

Care to provide any proof of that allegation?

And again "some neocons" was one opinion writer in one newspaper. You don't want me to start searching all of Brazil's newspaper for unsavoury things said by obscure journalists, do you?

1- Allende was ACTUALLY couped out. So was João Goulart.

2- I'm fully aware that some Americans would be calling for Tomahawks in São Paulo should any newspaper here suggest the kind of thing the Washington Times suggested. My reaction is pretty tame.

Bay of Pigs, embargo, blockade and 638 assassination attempts, the US did it too Castro, Chavez must be ready for it as well.
1- Allende was ACTUALLY couped out. So was João Goulart.
Newsflash: the Cold War is over.

2- I'm fully aware that some Americans would be calling for Tomahawks in São Paulo should any newspaper here suggest the kind of thing the Washington Times suggested. My reaction is pretty tame.
That's irrelevant, really. My point is that there's no indication whatsoever that the US has a policy direction towards overthrowing anyone in Latin America these days.

Newsflash: the Cold War is over.

Newsflash: Not for the neocons it's not.

Newsflash: The politics of Venezuela are not determined by attitude of the United States.

We haven't done the overthrowing governments by the CIA in AGES.overthrowing a Government is evil.
no matter if you use the CIA, NSA ,Mossad, KGB, Gestapo, bombers, snipers, Special Ops, or any other assassin/proxy methods.

Newsflash: the Cold War is over.

Newsflash: The "war against extremist states" (which includes Venezuela but not Saudi Arabia, for some reason) just began. And the neocons have absolutely no respect for borders; they believe they can violate whatever countries they like, for whatever reasons they like, whenever they like.

Newsflash: Considering what the US did in South America in the Cold War, I have no reason, and, as a Brazilian, not even any right, whatsoever to ever forget it.

Newsflash: The "war against extremist states" (which includes Venezuela but not Saudi Arabia, for some reason) just began.
I would like you to find that speech. To my knowledge, the only linkage going on between Venezuela and the whole Islamic terrorism fad is that Chavez is desperately trying to get Arab oil money to prop up his regime.

I would like you to find that speech. To my knowledge, the only linkage going on between Venezuela and the whole Islamic terrorism fad is that Chavez is desperately trying to get Arab oil money to prop up his regime.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0421-04.htm

What speech? Is North Korea terror-sponsoring? No. Yet Bush made several threats to Kim Jong-il. Is Saudi Arabia? Yes. Yet Bush calls Riyadh a partner in the "war on terror", a term I don't need to show you any links for you to know it exists.

Newsflash: the Cold War is over.replaced by the War of "Either with US or against US (http://www.glennston.com/antibush/graphical/with_us_or_against_us.JPG)"

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0421-04.htm

What speech? Is North Korea terror-sponsoring? No. Yet Bush made several threats to Kim Jong-il. Is Saudi Arabia? Yes. Yet Bush calls Riyadh a partner in the "war on terror", a term I don't need to show you any links for you to know it exists.

I have to disagree here. Launching some missiles over Japan is State terrorism committed by North Korea. You are trying to scare the shit out of another country. It is normal that the country friends of Japan try to scare you away instead. Just think about you and a personal friend. If you friend gets bullied, you're going to stand up for him.

I have to disagree here. Launching some missiles over Japan is State terrorism committed by North Korea. You are trying to scare the shit out of another country. It is normal that the country friends of Japan try to scare you away instead. Just think about you and a personal friend. If you friend gets bullied, you're going to stand up for him.

I think it was after Bush grouped NK with Iran and Iraq as an "axis" in order to - once again - foster fear. Plus call it what you like - rogue state, yes - but you can only call it terrorism if you call the ACTUAL bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism as well.

Note: I'm all with Japan on that one, and my name should tip it off. But Bush until very recently succeeded only in worsening the situation there.

I think it was after Bush grouped NK with Iran and Iraq as an "axis" in order to - once again - foster fear. Plus call it what you like - rogue state, yes - but you can only call it terrorism if you call the ACTUAL bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism as well.

Note: I'm all with Japan on that one, and my name should tip it off. But Bush until very recently succeeded only in worsening the situation there.

I call the actual bombings a war crime ;)

The problem is, that although the Bush speech is nothing but provoking, North Korea plays its part in reinforcing it, too.

I call the actual bombings a war crime ;)

The problem is, that although the Bush speech is nothing but provoking, North Korea plays its part in reinforcing it, too.

Then you get to call NK a terrorist state. But my point was another one: NK had still nothing to do with 9/11, and since 9/11 Bush has been pimping the hell out of the word "terror". And of terror itself. The "war on terror" should be either against the specific terror that attacked the US or ALL terrors, including the one King Abdullah inflicts on his people, the one Putin inflicts on his and the one Bush inflicts on the world by being a psychopathic cowboy that plays war instead of nailing the chicken he selected as a wife.

You are trying to scare the shit out of another country.
...
Just think about you and a personal friend. If you friend gets bullied, you're going to stand up for him.But who is the Bully here?

(unrelated, occ, etc)
I feel Bush is currently fucking up the Balance of Power in South America.

Specifically the Balance of Power on the Venezuela/Colombia border.

Do you think the WarParty would like to see a war alongside that border?
I feel Bush Gov attitude makes a war more likely.

Here's some news to you all who keep citing American Cold War indiscretions: IT'S BEEN OVER FOR A DECADE AND A HALF.

We no longer worry about leftist leaders establishing pro-Soviet dictatorships in the region, as potential springboards for Soviet forces in Latin America. That time is long passed, and the global situation has changed so much that referencing it does little more than to create strawman arguments.

IT'S BEEN OVER FOR A DECADE AND A HALF.

I'll believe it when the embargo against Cuba is lifted, when we get reparations for Pinochet, Castelo Branco and so on, and when the US does, indeed, stop meddling in our internal policies. If the US is capable of doing it because of Russia, it's capable of doing it because of anything else.

But who is the Bully here?

(unrelated, occ, etc)
I feel Bush is currently fucking up the Balance of Power in South America.

Specifically the Balance of Power on the Venezuela/Colombia border.

Do you think the WarParty would like to see a war alongside that border?
I feel Bush Gov attitude makes a war more likely.

How is specifically Bush doing that? With the Plan Colombia?

I don't think Colombia is interested in a conflict there, too much internal strife already. Neither should us. We depend a lot on each other for commerce and trade. I think our goverment should stop supporting the colombian insurgency to avoid further problems.

I have no idea on what the republican party thinks, I am not so aware of those US internal problems. But I don't buy that they can ignite something in that border. Do you think our goverments all depend on what the US want us to do? Do you think we are mere puppets or what? We are sovereign peoples, you know? Stop thinking about South America like the doll of the powerful empire of the north. That's insulting, even if you mean well.

About military balance of power in South America...Well, that depends on Brazil, actually, not in Venezuela or Colombia. The colombian armed forces were already substancially larger than ours before the Plan Colombia started.

How is specifically Bush doing that? With the Plan Colombia?

I don't think Colombia is interested in a conflict there, too much internal strife already. Neither should us. We depend a lot on each other for commerce and trade. I think our goverment should stop supporting the colombian insurgency to avoid further problems.

I have no idea on what the republican party thinks, I am not so aware of those US internal problems. But I don't buy that they can ignite something in that border. Do you think our goverments all depend on what the US want us to do? Do you think we are mere puppets or what? We are sovereign peoples, you know? Stop thinking about South America like the doll of the powerful empire of the north. That's insulting, even if you mean well.

About military balance of power in South America...Well, that depends on Brazil, actually, not in Venezuela or Colombia. The colombian armed forces were already substancially larger than ours before the Plan Colombia started.

Article 84, Incise 19 of our Constitution is, thankfully, a self-defense clause. We won't intervene unless attacked.

I'll believe it when the embargo against Cuba is lifted, when we get reparations for Pinochet, Castelo Branco and so on, and when the US does, indeed, stop meddling in our internal policies. If the US is capable of doing it because of Russia, it's capable of doing it because of anything else.

The Embargo will remain so long as Castro remains in power. His advocacy for a pre-emptive nuclear strike in 1962 against the US has earned our enmity. Until he is gone, we will continue the embargo.

As to the others: Too bad. It's done and it's in the past.

Pinochet was the direct result of the criminal Nixon administration. His installation was the pet project of Nixon and Kissinger's regional policies. We paid a domestic price for Nixon's actions, he was forced out of office, and Carter spent his four years doing penance for our misdeeds around the world.

The Embargo will remain so long as Castro remains in power. His advocacy for a pre-emptive nuclear strike in 1962 against the US has earned our enmity. Until he is gone, we will continue the embargo.

As you said: Too bad. It's done and it's in the past. So, by your own thought, you shouldn't continue the embargo, as the US wrongs against Brazil itself date from 2 years LATER than what Castro did. Kissinger's still alive, isn't he? So, we should be prosecuting him. Or, rather, the US, that believes oh-so-fucking-much in democracy, should, rather than aiding and abetting him.

Pinochet was the direct result of the criminal Nixon administration. His installation was the pet project of Nixon and Kissinger's regional policies. We paid a domestic price for Nixon's actions, he was forced out of office, and Carter spent his four years doing penance for our misdeeds around the world.

The overthrowing of João Goulart was done under LBJ's watch.

Do you think our goverments all depend on what the US want us to do? Do you really think all Wars are wanted by both sides? or even by both Govs?

can you name all the Govs that actually wanted WW1 to take place?
Sometimes Wars comes to you, your Country is attacked/invaded..

War is not about what people wants.. its about timing and circumstance. (with the exception of preemptive wars)

How is specifically Bush doing that? With the Plan Colombia?Bush is arming them to the teeth.
why?

As you said: Too bad. It's done and it's in the past. So, by your own thought, you shouldn't continue the embargo, as the US wrongs against Brazil itself date from 2 years LATER than what Castro did.
There's a qualitative difference between having foreknowledge of a coup d'etat and insisting that your ally begins the war that kills nearly all of humanity.


Kissinger's still alive, isn't he? So, we should be prosecuting him. Or, rather, the US, that believes oh-so-fucking-much in democracy, should, rather than aiding and abetting him.
Get your government to demand extradition.



The overthrowing of João Goulart was done under LBJ's watch.

But was initiated and carried out entirely by internal actors with their own grievances against Goulart. The US had foreknowledge of what was going on, yes, but didn't facilitate the actions of the coup leaders.

Bush is arming them to the teeth.
why?

To deal with the continued insurgency and terror campaign of the drug cartels and FARC.

Get your government to demand extradition.How does the legal procedures for extradition works?


other interesting bit:

September 11.. and the extradition procedures of the evil minds behind this outrageous attack against a Democracy.

There's a qualitative difference between having foreknowledge of a coup d'etat and insisting that your ally begins the war that kills nearly all of humanity.

I think you mean a quantitative difference. Both ARE wrong. And in Chile the US STAGED it.

Get your government to demand extradition.

Would the US grant it? Would we have the right to do as you did in Afghanistan if the US didn't grant it?

But was initiated and carried out entirely by internal actors with their own grievances against Goulart. The US had foreknowledge of what was going on, yes, but didn't facilitate the actions of the coup leaders.

They did have - and the leaders knew that - people on standby to help if needed. That it wasn't needed is irrelevant.

How does the legal procedures for extradition works?

september 11 and the extradition procedures of the evil minds behind this horrible crime.

It varies from country to country, based off of the existing extradition treaties between them. It's not a uniform process, and I don't feel like looking up the specifics on the matter.

I doubt a winner of a Nobel Peace Prize has ever been subject to a war crimes extradition before, though...

I doubt a winner of a Nobel Peace Prize has ever been subject to a war crimes extradition before, though...

Wait, so, should a Nobel Peace Prize winner rape someone he'd be acquitted? I don't give a damn what he won, I want justice for what was done by him to most of South America!

I think you mean a quantitative difference. Both ARE wrong. And in Chile the US STAGED it.
Nixon and Kissinger staged it. The CIA role was that of a lapdog doing what they were being told to.

Further, I meant a qualitative difference. A quantitative difference is something you can count. You cannot count how much worse wanting to start a nuclear war is than mere passive participation in a coup.

Would the US grant it? Would we have the right to do as you did in Afghanistan if the US didn't grant it?

Dunno, I don't know the nature of the existing extradition treaty between your country and the US. It's a legal matter from there.



They did have - and the leaders knew that - people on standby to help if needed. That it wasn't needed is irrelevant.

Because of our concerns that Brazil might shift into the Soviet bloc if the coup failed. It's an artifact of the Cold War. The great irony of the passive US involvement in the coup being that the coup leaders wound up leading Brazil closer to the USSR than Goulart had ever done.

Poorly advised policies were the hallmark of the Johnson administration, both at home and abroad.

Wait, so, should a Nobel Peace Prize winner rape someone he'd be acquitted? I don't give a damn what he won, I want justice for what was done by him to most of South America!

No, no, no. I was making a joke about the irony of Kissinger being a war criminal and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

No, no, no. I was making a joke about the irony of Kissinger being a war criminal and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Well, sure. Kinda means he SHOULDN'T be a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. :p

To deal with the continued insurgency and terror campaign of the drug cartels and FARC.

_______________________________________________________
In millions 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Military 765.49 242.97 401.93 620.98 555.07 641.60 641.15
Economic/Social 214.31 5.65 120.30 136.70 134.98 131.29 138.52
% Military 78.12 97.72 76.96 81.95 80.43 83.01 82.23 five


source wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia#Expansion_under_Bush)
_____________________________________________________



Thats a lot of millions $$.. to buy a lot of shinny weapons..

I wonder if the cocaine pushers in downtown Miami feel the impact..

Nixon and Kissinger staged it. The CIA role was that of a lapdog doing what they were being told to.

Further, I meant a qualitative difference. A quantitative difference is something you can count. You cannot count how much worse wanting to start a nuclear war is than mere passive participation in a coup.



Dunno, I don't know the nature of the existing extradition treaty between your country and the US. It's a legal matter from there.

I don't think there was any between Afghanistan and the US. So, either the US shouldn't prosecute Bin Laden by starting a war, and should simply be content with burying its dead, or we should prosecute Kissinger the same way if the US refused to hand him over.

Because of our concerns that Brazil might shift into the Soviet bloc if the coup failed. It's an artifact of the Cold War. The great irony of the passive US involvement in the coup being that the coup leaders wound up leading Brazil closer to the USSR than Goulart had ever done.

Poorly advised policies were the hallmark of the Johnson administration, both at home and abroad.

Staging coups in other countries or helping them, even passively, is wrong. Should be treated as a war crime. Because I'm pretty sure you'd not like it done in the US.

_______________________________________________________
In millions 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Military 765.49 242.97 401.93 620.98 555.07 641.60 641.15
Economic/Social 214.31 5.65 120.30 136.70 134.98 131.29 138.52
% Military 78.12 97.72 76.96 81.95 80.43 83.01 82.23 five


source wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia#Expansion_under_Bush)
_____________________________________________________



Thats a lot of millions $$.. to buy a lot of shinny weapons..

I wonder if the cocaine pushers in downtown Miami feel the impact..

Shiny weapons that are currently being used in the Colombian counter-insurgency campaigns. US support has become increasingly important now that pro-government militias have been disbanded and disarmed.

I don't think there was any between Afghanistan and the US. So, either the US shouldn't prosecute Bin Laden by starting a war, and should simply be content with burying its dead, or we should prosecute Kissinger the same way if the US refused to hand him over.

The US had no relations with the Taliban government, which it did not recognize. The Afghan War occurred because there were no further means of international recourse remaining. The odds are there are full and open relations between your country and the US, leaving alternate channels open.


Staging coups in other countries or helping them, even passively, is wrong. Should be treated as a war crime. Because I'm pretty sure you'd not like it done in the US.

The golden rule does not apply to international politics. It's wise not to meddle in other countries affairs, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in a state of anarchy.

The US had no relations with the Taliban government, which it did not recognize. The Afghan War occurred because there were no further means of international recourse remaining. The odds are there are full and open relations between your country and the US, leaving alternate channels open.

So, should these be used up, do we get to "stop recognizing your government" and invade?

The golden rule does not apply to international politics. It's wise not to meddle in other countries affairs, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in a state of anarchy.

It applies when it goes to show how hypocritical the US are to claim to be "pro democracy".

The US had no relations with the Taliban government, which it did not recognize. The Afghan War occurred because there were no further means of international recourse remaining. The odds are there are full and open relations between your country and the US, leaving alternate channels open.[/for the record]

Even if the Bush Gov had no legal means to extradite Osama.. Bush asked anyways..
the Afghan Gov did not say No.

They said "show us the evidence"

[/for the record]
I am assuming that when a foreign gov ask US to put someone in Jail and hand it over to them, They must show US the evidence.(and viceversa) but i am not aware of related international Law.

It applies when it goes to show how hypocritical the US are to claim to be "pro democracy".

The U.S. under Bush hasn't been hypocritical about democracy; The U.S. under Bush has been outsourcing democracy.

I would like you to find that speech. To my knowledge, the only linkage going on between Venezuela and the whole Islamic terrorism fad is that Chavez is desperately trying to get Arab oil money to prop up his regime.

Arab oil money?

OPEC uses USD for oil trading (which incidently helps keep up the value of the USD) so if anything they want USD.

Definately the New Zealand Dollar notes. Not only do they look really really cool, but they are literally indestructible. Trust me... i've tried very hard.

Indestructible when using hand or when using scissors?

I find it funny whenever I find NZ cents with my cents.

I have to disagree here. Launching some missiles over Japan is State terrorism committed by North Korea. You are trying to scare the shit out of another country. It is normal that the country friends of Japan try to scare you away instead. Just think about you and a personal friend. If you friend gets bullied, you're going to stand up for him.

To be fair, when they detonated their nuke no one was talking about 'regieme change'. That is one of the biggest bits of support for some Iranians who want to push for a nuke as soon as possible.

Please accept my full apologies then :)

There will be someone out there who will now dislike me for the crappy joke I made.

The Embargo will remain so long as Castro remains in power. His advocacy for a pre-emptive nuclear strike in 1962 against the US has earned our enmity. Until he is gone, we will continue the embargo.

When did he advocate a pre-emptive strike? From what I could tell he asked the soviets for millitary equipment but they instead started a short/medium missile launching system and he went along with it (as it would be a protection of a sort). The missile system was being built because Turkey was houseing U.S missiles.

The U.S. under Bush hasn't been hypocritical about democracy; The U.S. under Bush has been outsourcing democracy.

Might place I quote on the state of democracy?


I believe in democracy. I believe it is our greatest export, at least until China figure out a way to stamp it out of plastic for three cents a unit

EDIT: Awww, I missed out saying 1000th post :( .