NationStates Jolt Archive

Light fuse...run away

Witness the difference in the reaction by the US State dept when Chavez clamps down on media compared to when Pervez did the same thing.

This is a Pak paper.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/06/06/story_6-6-2007_pg1_8
State Department’s two faces on media

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The contrast between the mildly-worded expression of support given to media freedom by the State Department on Monday in the case of Pakistan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s resounding denunciation of the closure by Venezuela of a single TV station has not gone unnoticed here.

On Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s decision not to renew the licence of Radio Caracas Television, Rice described in Panama on Monday as his “sharpest and most acute” move yet against democracy. She urged the Organisation of American States (OAS) to send its secretary general to Caracas to look into the closing of the station and deliver a full report on his findings.

Rice declared, “Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of the government. Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy.” The US government also apparently backed planted an advertisement in Panama papers on Monday that said, “Without freedom of expression, there is no liberty, not in Venezuela or any other part of the world.”

The State Department’s comment on the situation in Pakistan was, “Well, we’re watching it closely … of course. This is an issue that the Pakistani people and the Pakistani government need to resolve within the confines of their law. I understand that there is a judicial process that is under way, and the media should be free to cover that process. It’s an important element of making sure that the Pakistani people are informed of what their government is doing, so it is a situation that we’re watching closely :rolleyes:;).”


Here's an even more hilarious take on this.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1712/81/
Call Me Crazy - Rice Blasts Venezuela's Chavez Versus Pakistan takes TV stations off air

Written by Stephen P. Pizzo
Tuesday, 05 June 2007
by Stephen P. Pizzo

First let me reassure you - you aren't crazy. At least I don't think you are. You just feel that way some days. I know because I felt it again this morning. And wouldn't anyone? I mean these two stories were virtually side by side in my morning paper:

Rice Blasts Venezuela's Chavez
ANAMA CITY, Panama (AP) – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Venezuela's foreign minister fired verbal broadsides at each other Monday over the closure of a key opposition television station in Venezuela...Rice protested the shuttering of Radio Caracas Television, RCTV, calling it Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez's ''sharpest and most acute'' move yet against democracy as thousands of university students marched in Caracas to protest.

Pakistan takes TV stations off air
Islamabad: PAKISTAN'S President, Pervez Musharraf, has cracked down on the country's television networks in a move against growing calls for a return to democracy. Several stations were taken off the air at the weekend. On Monday, General Musharraf introduced emergency legislation providing for stiff fines and the closure of channels deemed to have broken the law. The military-dominated government is angry at what it calls "sensationalist" coverage of the crisis surrounding the suspended Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

I must be crazy. After all, in neither story did the reporter mention the other, or try to reconcile the inherent contradictions. So, I must be seeing something that ain't there. I must be crazy.

We've all wondered just what goes on in the mind of a crazy person, so here, let me give you glimpse by letting you into this crazy person's mind. Here's how my crazy brain spun it's wheels on all that.

Whoa! Back up buddy. Somethings amiss here.

* Chevez pulls the plug on television news he doesn't like and the US calls him a dictator.
* Musharraf pulls the plug on news outlets that he doesn't like and the US says nothing about it.
* Chevez is considered an enemy of the US, though his only weapon of mass destruction appears to be his mouth (and bears an uncanny resemblance to Benito Mussolini.)
* Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them, and we call Pakistan a friend and "partner in the war on terrorism."
* Chevez was democratically elected by the Venezuelan people.
* Musharraf is the General Alexander Haig of Pakistan... he simply appointed himself "in charge," and intends to keep it that way.
* If Chevez is overthrown, either undemocratically or democratically, the only international ramification would be that US oil companies get to reclaim their Venezuela's assets.
* If Musharraf gets overthrown, either democratically or otherwise, the chance that Islamic terrorist groups getting their hands on nuclear materials and/or actual nukes, goes from slim to PDG (Pretty Damn Good.)

Whew! Maybe I'm not crazy after all. By George, I think I get it.

Venezuela is in the US dog house as long as socialist big mouth, Chevez, is running the place.

But Musharraf can be anything he must be to to stay in power. That means if he has to jail opposition leaders, so be it. If he has to smother Pakistan's free press in it's crib, smother away. If he has to fix upcoming elections, buzz Diebold and go for it baby, there'll be no objections for this end.

It must be because the US has piled all the chips it has left on a US-subservient Pakistan. After all, it's the only country in the Muslim world without oil (or much else of value for that matter) that can be bought off with liberal applications of US money and military gear. It's also one of the few remaining nations on earth whose leader is so threatened by his own people that a day with out US protection is a day without sunshine - as in forever. Pakistan is also the only country that has less control over it's own border regions than the US. Which is why it is such a popular spring break destination for al-Qaida undergrads throughout the region.

So, let me review:

A democratically-elected leader with a big mouth, but lots of oil, no nukes, who squashes democratic forces in order to remain in power, is an enemy of freedom, democracy and the US.

But a leader who seizes power in a coup, refuses to resign his post as the nation's military leader, whose people hate and would likely replace if allowed to vote in a free and open election, but who isn't about to allow it, a leader who harbors within his notoriously unstable country both terrorists and nukes - oh, and who also suppresses press freedom, is a embraced as a friend of the US and a partner in the global war against terrorists.

Shit. That didn't help.

Wait! I wonder if there's some kind of sliding schedule for these kinds of considerations - a relativity thing going on. Maybe Einstein missed something in his theory of relativity. Maybe not just time, but democracy and freedom are relative forces in the universe as well.

Since I never fully understood Einstein's original theory, maybe I'm not crazy just because I can't get my neurons around a theory of relative freedom and democracy either. Nevertheless, there clearly appears to be some kind of relative standards involved in these highfalutin international mashups.

Hmmmm, I'll try one of Einstein's thought exercises: If Musharraf and Chevez are both fired into space in different rockets, and Musharraf travels at the speed of light while Chevez travels only as fast as the sound of his own words ... Forgetaboutit. That doesn't help either. I still don't get it.

So I go back to my paper:

''Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government,'' Rice told the ministers. ''Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy.''

Suddenly I'm chanting –

"Head-On! Apply directly to the forehead.
Head-On! Apply directly to the forehead.":D

So I turn on CNN to drown out the refrain, and there's George W. Bush lecturing the G8 nations in Prague on the importance of "transparency in government."

"The United States is also using our influence to urge valued partners like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to move toward freedom. These nations have taken brave stands and strong action to confront extremists, along with some steps to expand liberty and transparency."

That does it. I'm crazy. Pass the Prozac.

Make it a double.

Let us know when you truly find something new about governments and their hypocrisy with their friends vs enemies. ;)

Let us know when you truly find something new about governments and their hypocrisy with their friends vs enemies. ;)

*shrug* Pakistan has been in the US's pocket since the Cold War.

Let us know when you truly find something new about governments and their hypocrisy with their friends vs enemies. ;)

:p

In Dubya logic, a brutal Pinochetesque rightist dictator is far better than a modertate popular social democrat.

In Dubya logic, a brutal Pinochetesque rightist dictator is far better than a modertate popular social democrat.

Chavez is far from moderate.

Chavez is far from moderate.

Right. That's what he said. The Pinocheist dictator he's referring to is Musharaf

One word: NUKES

If Pakistan falls into chaos and its arsenal goes broken arrow, then the world is in for a major clusterfuck. If Venezuela falls apart oil goes up five dollars a barrel until someone else picks up the slack, or we finally sign an unlimited sugar importation deal with Brazil for ethanol production.

Right. That's what he said. The Pinocheist dictator he's referring to is Musharaf

I'm under the impression that the Pinoche-esque dictator in the previous post is Musharraf, but the "moderate" he's being compared to is Chavez.

Right. That's what he said. The Pinocheist dictator he's referring to is Musharafindeed.
Musharaf is a self appointed Dictator (a la Pinochet) .. and Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela.

I'm under the impression that the Pinoche-esque dictator in the previous post is Musharraf, but the "moderate" he's being compared to is Chavez.

I misread. I thought you had said far more moderate, rather than far from moderate. Tired eyes, and all that.

Because Chavez is openly leftist and socialist, he's t3h 3b1l when he clamps down on free speech.

Pervy's a hard right ally and partner in the War on Terra, so he gets a wink wink nudge nudge when he does the same thing.

The world according to Bush.

It is a simple matter of expectations and limits - Venezuela is not yet so far gone that independent media is out of the question. Pakistan, on the other hand, is one bullet away from chaos.

When you have a relatively sober, but obstinate guy making a stupid but predictable grab for power (which in the grand scheme of things only significantly hurts his own people), it is not unreasonable to use strong language pointing out his idiotic behavior.

When you have a really drunk guy, with an odd mix of other drunk guys barely controlling themselves, some of whom are looking to get very belligerent over any excuse, and they have significant firepower to cause severe damage to the everyone in the bar, not to mention all his buddies could decide he is just a mamas boy for taking that scolding and beat the crap out of him; your tone of voice has to be a little modified.

I am sorry, but last time I checked Chavez was democratically elected by a margin of like 80% of something huge, the people clearly wanted socialism if they voted for him, this 'Hypocrisy' thread is sure demonstrating itself right here. Last I checked Pervez Musharraf was not elected, he got his power through Napoleon-like ways and marched his troops into the parliament.

Anybody mention the whole US treatment of Posada Carriles yet? That's another beautiful example of US hypocrisy.

Anybody mention the whole US treatment of Posada Carriles yet? That's another beautiful example of US hypocrisy.

*trawls through the entire 1 page of this thread, going over each of all 15 previous posts*

After careful analysis and extensive research, the answer is....

No.

:)

To be honest - having now read the OP - can this really be called hypocrisy or is it just an example of realpolitiks.

It's not simply a case of favoring one nation over another for no reason, both come from strategic considerations. It's simply not the wisest thing to criticize Musharref when his enemies are looking for signs that he might lose support from the US. A destabilized Pakistan is no good for anyone given they have nuclear weapons.

As opposed to Chavez, for whom the jury is still out. Granted he may be doing much for the poor but, and this is entirely judgmental from me, he's simply getting way to porky for me not to think he's living off the fat of the land - to be literal.

Of course it's in the interests of the US to favor one over the other, I can't think of a nation that goes against its interests.

Undoubtedly because the USA would rather have the military in power than hard-line Islamists, who could win a democratic election.

Pragmatism will be the death of this world.

I am sorry, but last time I checked Chavez was democratically elected by a margin of like 80% of something huge, the people clearly wanted socialism if they voted for him, this 'Hypocrisy' thread is sure demonstrating itself right here. Last I checked Pervez Musharraf was not elected, he got his power through Napoleon-like ways and marched his troops into the parliament.

62 per cent.

However, don't get me wrong, soeone should say to that Rice woman to shut the fuck up regarding our situation. She even said "In the name of the people of Venezuela".

And yes, the US goverment is swallowing a lot of hypocrisy there. All they are going to get is retorts about Iraq, War on Terror and Guantánamo as the ones provided by Nicolás Maduro.

I do not want any injerency in our internal affairs fro any foreign country, be the United States, or Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. those people need to start watching the pole in their eyes before criticizing the straw in the neighbour's one.

Hypocrisy?

Well look at the "war on terror" then look at the borders... all you need to know :rolleyes:

Don't you get it? It's not hypocritical because Pakistan bends over backwards and lets the US have its dirty way with her while Venezuela is that hot chick who mocks your tiny dick in front of her equally hot sexy friends. :D

I think Newer Burmecia hit the nail on the head. Well said by the way. Sometimes being undemocratic is a good thing. I also believe we are trying to whitewash the situation a little. "Nothing to see here...move along" currently Venezuela is not in a sensitive area otherwise we would change our tune faster than well you know...

Don't you get it? It's not hypocritical because Pakistan bends over backwards and lets the US have its dirty way with her while Venezuela is that hot chick who mocks your tiny dick in front of her equally hot sexy friends. :D

That's almost poetic.

That's almost poetic.

Almost... ALMOST?? C'mon, it's pure poetry dude! :D

I think Newer Burmecia hit the nail on the head. Well said by the way. Sometimes being undemocratic is a good thing. I also believe we are trying to whitewash the situation a little. "Nothing to see here...move along" currently Venezuela is not in a sensitive area otherwise we would change our tune faster than well you know...
I didn't say that...

Undoubtedly because the USA would rather have the military in power than hard-line Islamists, who could win a democratic election.

MMA can never win the majority. Punjab will vote for PML, Sindh will vote for PPP and MQM. Only the NWFP may vote for MMA. Balochistan population is too small to make any impact.

All this "OMGZ the islamists will take over" is a bogey setup by Musharraf and co to scare the US and get its support to keep themselves in power.

Don't you get it? It's not hypocritical because Pakistan bends over backwards and lets the US have its dirty way with her while Venezuela is that hot chick who mocks your tiny dick in front of her equally hot sexy friends. :D

Not so much, as the mocking Venezuela does seems to be more along the lines of the bizarre playground insults the stupid, fat bully on the playground shouted at you when you were playing tetherball, and he wanted to play.

MMA can never win the majority. Punjab will vote for PML, Sindh will vote for PPP and MQM. Only the NWFP may vote for MMA. Balochistan population is too small to make any impact.

All this "OMGZ the islamists will take over" is a bogey setup by Musharraf and co to scare the US and get its support to keep themselves in power.

I don't think the issue of democracy is the question here - the question is whether you keep the devil you know in power as opposed to the devil you don't know.

To show a drop in support for Musharref could embolden those against him, and it's too dangerous to take the gamble on who might succeed or, worse, risk a civil war.

To be honest - having now read the OP - can this really be called hypocrisy or is it just an example of realpolitiks.

You can call it both. Rellying completely on Realpolitik tends to alienate some of your allies at times (or at least the people in the countries/groups).

Partial Realpolitik would probably be the best bet.

Don't you get it?
It's not hypocritical because
Pakistan bends over backwards and
lets the US have its dirty way
with her while Venezuela is
that hot chick who mocks your tiny dick
in front of her equally hot sexy friends. :D

That's almost poetic.

Almost... ALMOST?? C'mon, it's pure poetry dude! :D
Now it's poetry. ;)

Now it's poetry. ;)

Ok... NOW it is. ;)

I don't think the issue of democracy is the question here - the question is whether you keep the devil you know in power as opposed to the devil you don't know.

To show a drop in support for Musharref could embolden those against him, and it's too dangerous to take the gamble on who might succeed or, worse, risk a civil war.

It is my contention that there is no difference in the bottom line as to who is in power. "Islamists" and "army" are two sides of the same coin. It is sometimes better to reach out to the Islamists directly than to keep an "interpreter" who plays both the sides.

A government is hypocritical and corrupt?

My god, that's shocking!

I heard Bill Clinton really likes the ladies!

I hate them both. What bothers me about Chavez, though, is all the lefties cozying up to him like he's some type of pinnacle of freedom.

NO WAY!!!

The US is supporting a right-wing dictatorship!?! impossible!!

NO WAY!!!

The US is supporting a right-wing dictatorship!?! impossible!!

Well, birds of a feather...

So basically all Hugo Chavez has to do is position himself to be threatened by Maoist insurgents who want to turn Venezuela into a cocaine farm and all of a sudden the U.S. has to support him?

BRILLIANT!

One word: NUKES

If Pakistan falls into chaos and its arsenal goes broken arrow, then the world is in for a major clusterfuck. If Venezuela falls apart oil goes up five dollars a barrel until someone else picks up the slack, or we finally sign an unlimited sugar importation deal with Brazil for ethanol production.

THAT sounds like something I could definitely approve of.

So basically all Hugo Chavez has to do is position himself to be threatened by Maoist insurgents who want to turn Venezuela into a cocaine farm and all of a sudden the U.S. has to support him?

BRILLIANT!

Of course, Chávez is not at all interested in the US supporting him, not even if the US turns red communist.

I hate them both. What bothers me about Chavez, though, is all the lefties cozying up to him like he's some type of pinnacle of freedom.

The old message. If someone hates Bush and is more or less left leaned, it must be our friend. The lefties around actually commit the same mistake of the US and Pakistan.

Also, do not try to explain to them that it is possible to despise both Bush and Chávez at the same time. Their head will explode.

Also, do not try to explain to them that it is possible to despise both Bush and Chávez at the same time. Their head will explode.

Or I could just dislike some of Chávez's policies...

EDIT: Also dislike almost all of G.W.B's policies.

Also, do not try to explain to them that it is possible to despise both Bush and Chávez at the same time. Their head will explode.

It's a matter of proportion and dangerousness just like the one being applied to Bush's treatment of Chavez and Musharraf.

The worst Chavez can do is not sell oil to your country and gather around supporters to rant and rave about how evil you are. The only military in Venezuela is just large enough to defend the country in the course of an invasion- likely through guerilla insurgency which the U.S. military so far has historically shown itself to be vulnerable against.

Bush on the other hand, is President of the United States and as such is in command of a vastly larger and superior military force which includes nuclear weaponry and has shown a willingness to use it if he can obtain even the flimsiest pretense to justify such actions.

You can hate both, but smart people know who can do (and has done) the bigger damage.

You can hate both, but smart people know who can do (and has done) the bigger damage. So basicly nations love bush because if they don't he'll call them an "Axis of Ebill" and nuke them?

It's a matter of proportion and dangerousness just like the one being applied to Bush's treatment of Chavez and Musharraf.

The worst Chavez can do is not sell oil to your country and gather around supporters to rant and rave about how evil you are. The only military in Venezuela is just large enough to defend the country in the course of an invasion- likely through guerilla insurgency which the U.S. military so far has historically shown itself to be vulnerable against.

Bush on the other hand, is President of the United States and as such is in command of a vastly larger and superior military force which includes nuclear weaponry and has shown a willingness to use it if he can obtain even the flimsiest pretense to justify such actions.

You can hate both, but smart people know who can do (and has done) the bigger damage.

Well, I live in Venezuela, how can I explain you that anything that Chávez can do will damage me more directly than anything Bush can do.

I am that smart, but well...

I still despise some policies of both. Actually, just some scarce Chávez's policies are worth of my aprecciation, and as far as I know, and none by Bush, although there are a lot of internal policies of the US that I am not aware of, not being an US citizen.

So basicly nations love bush because if they don't he'll call them an "Axis of Ebill" and nuke them?

Not so much that but their is less influence in their behalf, supporting opposing countries, withholding technology to upgrade or repair existing sytems. Then there is the whole aid thing...

Lastly the U.S military bases in countries are good as use in domestic politics wherever they are, along with the promise of bases (or spy systems, missile systems, etc) which would not only be usful as deterrent against enemies or as enhanced prestige in the area but also count well towards the economy in that region.