NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Or the Spanish revolution.

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.

Put yourself in President Truman's shoes for a second
Its Aug 1st 1945 , the plans for the invasion of Japan involves planning for at least 500 000 allied casulties, with many more Japanese military dead , plus however many civilians get killed in the crossfire, Plus you have a complete Japanese army in northern china about to take on the russians , which will mean the war dragging on for another 18 months
Or you can use an atomic bomb to destroy a city killing 100 000 people but forcing Japan's surrender. you choose.:eek:
Oh and you cannot use information gathered from after Aug 1st 1945 to make your decision.

As for North Korea, I can see Chavez taking Venuzala down the same route of having an external enemy, saying the external enemy is about to invade/overthrow the government and hopefully the majority of the people will support you.
The fact the external enemy is'nt about to do what you are saying makes no difference, and shutting down opposition media stations ensures that its only your message that gets to the people.

Socialism is the way of the people. It is a society where the majority of people rule. That station is probably a right wing abuse of Chavez. His action is not a dictator's move at all. He is just clearing any moves that could hurt the socialist system. Radios and TVs should be controlled by the government because if the government is controlled by the people then everything runs smoothly. This system doesn't exist in capitalist countries where multinational companies have it heir way, screwing up with the education and the people's opinions in the name of profit. The just use the media to pass on their ideas and how we should serve them. Not to mention that they are hiding vital information of their dirt.

It's not how Chavez deals with a TV station that makes Fox look fair and balanced that interests me, it's how he reacts if he loses popular support. Then we'll know what kind of a man we're dealing with.

.... it's how he reacts if he loses popular support. Then we'll know what kind of a man we're dealing with. He is a Democratically Elected President.. elected by a landslide.. Democratically elected/confirmed more times than any other president.

all your "what-ifs" are not going to change that fact.

Socialism is the way of the people. It is a society where the majority of people rule.

Well there are differing levels of majority. Best would be absolute majority rule but a simple 50.000001% of population is not a very good majority.

That station is probably a right wing abuse of Chavez. His action is not a dictator's move at all. He is just clearing any moves that could hurt the socialist system.

He currently is not a dictator though he does seem to be traveling a bit on the path of the popular dictator.

Benevolent dictators are not the problem, it is the people that come after them...

Radios and TVs should be controlled by the government because if the government is controlled by the people then everything runs smoothly.

What kind of socialism are you talking about?

That should never happen. A relatively free press (you cannot make up stories, you have to have evidence backing it up) is extremely important if you want to have democratic elements in your state. If you didn't the group that was currently in charge (even if it included 100% representation of the population as future generations may want different groups) can allow much better positive projection and lower any mishaps.

That in turn promotes further corruption (until it becomes an institutionalised corruption), reducing beneficial systems and exacerbating problems.

State ownership of press would be alright but it would have to have a fairly large autonomy from the government.

This system doesn't exist in capitalist countries where multinational companies have it heir way, screwing up with the education and the people's opinions in the name of profit. The just use the media to pass on their ideas and how we should serve them. Not to mention that they are hiding vital information of their dirt.

To be sure a keen interest of the world, politics and information is good for the total population.

Just not government control of the media. (News) Media should be treated almost as a seperate branch/element of the state.

Yes, but you can dissagree that much autonomy does no good. Commercial can take over the media and adjust news the way they wanted. Nevertheless the press isn't that influenced but in my country things are a bit...weird.
By saying majority of people i am refering to the Working Class and not the Urban Class.

Looks like he's threatening another station, too. He's doing something worse, though, than imposing a dictatorship (though he is very slowly). He's working to divide the country either for or against him. He's in a new breed of dictators, comparable only to Putin and maybe Akmandinejad. He strengthens the opposition because he knows he has a very secure base, a base that will only solidify from defeating this opposition. There is the possibility that there could be some sort of regime change, by coup or ballot, or a lifelong government. But my money is that Venezuela will tear itself up in a civil war.

Looks like he's threatening another station, too. He's doing something worse, though, than imposing a dictatorship. He's working to divide the country either for or against him. He's in a new breed of dictators, comparable only to Putin and maybe Akmandinejad. He strengthens the opposition because he knows he has a very secure base, a base that will only solidify from defeating this opposition. err...
whatever that means. :confused:

err...
whatever that means. :confused:

He thrives off division. He would have never shut that station down if he knew it'd go unnoticed.

He thrives off division.:confused:

and... ... is he as successful (dividing) as my Dear Leader ??

:confused:

and... ... is he as successful (dividing) as my Dear Leader ??

Whoever your Dear Leader is, then yes, much more so. And he thrives off it. Why was there a coup in the first place? Or a massive strike by oil workers a year later? Granted, both were quickly surpressed, but the fact that they happened indicates the existence of a strong and determined opposition. And we all know that Chavez has a large and determined base both inside the country and abroad, whose devotion is in large part due to the existence of an enemy. Chavez needs enemies. It's like that Godfather line, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Only 21st century dictators seem to know that.

Whoever your Dear Leader is, then yes, much more so. And he thrives off it. Why was there a coup in the first place? Or a massive strike by oil workers a year later? Granted, both were quickly surpressed, but the fact that they happened indicates the existence of a strong and determined opposition. And we all know that Chavez has a large and determined base both inside the country and abroad, whose devotion is in large part due to the existence of an enemy. Chavez needs enemies. It's like that Godfather line, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Only 21st century dictators seem to know that.

So you agree that Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya is divisive and consolidating power? Good!

So you agree that Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya is divisive and consolidating power? Good!

On a much smaller scale, yes. All democracies are in some form or another. Of course, Bush is very much a uniting power right now, if you know what I mean.

Of course, Bush is very much a uniting power right now, if you know what I mean.you mean to say: Bush is uniting the World against US.

rite?

Firstly, Putin is not a dictator either. He took power after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He took strong meters to bring things back in order. Ahmanedejad(or however he is spelled) is not a dictator, he is just fighting for his country. Imagine that one day your country desides to use nuclear power to solve energy issues. The other day, the USA comes and tells you not to "build nuclear weapons" or they will start war with you and destroy the country like they did in Iraq. Now, Iran is building nuclear weapons? Do we have proof of it? And when does the USA and other nations request the end of building nuclear weapons when they poccess enough to destroy a nation like Iraq? Everything is a trick; capitalist pigs first aimed at Communists(the people that fight for a better society), now they are aiming at the East. No wonder all games refer to Arabians and Russians as the ones you have to kill.
What, all people have to wait until everything has reached it's worst situation to wake up? Trust me, i lived for a while in the Soviet Union. You simply can't imagine how a great society it was. It had it's bad sides but the Working Class(the majority of the humankind)was not affected by an Urban Class.

you mean to say: Bush is uniting the World against US.

rite?

No. He's uniting Americans against him. Those who aren't against him are working in the '08 campaign. There's no one for him these days. I'm not even sure if Bush is for himself, anymore. Personally, if I were him, I'd pray that I get out of the White House ASAP. He'll still have a nice life giving lectures and building a library somewhere. Maybe he can write a memoir. After all, there wasn't anymore Nixon bashing once he resigned.

I lived for a while in the Soviet Union.

No. You "lived for a while" in America.

In Soviet Union, Soviet Union lived in YOU! :D

No. You "lived for a while" in America.

In Soviet Union, Soviet Union lived in YOU! :D

Is there a single human being in the world who cares about Russian Reversals that actually make political sense?

:headbang:

I am sorry, didn't get that:)

Is there a single human being in the world who cares about Russian Reversals that actually make political sense?

:headbang:

It was one of the unique places in the world where people had no problems like unemployment. Why shouldn't we care. It is a far better world than this capitalist one. One day things will change again but i don't know how long humans will suffer in the name of profit.

I am sorry, didn't get that:)

You'll have to pardon people. They think a simple wordplay reversal is an authentic Soviet Russia joke, the way most people think Taco Bell is Authentic Hispanic Cuisine.

Is there a single human being in the world who cares about Russian Reversals that actually make political sense?

:headbang:

Soviet, not Russian.

After all, in soviet union, political sense makes you.

Trust me, i lived for a while in the Soviet Union.
When, where and why?

The Soviet Union was pretty good if you had a cushy job high up in some planning ministry. Otherwise, I can't imagine it was all that great. It was generally said that East Germany was one of the nicer, more wealthy parts of the Eastern Bloc...and I can tell you that it wasn't very nice.

When, where and why?

The Soviet Union was pretty good if you had a cushy job high up in some planning ministry. Otherwise, I can't imagine it was all that great. It was generally said that East Germany was one of the nicer, more wealthy parts of the Eastern Bloc...and I can tell you that it wasn't very nice.

I thought you were from Hamburg.

I suppose this would be considered bad if one considered dictatorship in and of itself bad?

From what I understand, Chavez is a compassionate and outspoken leader. Certainly good in a dictator. However, he is also brash and sometimes incompetent which makes him an unfit dictator. That's what makes this bad.

I thought you were from Hamburg.
I am, but my family's got a few friends who used to live in East Berlin. I remember when I was little we would occasionally go and visit as well, though I was a bit young then to actually understand anything (except that it was smelly and ugly and that family had a tiny apartment).

I am, but my family's got a few friends who used to live in East Berlin. I remember when I was little we would occasionally go and visit as well, though I was a bit young then to actually understand anything (except that it was smelly and ugly and that family had a tiny apartment).

I used to say the same thing about London. (In similar circumstances).

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.

The "fast track" approach to the U.S. president's relationship with Congress, whereby Congress largely gives up much of its constitutional oversight responsibilities to an increasingly independent Executive, is cited by some as being behind the United States' history of unilaterialist and militaristic behavior. "Supporting the President" or "democratic mandate" or having the permission of the "elected representatives" eventually gives way to inattention, lazyness, whitewashing, and an Executive more or less run amok. Rule by decree has not resulted in good things for the United States; the history of U.S. imperialism in South America proves as much. Why should I assume that rule by decree should work well anywhere else?

There is absolutely no doubt that the right-wing in South America has engaged in all kinds of disgusting, inhuman, and undemocratic behavior (often with the support of the United States at the hands of an Executive unaccountable to anyone but himself...). However, running immediately to the opposite extreme is not a particularly good solution. Chavez is shutting down opposition media, claiming rule by mandate, consolidating his supporters into a single party, and centralizing control of the economic process into the state (this is supposed to be a bad thing for left-wing anarchist types, isn't it?).

According to a BBC article I just read ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6694245.stm ) plans of protests over the TV issue involving potentially tens of thousands of Venezuelans led to increased military and other security forces in Caracas. Apparently, the left-wing types in South America are not immune to calling on the jackboots when necessary either.

Putting the left-wing/right-wing issue aside for the moment, it is clear that Chavez is moving in a direction that is increasing the power of the state, increasing his own personal control over that power, while threatening to eliminate any democratic legitimacy he might have had (tens of thousands don't just protest for no reason...).

Citing the need to fight the evils of foreign imperialists/agressors/criminals/etc by consolidating and increasing centralized statist power is a very old shtick among the dictatorially inclined. Left- and right-wing alike. There is certainly a legitimate case to be made that such imperialist evils are real and need to be fixed. But there are ways to make the problem worse, and it seems to me that Chavez has pretty much figured out what they are.

EDIT:

...it's how he reacts if he loses popular support. Then we'll know what kind of a man we're dealing with.


As I explain above, with massive protests and military responses, it appears that the stage is being set for something no so good.

I used to say the same thing about London. (In similar circumstances).
Except that London never had as many Trabant cars. You haven't smelled an engine until you've smelt that engine. ;)

Anyways, I think Germany is the best demonstration of the merits of command communism. In 1946 they both started from the same low base. In 1989 they got together again. The difference is pretty convincing, I think.

I think Germany is the best demonstration of the merits of command communism. In 1946 they both started from the same low base. In 1989 they got together again. The difference is pretty convincing, I think.The Soviet Union never had a shot against US.
We have a very rich land.. with all the range of resources. the USSR land is mostly poor.

also.. WW1 and WW2 did not hurt US.

The Soviet Union never had a shot against US.
Depends on what you mean by "shot". Without nukes, neither side would ever have successfully conquered the other. And with nukes, neither side would have survived.

We have a very rich land.. with all the range of resources. the USSR land is mostly poor.
Well, how do I put this...no. It just isn't.

Russia has huge oil and even huger gas reserves. It's got all sorts of fancy stuff it pulls out of its mines as well. In terms of natural resources, I think Russia is easily on par with the United States.

also.. WW1 and WW2 did not hurt US.
That's true. That's why I reckon Germany is a better case. Both east and west got practically flattened, and then the two systems were used in the same conditions.

While in the US everything seems fancy and stylish and perfect, in the USSR things tend to be presented with the worst way.
Why is that?
Multinational companies and the money is the main wheel in the US. I mean, if there are 15 million people living in New York, 2 millions are wealthy, 10 are leaving with fear about their near future and the 3 million are homeless without jobs. Why is that? Because there is no government property at all to hire those people.
On the other hand, let's think of the USSR. All, i mean ALL schools from lower levels to higher where public and they were amazing(pools, military classes, fields, everything you can imagine), health was totallly free without any worries about payments, industries, services were government property, in a cold country where hot water was needed the hot water didn't cost a thing at all. I can tell you a lot more if you want. To manage all those, there was the Socialist System.
The only reason the USSR failed it is because people in the USSR lost touch with politics; that's because life was good and there was no fear for the near future.
You(Occean Drive)that you are claiming your land is democratic, rich and wealthy; let me ask you this: are you rich and wealthy? or the other 350 million of you? why should there be a few rulling the world the way they wanted it and not you and all the other simple people who deserve a better life than this capitalist one?

I am, but my family's got a few friends who used to live in East Berlin. I remember when I was little we would occasionally go and visit as well, though I was a bit young then to actually understand anything (except that it was smelly and ugly and that family had a tiny apartment).

The German side of my family had the same thing happen when the wall went up.

I did go to Berlin overland once. All very hush hush...no looking outside (curtains drawn).

We did go on a tour of East Berlin...besides CHeck Point Charlie all I remember was a Trabant (or it could have been a pre war VW) bricked into the end wall of a house way up on the 2nd floor...very strange.

I mean, if there are 15 million people living in New York, 2 millions are wealthy, 10 are leaving with fear about their near future and the 3 million are homeless without jobs. Why is that? Because there is no government property at all to hire those people.

:rolleyes: ok, at last count New York City has a population of 8,143,198 and an unemployment rate of 4.1%. Thats 333,871 jobless people, and not all of those are homeless. 21.2% of people live below the poverty line, and that's only 1,726,357.

Thats almost 80% of the population living above the poverty line. So find another argument.

<snip>
Sorry man, but faith in the USSR is sooooo 1950’s.

Centralised Leninist dialectic materialism is teh fail; and a grim, absurdist fail at that.

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

Chávez didn't "shut down" any TV station. He didn't renew the license to use the hertzian channel, which expired (was 20 years from 1987) but RCTV can still broadcast on Internet, cable or satellite.

Chávez did renew the license of many other TV stations and radios (around 100), most of them being in the opposition (including Venevision, which is stronly in the opposition too).

The reason of the non-renewal is that RCTV was always breaking the laws: support to the coup of 2002, calls for murder, prohibited advertising for alcohol and tabacco, subliminal pictures in children' show, tax fraud, ...

In any other country, people would have been send to jail for so many breakings of the law. In Venezuela, he just doesn't renew the license, without even closing the channel. That's laxism, not dictatorship.

:rolleyes: ok, at last count New York City has a population of 8,143,198 and an unemployment rate of 4.1%. Thats 333,871 jobless people, and not all of those are homeless. 21.2% of people live below the poverty line, and that's only 1,726,357.

Thats almost 80% of the population living above the poverty line. So find another argument.

Ok, 21.2% of people living in New York are below poeverty line, who cares right? It's only 1, 726, 357. Nothing, right? Just numbers. Imagine you being one of those people. Ohh, not to mention the...not-important number of homeless people in NY. Well, imagine the numbers in the whole USA!!:eek:
Anyway, 4.1% are registered unemployed but what about the unregistered?

By the way, sorry about the number of 15. I always thought it was somewhere there.
Chumblywumbly , very interesting point of view! It's like fashion right?

...very interesting point of view! It’s like fashion right?
What I was meaning was that the idea of the USSR, or indeed Leninism/Stalinism, as being an ideal blueprint for society was debunked in the 1950s. Lenin’s ideas of centralised planning on a massive scale and a deterministic view of society led to an absurdist and cruel nightmare; one that student’s of Marx would be well advised to keep aware of.

Not that Marx himself desired, or even wrote about, the state Lenin envisaged. We have Engels and young Ilyich himself to thank for that.

-snip-
Any apologetic antics have been thoroughly refuted dozens of pages ago. Indeed, the very reason why anyone would put them forward in the first place has been under scrutiny.

In short, your argument is not only wrong and morally reprehensible, it also comes several days too late.

Ok, 21.2% of people living in New York are below poeverty line, who cares right? It's only 1, 726, 357. Nothing, right? Just numbers. Imagine you being one of those people. Ohh, not to mention the...not-important number of homeless people in NY. Well, imagine the numbers in the whole USA!!:eek:
Anyway, 4.1% are registered unemployed but what about the unregistered?

By the way, sorry about the number of 15. I always thought it was somewhere there.


You realize when you numbers from nowhere to support your claim, your argument loses a lot of weight, right?
10 out of 15 is quite a bit more than 2 out of 8 :rolleyes:

Any apologetic antics have been thoroughly refuted dozens of pages ago. Indeed, the very reason why anyone would put them forward in the first place has been under scrutiny.

In short, your argument is not only wrong and morally reprehensible, it also comes several days too late.Get your facts straight.

Venezuelan government indeed only refused to renew the waveband license of, what they consider, an agitative TV channel. Wavebands are a limited resource, therefore their distribution is almost always government regulated.

Wikiquote with numbers in brackets being links to actual sources in the article:
On May 27, 2007, the Venezuelan government declined to renew RCTV's broadcast license in order to allow its state-sponsored station TVes to operate on RCTV's channel. RCTV had Venezuela's largest viewing audience, with 10 million of Venezuela's 26 million people viewing its shows and telenovelas.[2] RCTV still has the option to operate on satellite and cable, services that reach a small audience in Venezuela. Currently, they have not chosen to broadcast on paid services. Without its public broadcast frequency, RCTV will lose most of its audience.[3]

If you want to see true repression and oppression look at democratic Russia instead of democratic Venezuela...

Get your facts straight.
The facts have been gotten straight. Chavez is killing off another commercial station because it doesn't share his political views. Everything else is facade which pretty much no one actually buys, including Reporters without Borders and co.

I already said that Putin is no better (or maybe even worse). But I also said that this would be irrelevant, because oppression can't be measured in relative terms.

And I furthermore questioned why so many leftists are so keen to forgive things like this. Chavez has obviously done wrong, he's done something none of us would tolerate our own governments doing. There are people being shot at by the police for protesting against it. But for some reason, their agreement with either his rhetoric or his 50s throwback economic policies seems to make it all okay for them. Sometimes moral relativism can go too far, and I worry that Chavez in particular isn't being looked at critically enough by the left.

Ok, 21.2% of people living in New York are below poeverty line, who cares right? It's only 1, 726, 357. Nothing, right? Just numbers. Imagine you being one of those people. Ohh, not to mention the...not-important number of homeless people in NY. Well, imagine the numbers in the whole USA!!:eek:
Anyway, 4.1% are registered unemployed but what about the unregistered?

By the way, sorry about the number of 15. I always thought it was somewhere there.
Chumblywumbly , very interesting point of view! It's like fashion right?

I have been - Four years in a row while I was in college and a few more right after I got out. Big fucking deal.

What I was meaning was that the idea of the USSR, or indeed Leninism/Stalinism, as being an ideal blueprint for society was debunked in the 1950s.

Debunked in the late 19th century actually. No-one listened to the Anarchists though. :p

EDIT:

Woops, forgot my on-topic bit:

Shokk! Horror! Chavez turns out to be a bastard!!!1!! Big fucking deal, he's another scumbag in power; the difference is that he's actually doing stuff for the poor. All governments are shit, some less so and some more so. In my estimation, Chavez is better than the coup government - and that's the opposition? So I'll fling my banner both behind and against him. :p

It was one of the unique places in the world where people had no problems like unemployment. Why shouldn't we care. It is a far better world than this capitalist one. One day things will change again but i don't know how long humans will suffer in the name of profit.


One of the main reasons it was so wonderful is because the media were never allowed to say otherwise.
Look at Chernobyl, The west only found out about it 6 days later when radiation alarms began going off at Sweden's nuclear plants, or look into the pollution within USSR cities, some of which reduced life expectancy when life expectancy was increasing rapidly in the west.

And what happened to you if you became a dissenter? did the government allow you to freely protest and go home afterwards?
If you want the worst excesses of the USSR , look at what happened to Soviet POWs when they were freed at the end of world war 2, many imprisoned for 'collaberating' with the enemy after the nazi's used them as slave labour.

It maybe flawed, but give me capitalism/democracy every time

It maybe flawed, but give me capitalism/democracy every time

I'd rather have neither. Pass me the bowl marked 'doomed revolutionary society' please. :)

I would just drink a "Bloody Society" for now

While in the US everything seems fancy and stylish and perfect, in the USSR things tend to be presented with the worst way.
Why is that?
Multinational companies and the money is the main wheel in the US. I mean, if there are 15 million people living in New York, 2 millions are wealthy, 10 are leaving with fear about their near future and the 3 million are homeless without jobs. Why is that? Because there is no government property at all to hire those people.
On the other hand, let's think of the USSR. All, i mean ALL schools from lower levels to higher where public and they were amazing(pools, military classes, fields, everything you can imagine), health was totallly free without any worries about payments, industries, services were government property, in a cold country where hot water was needed the hot water didn't cost a thing at all. I can tell you a lot more if you want. To manage all those, there was the Socialist System.
The only reason the USSR failed it is because people in the USSR lost touch with politics; that's because life was good and there was no fear for the near future.
You(Occean Drive)that you are claiming your land is democratic, rich and wealthy; let me ask you this: are you rich and wealthy? or the other 350 million of you? why should there be a few rulling the world the way they wanted it and not you and all the other simple people who deserve a better life than this capitalist one?

I agree 100%!!!

But I also said that this would be irrelevant, because oppression can't be measured in relative terms.there is some ways to measure oppression like number of kidnapings, secret prisons, torture, etc etc.. Wanna compare Bush against Chavez?

BTW I expect you to pull your same-ol-same-ol Der Spiegel articles any time soon.

there is some ways to measure oppression like number of kidnapings, secret prisons, torture, etc etc.. Wanna compare Bush against Chavez?
Care to point out where I said Bush was a good leader?

Any apologetic antics have been thoroughly refuted dozens of pages ago. Indeed, the very reason why anyone would put them forward in the first place has been under scrutiny.

In short, your argument is not only wrong and morally reprehensible, it also comes several days too late.

I know I'm late (elections sunday in France, I'm very busy doing real-life politics), but my "apologetic antics" are just the truth. If you don't have any argument, don't post, but insulting doesn't change the truth. Chávez is not *closing* RCTV, and RCTV broke so many laws that even sending their CEO to jail would not have been too much. But Chávez, as always refusing any drastic move against his opponents, just don't sign a new contract with them. They call to MURDER him, and he should grant them a new contract ? "You want to murder me ? Fine, do without me. You won't get a contract from me. But spread your lies on Internet/Cable/Satellite is you want."

Debunked in the late 19th century actually. No-one listened to the Anarchists though. :p
Aye, Bakunin and others warned of the dangers of dialectical materialism long before it was cool to do so, but the actions of the USSR in the 1950s actually destroyed many people’s rose-tinted views of life under Lenin/Stalin.

Go Bakunin.

You’ve got to give kudos to a guy who gets imprisoned and kicked out of Russia by both the Tsar and the Bolsheviks.

The facts have been gotten straight.

Not at all.

Chavez is killing off another commercial station because it doesn't share his political views.

Killing ? They can still transmit on other channels;

Another ? That's the first time he does that.

Because it doesn't share his political views ? That's the case of all other private channels, including Venevision and Globovision, and they received a new broadcasting license.

Three lies in one sentence, not bad, for "straight facts".

Everything else is facade which pretty much no one actually buys, including Reporters without Borders and co.

Reporters without Borders ? Do you have any trust in them ? They are not NGO ! They receive their money from the European Commission (right-wing) and the USA agencies (including the NED, which organised the coup in 2002), and from the... big media consortium. And you should that Robert Menard is a close friend to the anti-Castro terror groups of Miami, you know, of the people who are proud to pose bombs in hotels. He's as far as a neutral POV as you can get.

While journalists are murdered regularly in Columbia and Mexico, while TV channels like TeleSUR are banned there (not just "not given a frequency", but banned), Reporters without Borders only focus its critism on Cuba and Venezuela, because Columbia and Mexico have right-wing presidents, while Cuba and Venezuela have "left"-wing presidents.

And I furthermore questioned why so many leftists are so keen to forgive things like this.

To forgive calls for murders, support of a coup, constant law-breaking ? To only refuse to sign a new contract, but not send anyone to jail or to close completly the channel, after such crimes ? Well, you know, we leftish are all for forgiving and refusing repression.

Chavez has obviously done wrong, he's done something none of us would tolerate our own governments doing.

Actually our government is doing much worse. Sarkozy didn't "close" any channel, he just used his relation to put the vice-president of his campaign staff to the head of TF1, the first private TV channel here. Taking control of it is much, much, much worse that not renewing a license after so many law breaking, and who complains ?

There are people being shot at by the police for protesting against it.

Get your facts fixed. I know people in Caracas (I went there, I met many french who live there since years), including reporters. Some were there. They were clear: the "protesters" opened fire, with a gun, on policemen. 10 people were wounded... inside the policemen. But Chávez, once again, refused to let the police fire back with real guns - only with teargas and such.

Sometimes moral relativism can go too far, and I worry that Chavez in particular isn't being looked at critically enough by the left.

When he does wrong things, like his friendship with Iran, we do criticize him. But this time, he is right, or if you can critize him, it's for being laxist.

Chavez gained 75% in elections(somewhere there). I believe he knows what he is doing. People know him as well.

Chavez gained 75% in elections(somewhere there). I believe he knows what he is doing. People know him as well.

62.3% to be exact. Most important being a constant progression (56% in 1998, 58% in 2000, 59% in 2004, 62% in 2006), and with a greater number of voters each time.

That said, even being elected with such a large majority, he can do mistakes, and when he does (like his friendship with Iran), we need to say it. But on this issue, he's just applying the law. RCTV kept breaking the law and the conditions of the contract, he could not decently renew it.

Chavez gained 75% in elections(somewhere there). I believe he knows what he is doing. People know him as well.

Never let it be said that the Busheviks are objective when it comes to politics. This is the same bunch that calls Chavez an oppressive dictator while at the same time feeding the House of Saud and Pervy Musharraf as democratic partners in the "War on Terra."

Killing ? They can still transmit on other channels;

Another ? That's the first time he does that.

Because it doesn't share his political views ? That's the case of all other private channels, including Venevision and Globovision, and they received a new broadcasting license.

Three lies in one sentence, not bad, for "straight facts".

Oh, you are so wrong. Venevision is already sided with the goverment. They just do not criticize the goverment any further.

The concession, or broadcasting license of Globovision hasn't expired, thus, they cannot stop renewing it.

Looks like you need to check your facts again. They aren't that straight.

Reporters without Borders ? Do you have any trust in them ? They are not NGO ! They receive their money from the European Commission (right-wing) and the USA agencies (including the NED, which organised the coup in 2002), and from the... big media consortium. And you should that Robert Menard is a close friend to the anti-Castro terror groups of Miami, you know, of the people who are proud to pose bombs in hotels. He's as far as a neutral POV as you can get.

While journalists are murdered regularly in Columbia and Mexico, while TV channels like TeleSUR are banned there (not just "not given a frequency", but banned), Reporters without Borders only focus its critism on Cuba and Venezuela, because Columbia and Mexico have right-wing presidents, while Cuba and Venezuela have "left"-wing presidents.

Telesur is not banned in Colombia, sorry. I need to check again in the case of Mexico, but I think that is hardly the case. You also need to clarify that from the beginning Telesur is a cable channel.

To forgive calls for murders, support of a coup, constant law-breaking ? To only refuse to sign a new contract, but not send anyone to jail or to close completly the channel, after such crimes ? Well, you know, we leftish are all for forgiving and refusing repression.

The goverment claims there are "subliminal messages" to call for murder. They have failed to this date to suminister conclusive proofs about this.

Support of a coup? Oh, yes, they were present during a goverment change. Most reporters and national and international agents were, too. In the end, everyone gave their back to the regime that tried to overcome the constitution and depose Chávez, who either had resigned, or at least their collaborators made everyone think that.

By the way, even although it may hurt you, the final decision of our Supreme Court about the events of April 11th is that there were a "void of power". That is why the military heads weren't processed for deposing a goverment. I know the word "coup" is lovely, but in any case you should abide by the correct terms issued by the highest authority of the venezuelan state.

Get your facts fixed. I know people in Caracas (I went there, I met many french who live there since years), including reporters. Some were there. They were clear: the "protesters" opened fire, with a gun, on policemen. 10 people were wounded... inside the policemen. But Chávez, once again, refused to let the police fire back with real guns - only with teargas and such.

Get your facts fixed. That didn't happen. The protesters didn't opened fire. They were university students and kids from several high schools. When the national guard and the police started to launch gas, they dispersed, although a group of them got enraged (a stupid mistake), took the bait and started to throw stones at the police, who answered using rubber bullets, even hitting several international reporters. I was there, and I am being clear.

In the end, they realized they have taken into prison 180 (more or less), people, mos of them underage people, and several bystanders. Great job, there.

When he does wrong things, like his friendship with Iran, we do criticize him. But this time, he is right, or if you can critize him, it's for being laxist.

I am still waiting a coherent and objetive criticize from you towards Chávez. Given your ideological stand, that won't happen. Looks like extremist tendencias shortens the sight of some people. Like your "Le Monde Diplomatique" fellows.

Why are people ignoring the fact RCTV was breaking the law?

Why are people ignoring the fact RCTV was breaking the law?

With?

Why are people ignoring the fact RCTV was breaking the law?
Because so far there hasn't been any evidence put forward by you. Furthermore, if there's a law that says "don't agree with people who are against me", maybe we shouldn't be supporting actions taken in defense of that law.

Also, thank you Aelosia. You can explain these things much better than I could. I suspect for you this is rather more important than for us, sitting thousands of kilometres away arguing just out of principle.

With?

Inciting hate violence and overthrow of the elected government, their lucky they are not prosecuted.

Oh, you are so wrong. Venevision is already sided with the goverment. They just do not criticize the goverment any further.

Venevision, with the governement ? You're ridiculous ! It was in their studio that, 4 hours before any violence happened, the generals recorded their message in 2002. And it was clearly for Rosales at the latest elections. Venevision is, and always, in the opposition. The difference between them and RCTV is that they stopped calling for murders...

The concession, or broadcasting license of Globovision hasn't expired, thus, they cannot stop renewing it.

That's true, I was inaccurate for the sake of simplicity, which is wrong. Sorry.

Telesur is not banned in Colombia, sorry.

That's not what people living there told me.

I need to check again in the case of Mexico, but I think that is hardly the case. You also need to clarify that from the beginning Telesur is a cable channel.

And ? The point is that some governments outlaw a channel, while some just don't renew a license without forbidding anything. Guess who is accused in international press and by NGOs ?

Support of a coup? Oh, yes, they were present during a goverment change.

A government change ?! Media (including RCTV) showing fake video to justify a coup, the military arresting the President, the head of the buisnessmen association taking full power and dissolving all the powers (Assembly, Constitution, Supreme Court, ...), the police firing with real guns on protesters and arresting ministers/representatives, that's a "government change" ?

Saying the President resigned while he didn't, that's a "government change" ? And refusing to speak about millions of people demonstrating to reclaim the President they elected is, of course, perfectly normal for a TV channel...

In the end, everyone gave their back to the regime that tried to overcome the constitution and depose Chávez, who either had resigned, or at least their collaborators made everyone think that.

No one ever said he had resigned, except the mass media and the high ranking generals. That was a lie, and an attempt to justify the coup. Saddly for the fascists, the news that he didn't resign reached the people, and they revolted against the golpists !

By the way, even although it may hurt you, the final decision of our Supreme Court about the events of April 11th is that there were a "void of power".

Yeah, and the same people claim Chavez controls the Supreme Court. I know what happened this day, it was a coup, as clear as it was. And even the opposition acknoweldge it now, except the most radical of them... you seem to be one, which terminates all credits I could have in you.

The military arrests the president, but it's a "void of power". Suuure.

That is why the military heads weren't processed for deposing a goverment. I know the word "coup" is lovely, but in any case you should abide by the correct terms issued by the highest authority of the venezuelan state.

You know what ? I abide by the truth.

Get your facts fixed. That didn't happen. The protesters didn't opened fire.

Sorry, but between a fanatic like you who claim they weren't any coup, even when most of the opposition now admits their were one, and several people I know and trust because I never saw saying any lie, I don't believe you, AT ALL.

In the end, they realized they have taken into prison 180 (more or less), people, mos of them underage people, and several bystanders. Great job, there.

Which is not surprising when protesters open fire... In France, we had much more than 180 people arrested, even more than that sentenced to jail, during the anti-CPE protests, and no policeman was seriously murdered. But people such as you don't protest against that...

I am still waiting a coherent and objetive criticize from you towards Chávez.

Well, I don't have much to criticize. A lot of details, but that doesn't matter much. The only major act of Chávez I oppose is his friendship with Iran. And I do criticize it.

Like your "Le Monde Diplomatique" fellows.

Le Monde Diplomatique is one of the most serious newspaper of France. Even people from the right recognize it. They don't agree with its analysis and conclusions, but they don't claim it's not serious or lying.

Why are people ignoring the fact RCTV was breaking the law?

Because if they didn't they would lose an occasion to yell "Chávez is an evil dictator", as they love to do whatever Chávez did. They just can't accept to see a President trying to implement democratic socialism AND being successful in it.

Well said Kilobugya, most of those protestors were probably just rich kids anyways.

Furthermore, if there's a law that says "don't agree with people who are against me", maybe we shouldn't be supporting actions taken in defense of that law.

No one in Venezuela proposed such a law... except Carmona, the 47-hours "president" who was supported by RCTV and who closed, by the force of weapons, the community TV channels and radio stations, because they dared to oppose him.

Also, thank you Aelosia. You can explain these things much better than I could. I suspect for you this is rather more important than for us, sitting thousands of kilometres away arguing just out of principle.

I know many people living in Venezuela, and they give a totally different story than the ridiculous claims fo Aelosia, claims that he wouldn't dare to utter in Venezuela, as everyone there knows how ridiculous they are. Only the most fanatic part of the opposition still deny that there was a "golpe de Estado" in 2002. But it's so easy, to go to international forum, to spread ridiculous lies and use the "I live there" argument to counter anything other can say.

Isn't it kinda funny that these same people most likely voted for Chavez, seriously guys, as Chavez said: go to the beach, obviously have nothing better to do.

This thread is fascinating. A Venezuelan is being told what's going on in Venezuela :)

This thread is fascinating. A Venezuelan is being told what's going on in Venezuela :)

You should say: "a radical Chávez hater who use the fact he is Venezuelian to try to make people believe his lies". Pathetic. Say to a Venezuelian that no coup happened in 2002, and either he'll laugh or he'll kick you. Except one of those fanatic who still would like to remove Chávez with weapons, but even the majority of Chávez opponents acknoweldge now that there were a coup, and that it was wrong to do it.

You should say: "a radical Chávez hater who use the fact he is Venezuelian
[...]
Say to a Venezuelian that no coup happened in 2002, and either he'll laugh or he'll kick you.

You contradict Yourself, as You first say Aelosia is a radical Chavez hater AND a Venezuelian, and then that no Venezuelian would say there's been no coup ;)

All this situation is about is plainly the desperate last gasps of the reactionary bulwark as democratic socialism sets in, the rich minority can whine and protest all they like, but they are still the minority.

Isn't it kinda funny that these same people most likely voted for Chavez, seriously guys, as Chavez said: go to the beach, obviously have nothing better to do.

The same people ? What probably enrages the likes of Aelosia so much is that the ones who used to survive in their barios in misery, the majority of the population who didn't see the color of the oil, are now the ones in commands. That's what enrages the radical anti-chavists so much: they shouldn't vote ! They are poors ! They are colored ! They are uneducated (of course, they couldn't pay for their studies) ! Why do they want to decide ? To have a share of the oil money ? To be allowed to see a doctor and to know how to read ?

You know, Venezuela is split in two. On one hand, you've the rich people living in their golden palaces in Altamira. On the other hand, you've the majority, living in very hard conditions in the "barios". That's the most impressive thing of Caracas, the one thing you just can't forget. And those used to be the kings living in their golden palaces are now enraged, because they are no longer in command. The people, the majority of the poor, is now in command. Not Chávez, for he is just a catalyst. But everywhere, a bolivarian circle here, a municipal council there, a cooperative here, a rehabilitation project for the "ministry of popular economy" there, they take control of their country.

But let them protest, while a few thousands want back the putschist channel, 4 millions of people (yes, 4 MILLIONS, nearly as much as the total number of people who voted against Chávez in latest elections) joined the PSUV. The Bolivarian Revolution is now going too fast and too far for it to be stooped. Even murdering Chávez would be useless now. The only option left would be for the USA to invade Venezuela, but if they try that, it'll be a new Vietnam.

You contradict Yourself, as You first say Aelosia is a radical Chavez hater AND a Venezuelian, and then that no Venezuelian would say there's been no coup ;)

You shouldn't truncate posts like that. You missed the "Except one of those fanatic..." which makes all coherent again. That's very low from you.

All this situation is about is plainly the desperate last gasps of the reactionary bulwark as democratic socialism sets in, the rich minority can whine and protest all they like, but they are still the minority.

Exactly, cf my previous post.

Venevision, with the governement ? You're ridiculous ! It was in their studio that, 4 hours before any violence happened, the generals recorded their message in 2002. And it was clearly for Rosales at the latest elections. Venevision is, and always, in the opposition. The difference between them and RCTV is that they stopped calling for murders...

Venevision is not actually in the opposition, nor their news reports are posed against the goverment. Check your facts again. The owner of Venevision, Gustavo Cisneros, reached an agreement with the goverment after 2003. Right now, it is not an opposition channel. you were in their studio...When?



That's not what people living there told me.

That is exactly what I saw in the hotel in Bogotá a few weeks ago. Telesur broadcasts in Colombia, by cable, as it does in so many other places.

And ? The point is that some governments outlaw a channel, while some just don't renew a license without forbidding anything. Guess who is accused in international press and by NGOs ?

Then I would suggest the french students to go out and protesting for such a violation against the free speech.

A government change ?! Media (including RCTV) showing fake video to justify a coup, the military arresting the President, the head of the buisnessmen association taking full power and dissolving all the powers (Assembly, Constitution, Supreme Court, ...), the police firing with real guns on protesters and arresting ministers/representatives, that's a "government change" ?

Saying the President resigned while he didn't, that's a "government change" ? And refusing to speak about millions of people demonstrating to reclaim the President they elected is, of course, perfectly normal for a TV channel...

The video isn't fake. What it is shown in that video really happened. About Carmona, yes, he was a schmuck, and should be prosecuted for making such a stupid move as dissolving the goverment and mowing down our constitution, just to place him as a dictator. The police firing protesters, well, in most countries, when you fire guns at the police, the police tend to fire back at you. I can't see why that is OK when the police in favor of the goverment does that, and back then was such a heinous act.

For most journalists reporting for international agencies, and national networks, it was a goverment change. The reasons behind that goverment change was a completely different matter.

Hundred of thousands of people asked for Chávez back in power, going for millions is exaggerating.

No one ever said he had resigned, except the mass media and the high ranking generals. That was a lie, and an attempt to justify the coup. Saddly for the fascists, the news that he didn't resign reached the people, and they revolted against the golpists !

Golpist? That word exists?

Not a high ranking general. The highest ranking general, that for some reason continued in charge after the events. Have you considered why? He said Chávez had resigned, and yet noone ever told him he was wrong. He continued in front of the command after april, and continued as one of the trusted Chávez advisor. Care to answer why if he was such a golpist?

Yeah, and the same people claim Chavez controls the Supreme Court. I know what happened this day, it was a coup, as clear as it was. And even the opposition acknoweldge it now, except the most radical of them... you seem to be one, which terminates all credits I could have in you.

Those aren't my words, or the words of the opposition or whatever. It was the official announcement of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, that labeled the events as a void of power, I told you, like it or not, that is the official version of the events. What happened that day was a void of power generated by the statement of a resign of the president, followed by a clumsy attempt of seizing power by a megalomaniac business head without civilian or military support. Carmona attempted a coup, during a void of power.


Sorry, but between a fanatic like you who claim they weren't any coup, even when most of the opposition now admits their were one, and several people I know and trust because I never saw saying any lie, I don't believe you, AT ALL.

You are not forced to believe me. But like it or not, I'm a primary source that tend to be there when certain events happens, and you can just tell reference of such facts told by your friends.

Which is not surprising when protesters open fire... In France, we had much more than 180 people arrested, even more than that sentenced to jail, during the anti-CPE protests, and no policeman was seriously murdered. But people such as you don't protest against that...

Then again I advise the french students to protest for their liberties. I again have to remind you that none of those students fired a gun against the police, at least not in the main protests, while I was there. Some threw some stones.

Le Monde Diplomatique is one of the most serious newspaper of France. Even people from the right recognize it. They don't agree with its analysis and conclusions, but they don't claim it's not serious or lying.

Le Monde Diplomatique is a serious newspaper with a well known ideological agenda. Most people recognize it. I am not accusing of lying, but I am accusing it of facing the facts with a clear political end.

Isn't it kinda funny that these same people most likely voted for Chavez, seriously guys, as Chavez said: go to the beach, obviously have nothing better to do.

So, if you disagree with the government you're supposed to remain quiet? What a load of bull.

I know many people living in Venezuela, and they give a totally different story than the ridiculous claims fo Aelosia, claims that he wouldn't dare to utter in Venezuela, as everyone there knows how ridiculous they are. Only the most fanatic part of the opposition still deny that there was a "golpe de Estado" in 2002. But it's so easy, to go to international forum, to spread ridiculous lies and use the "I live there" argument to counter anything other can say.

I work as a new reporter for a newspaper, a magazine and a radio station. I repeat my claims everyday here. I don't counter anything anyone say, I only try to counter your more than open agenda to support a goverment that I find cpontrary to my own beliefs, and that happens to be my goverment and not yours. You are already taking things as if I was a Carmona supporter, fact that I have clarified several times. I said Carmona tried to overthrow the goverment, but before that, there was a void of power, as the Supreme Court of my country decided.

The "I live here, I saw that, you weren't there" argument is pretty valid against your argument of "I know people there, they told me that" one.

You contradict Yourself, as You first say Aelosia is a radical Chavez hater AND a Venezuelian, and then that no Venezuelian would say there's been no coup ;)

Shhhh, do not highlight such facts, you can make his head explode.
This thread is fascinating. A Venezuelan is being told what's going on in Venezuela :)

Quite. But Kilobugya does that in every thread about the venezuelan situation. I'm getting used to it.

The same people ? What probably enrages the likes of Aelosia so much is that the ones who used to survive in their barios in misery, the majority of the population who didn't see the color of the oil, are now the ones in commands. That's what enrages the radical anti-chavists so much: they shouldn't vote ! They are poors ! They are colored ! They are uneducated (of course, they couldn't pay for their studies) ! Why do they want to decide ? To have a share of the oil money ? To be allowed to see a doctor and to know how to read ?

You know, Venezuela is split in two. On one hand, you've the rich people living in their golden palaces in Altamira. On the other hand, you've the majority, living in very hard conditions in the "barios". That's the most impressive thing of Caracas, the one thing you just can't forget. And those used to be the kings living in their golden palaces are now enraged, because they are no longer in command. The people, the majority of the poor, is now in command. Not Chávez, for he is just a catalyst. But everywhere, a bolivarian circle here, a municipal council there, a cooperative here, a rehabilitation project for the "ministry of popular economy" there, they take control of their country.

But let them protest, while a few thousands want back the putschist channel, 4 millions of people (yes, 4 MILLIONS, nearly as much as the total number of people who voted against Chávez in latest elections) joined the PSUV. The Bolivarian Revolution is now going too fast and too far for it to be stooped. Even murdering Chávez would be useless now. The only option left would be for the USA to invade Venezuela, but if they try that, it'll be a new Vietnam.

What enrages me, is the concentration of power in one person and one party, and the abuse of such power.

The correct word is "barrios", your information is so accurate that you even fail in the correct denominations.

The poor voted against Chávez, and they should continue to voting. They should be given true opportunities to have a decent life, and not to be kept like beggars. In the last eight years, we had a revolution. I continue to see the streets filled with poor people and the barrios filled with violence and misery. For me, this goverment failed to fulfill those objetives. I voted for Chávez in 1998, and began to oppose his regime when he didn't true advances in fighting the main problems of this country.

I live in the west of Caracas, not in the east, please open your google earth and look for "El paraíso", a middle-low class neighbourhood in my city. That is where I live. Not in a golden palace in "Altamira". The high ranking supporters of the goverment live in Altamira, although, and in the Country Club. I suppose having a mansion is too much for those socialist ministers?.

The demagogue policy of Chávez attracts a lot of the poor, yes, and also people start to vote for him in the hopes of getting a credit, a house, or anything for granted. That same support is waning with his last policies announced during the first half of this year. Check the numbers.

I won't say again that I am against such US invasion, but seems like you fail to read.

So, if you disagree with the government you're supposed to remain quiet? What a load of bull.

That is the main directive they are issuing, no?

In the last days, I have heard a lot of Chávez supporters being against his last policies. Including the not renewing of the broadcasting license of RCTV. They voted for him in december, and yet they do not like where the country is going

I only try to counter your more than open agenda to support a goverment that I find cpontrary to my own beliefs

And to oppose this government which you don't like, you distord the truth and claims bullshits.

and that happens to be my goverment and not yours.

Saddly... I would have moved there if I didn't have all my family here in France.

You are already taking things as if I was a Carmona supporter, fact that I have clarified several times. I said Carmona tried to overthrow the goverment, but before that, there was a void of power, as the Supreme Court of my country decided.

Yes, sure, suddenly Chávez disappeared, without anyone being involved in that. And Carmona only moved after this disappearing... do you realise how ridiculous your claims are ? "A void of power", without anyone being responsible for it ? Chávez himself decided to become a prisonner, without anyone forcing him ? Opposition march going towards Chávez supporters, snipers of the opposition firing at protesters of both sides, faked news of chavista firing on a demonstration... which never went this way, generals claiming their will to overthrow the President recorded 4 hours before any event happened, all that is just "a void of power".

Shhhh, do not highlight such facts, you can make his head explode.

You should note that he truncated my post. That's probably too complex for you. As for exploding my head... well, I'm quite used to logic, don't worry about me ;)

Quite. But Kilobugya does that in every thread about the venezuelan situation. I'm getting used to it.

I spend a huge share of my free time studying the situation in Venezuela, because it's the most interesting and promising political situation of the current world. I read plenty of books and articles (from both side), speak with many people, and the more I do it, the more I realize that the likes of you are just spreading lies.

What enrages me, is the concentration of power in one person and one party, and the abuse of such power.

One party ? Well, until a few months ago, there was no PSUV, but like 20 parties behind Chávez. One person ? Well, Chávez speaks a lot, but he can't do much without the support from the base - you know, the whole participative democracy he's setting up (recall referendum, communal councils and all others form of participarive democracy he's experimenting). Abuse of power ? Compared to what is done nearly everywhere else in the world, Chávez is very reluctant at punishing people who clearly cross the line.

The correct word is "barrios", your information is so accurate that you even fail in the correct denominations.

That's how deep and far your arguments are... Sure, if I do a mistake on the number of "r" in a word in a foreign language, it means I know nothing. Do you know what ? Most french people do mistakes sometimes on simple/double letters in their own language !

The poor voted against Chávez, and they should continue to voting.

You really want to win the prize of the most ridiculous claim ?

They should be given true opportunities to have a decent life, and not to be kept like beggars.

Opportunities to have a decent life starts when you are healthy and educated. That was the priority of Chávez, and he was very successful at it. He eridacted analphabetism, he granted healthcare to the poorest, cured eyesight of hundred of thousands, brought hundred of thousands who were forced to drop school to high-school level. That's not enough, but already a lot, with all the opposition he had to face during the time.

In the last eight years, we had a revolution. I continue to see the streets filled with poor people and the barrios filled with violence and misery.

Don't you see "Barrios Adentro" centers where people couldn't access healthcare ? Don't you see Mercal for people to buy food at decent prices ? Don't you see people who learnt how to read, who were given high-school level education when they couldn't before ? Don't you see new schools opening, new universities opening ? And so on.

For me, this goverment failed to fulfill those objetives. I voted for Chávez in 1998, and began to oppose his regime when he didn't true advances in fighting the main problems of this country.

Well, you're the exception. Chávez got 3.6 millions of votes in 1998, 7.3 millions of votes in 2006. That's twice more. Quite successul, I would say.

I live in the west of Caracas, not in the east, please open your google earth and look for "El paraíso", a middle-low class neighbourhood in my city. That is where I live. Not in a golden palace in "Altamira". The high ranking supporters of the goverment live in Altamira, although, and in the Country Club. I suppose having a mansion is too much for those socialist ministers?.

Suuure, the supporters of the government live in Altamira... That's why most of the opposition marches people come from here, why the walls in those areas are full of opposition posters, why you get angry looks when you walk in those with a Chávez tshirt... and why it's the exact opposite in barrios.

The demagogue policy of Chávez attracts a lot of the poor, yes, and also people start to vote for him in the hopes of getting a credit, a house, or anything for granted.

The demagogue policy and the hope of getting a credit was from Rosales, with the "Mi negra" card, not from Chávez. Chávez grant people with rights (right to education, to healthcare, to reasonable food price, ...) and most of all, with the need of people to organize themselves. When Chávez grant property titles for barrios, he doesn't do it "like that". He asks for to the people to organize themselves, to draw the plans ("cadastre" in french, dunno the exact english word) of the area. With help from gov-paid engineer, but they have to do it. Chávez is not Santa Claus giving wealth. Chávez is creating, slowly but surely, a socialist country: one in which some rights are granted (healthcare and education, for example), but one in which people need to organize themselves and work together.

That same support is waning with his last policies announced during the first half of this year. Check the numbers.

You know, opposition guys such as you said the same before the referendum of 2004 and before the election of 2006. Twice, elections showed you were utterly false and that Chávez support was greater than ever.

I won't say again that I am against such US invasion, but seems like you fail to read.

I didn't say you were in favor of one, but that it would be the only way, now, to stop the Bolivarian Revolution, IMHO.

That is the main directive they are issuing, no?

In the last days, I have heard a lot of Chávez supporters being against his last policies. Including the not renewing of the broadcasting license of RCTV. They voted for him in december, and yet they do not like where the country is going

Well, yes, a majority opposes the non-renewal of RCTV license. But that's why court decisions (and the renewing or non-renewing of a contract is much closer to a court decision than to anything else, the question being "did they respect the contract ?") aren't taken by a majority vote. People shouldn't be protected from the law because they broadcast popular "telenovelas", or because they are famous.

RCTV broadcasting shows that people like shouldn't grant them any protection against losing their license if they don't respect the contract. Since they did not, Chávez decision was the only one possible. Another one would be granting people immunity because they are famous/popular, and that what in a banana republic.

You missed the "Except one of those fanatic..."
Yeah, my fault. Sorry.

Saddly... I would have moved there if I didn't have all my family here in France.


.

The true voice of the supporter of the socialist revolution.
A socialist revolution thats so good that you dont want to live in that particular country

I'm a rather cynical child of the 70's and 80's, and 90's for that matter.
During the cold war, we had any number of like minded people as you, "the soviets are our friends", "we disarm , they wont target us" , "spend the money on the poor instead of arms" , "the yankees are evil imperialists" and like minded slogans, all designed to appeal to the heart, after all nobody wants war, no sane person anyway.
However what we learned during the cold war was that dictatorial regimes could not be trusted at their word.
1956 Hungary : " we want to be free" Peaceful socialist soviet union: Say hello to 176 divisions of the Soviet army.


Socialist revolutions always start the same way as Chavez, with noble intentions.
However.
When the revolution does'nt deliver what the leaders have promised, then its time to shut down on critical voices, least the mob come after them.
And I guess we'll find Chavez's true nature when him and his party are rejected by the very people who voted them into power in the first place

Lets just hope he says "Ok I'm defeated, I resign as president" because I fear for the future of Venezuela if he does'nt

Chavez is a better American then Bush--Id trade him for Bush any day of the week and the only reason the Neocon media is demonizing him is cause hes got oil

the only people in Venezula who hate Chavez is the Parasite class anyway and people who like Bush are morally retarded

The true voice of the supporter of the socialist revolution.
A socialist revolution thats so good that you dont want to live in that particular country

Do you know how to read ? I said I would like to live there, but that I stay in France only because of family is here... what part don't you understand ? That I don't want to live 10 000 kms away from my family and see them at most once per year ?

The other reason is that moving to where things go well is a bit coward, staying to struggle here in France where it's needed is more important than my own personal happiness. That may be hard to understand for capitalists, but we don't do politics for ourselves, but by altruism.

During the cold war, we had any number of like minded people as you, "the soviets are our friends", "we disarm , they wont target us"

We were more saying: "the soviet want mutual disarming, let's do it together". And that was true, the soviet, especially in the 80s, proposed several times mutual disarming agrements to the western countries. Western countries refused.

"spend the money on the poor instead of arms"

Which is true more than ever. 10% of world military spendings could grant any single human being on the planet with food, clean water, roof, basic education and basic healthcare. And the world would be much, much safer with 10% less weapons but no misery...

"the yankees are evil imperialists"

Which they are. Just look at how many times they used violence to remove a president they didn't like, especially in South America, even if such president was elected.

after all nobody wants war, no sane person anyway.

Weapon producers want wars. The Republican always were close to them. Or people who want to control ressources, do you really think Irak would have been invaded in there were no oil there ?

However what we learned during the cold war was that dictatorial regimes could not be trusted at their word.

We mostly learned that no regimes, be it dictatorial or bourgeois democracy, can be trusted at their word.

1956 Hungary : " we want to be free" Peaceful socialist soviet union: Say hello to 176 divisions of the Soviet army.

1970, Chile, "we want to be free". Peaceful USA: say hello to 25 years of Pinochet dicatorship. 1980, Nicaragua, "we want to be free". Peaceful USA: say hello to 10 years of terrorism and dirty war. The USSR was an imperial power, and I don't support many of the things they did. But don't forget USA did the same, and, more important, continue to do now.

Socialist revolutions always start the same way as Chavez, with noble intentions.

Indeed. And then, in past history, we have two outcomes: either the socialist revolution kept its values and ethics, and the capitalists terminate it in blood (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Sandinist Nicaragua, ...), or it forgets its ethics, claims "the end justify the means", and it may survive, but at the cost of destroying its "soul", and finally becomes the opposite of what hope it was.

The reason for which Chávez is so much hated by capitalists is that he is actually staying close to the values of the socialism and to his ethics, but at the same time he survived longer than any other did before, and with no sign of a failure in sight.

When the revolution does'nt deliver what the leaders have promised, then its time to shut down on critical voices, least the mob come after them.

That never really happened. All socialists revolution that started were either terminated in blood by the counter-revolution, or they betrayed their ideal in order to survive. The Bolivarian Revolution is the first to survive long enough, without betraying itself. So we have no way to tell what will happen.

And I guess we'll find Chavez's true nature when him and his party are rejected by the very people who voted them into power in the first place

I doubt this will happen soon (62.7% is a very high score), but we'll see if it ever happen.

Lets just hope he says "Ok I'm defeated, I resign as president" because I fear for the future of Venezuela if he does'nt

I'm pretty sure he'll say that if it ever happened, as Ortega did.

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

Canada and Sweden are not now, nor have they ever been, Socialist.

I'm pretty sure he'll say that if it ever happened, as Ortega did.
You mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ortega) Ortega? ;)

You mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ortega) Ortega? ;)


No, I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ortega) one ;)

Kilobugya, I have to say your on track to overtake Ocean as my favorite NSG poster shortly.

Kilobugya, I have to say your on track to overtake Ocean as my favorite NSG poster shortly.

Aww thanks :)

The other reason is that moving to where things go well is a bit coward, staying to struggle here in France where it's needed is more important than my own personal happiness. That may be hard to understand for capitalists, but we don't do politics for ourselves, but by altruism.


Oh dream on, Politicians are in it for one thing: POWER .
thats all, they may mask it behind words like altruism and self-sacrifice, but at the end of the day they all enjoy the mob chanting their name as much as I would if it was me


We were more saying: "the soviet want mutual disarming, let's do it together". And that was true, the soviet, especially in the 80s, proposed several times mutual disarming agrements to the western countries. Western countries refused.


One of the main reasons behind that disarmament offer.. which was in 1986, was that the soviets were scared of just how much in the way of resources they'd have to put into their weapons programs to overcome the SDI program (nice bluff there)
Already the soviet system was creaking at the seams when you think that 20% of GDP went on the military. a sum far in excess of any NATO country including the US


Which is true more than ever. 10% of world military spendings could grant any single human being on the planet with food, clean water, roof, basic education and basic healthcare. And the world would be much, much safer with 10% less weapons but no misery...


The 1 weapon in the world that is causing more misery than any other is the AK-47 and its copies...usual cost ... about $20-$60 each depending on whatever war zone its in.


1970, Chile, "we want to be free". Peaceful USA: say hello to 25 years of Pinochet dicatorship. 1980, Nicaragua, "we want to be free". Peaceful USA: say hello to 10 years of terrorism and dirty war. The USSR was an imperial power, and I don't support many of the things they did. But don't forget USA did the same, and, more important, continue to do now.


Look at Angola
1975 yay the portugese colonial government has left.....so the Unita/FPLA people will soon be in power and oops say hello to 5000 cuban troops and several 100 soviet "advisors" in support of the MPLA and welcome to 25 yrs of civil war.

Afganistan 1979
<Afgan president> help me russia please
<Russians> ok we'll invade
later that day:
<1st spetnaze trooper> Hey you shot the president
<2nd spetnaze trooper> But I did'nt shoot the deputy

But there again, France's own imperial history is nothing to be proud of, and just as full of blood as any other country out to protect its own perceived interests


Indeed. And then, in past history, we have two outcomes: either the socialist revolution kept its values and ethics, and the capitalists terminate it in blood (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Sandinist Nicaragua, ...), or it forgets its ethics, claims "the end justify the means", and it may survive, but at the cost of destroying its "soul", and finally becomes the opposite of what hope it was.

The reason for which Chávez is so much hated by capitalists is that he is actually staying close to the values of the socialism and to his ethics, but at the same time he survived longer than any other did before, and with no sign of a failure in sight.

That never really happened. All socialists revolution that started were either terminated in blood by the counter-revolution, or they betrayed their ideal in order to survive. The Bolivarian Revolution is the first to survive long enough, without betraying itself. So we have no way to tell what will happen.



Which is exactly why people fear a 'socialist' revolution so much, because either way the poorest people in society end up paying the price of the idealist after power, whether its be back under the oppression of the right wing dictators or under the opression of the socialist dictators.

It matters little to the victims if they are shot by a blue coloured bullet or a red coloured bullet.