NationStates Jolt Archive

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) -- The Bolivian government stepped up its criticism of U.S. aid this week as a top Cabinet official alleged that Washington is supporting opposition to President Evo Morales' sweeping leftist reforms.

Presidential Minister Juan Ramon Quintana added that "if U.S. cooperation does not conform to the policies of the Bolivian state, the door is open" for it to leave the country.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters that "there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there."

Bolivia receives about $120 million in annual aid from the United States, but Morales warned this week that "radical decisions" would be taken against foreign embassies that meddle in Bolivian politics.

Sources:Yahoo/AP/CNN/OccNEWS
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/08/30/bolivia.us.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
facts and numbers from the CNN Article
* Bolivia receives about $120 million in annual aid from U.S.
* Bolivian official: Door "open" for U.S. to leave.
* President Evo Morales warns of "radical decisions" if foreign embassies meddle on Bolivian politics.
* State Department spokesman denies U.S. trying to undermine the Bolivian government.

Interesting..

if they are ready to kiss 120M good bye.. they must be really pissed about something.

Either that or does not realize just how bad Chavez is. Fine. Maybe we should leave. Not like it will make a difference. The Bolivian made his bed with Chavez now let him live with it.

Either that or does not realize just how bad Chavez is. Fine. Maybe we should leave. Not like it will make a difference. The Bolivian made his bed with Chavez now let him live with it.

Considering the US rape of Chile and, well, the entire South America, really, throughout the 60's and 70's, he has a right to be worried. Especially with the recent US attempted rape of Venezuela and accomplished rape of Iraq.

Considering the US rape of Chile and, well, the entire South America, really, throughout the 60's and 70's, he has a right to be worried. Especially with the recent US attempted rape of Venezuela and accomplished rape of Iraq.

Except that we are not raping Iraq. They are raping themselves. But this thread is about Bolivia and Chavez and not Iraq.

Good on them. They don't need the kind of "help" the US offers.

Except that we are not raping Iraq. They are raping themselves. But this thread is about Bolivia and Chavez and not Iraq.

Invading a country to make it do what you want = Rape.

Forcing a coup in countries to make them do what you want = Rape.

For that matter, I see you admit the US did their best to, yes, rape Venezuela recently, and DID rape most of South America in the 60's and 70's.

facts and numbers from the CNN Article
* Bolivia receives about $120 million in annual aid from U.S.
* Bolivian official: Door "open" for U.S. to leave.
* President Evo Morales warns of "radical decisions" if foreign embassies meddle on Bolivian politics.
* State Department spokesman denies U.S. trying to undermine the Bolivian government.

Interesting..

if they are ready to kiss 120M good bye.. they must be really pissed about something.

Well, as much as I think Chavez is nuts, our "righty good, lefty BAAAAAAD" government should leave them to do what they will. This kind of thinking has made democratizing the Middle East a hopeless case.

Well, as much as I think Chavez is nuts, our "righty good, lefty BAAAAAAD" government should leave them to do what they will. This kind of thinking has made democratizing the Middle East a hopeless case.

Even because the US has shown itself not to give a DAMN about democracy when it doesn't suit their interests.

Even because the US has shown itself not to give a DAMN about democracy when it doesn't suit their interests.

Exactly. Mossadegh, anyone?

facts and numbers from the CNN Article
* Bolivia receives about $120 million in annual aid from U.S.
* Bolivian official: Door "open" for U.S. to leave.
* President Evo Morales warns of "radical decisions" if foreign embassies meddle on Bolivian politics.
* State Department spokesman denies U.S. trying to undermine the Bolivian government.

Interesting..

if they are ready to kiss 120M good bye.. they must be really pissed about something.in the short term.. methinks we need to stop the $10M/month (at least for the time being).. as we are not welcomed. (there is little else we can do for now)

But in the long term.. methinks we need to change or meddling ways. If we want to help some poor peoples.. there shouldn't be a political price for them to pay. It takes all the "good" out of our goodwill.

in the short term.. methinks we need to stop the $10M/month (at least for the time being).. as we are not welcomed. (there is little else we can do for now)

But in the lorn term.. methinks we need to change or meddling ways. If we want to help some poor peoples.. there shouldn't be a political price for them to pay. It takes all the "good" out of our goodwill.

Lorn term? What the hell is a Lorn Term?

OHHHHH!!! You mean LONG term. LOL

Well, as much as I think Chavez is nuts, our "righty good, lefty BAAAAAAD" government should leave them to do what they will. This kind of thinking has made democratizing the Middle East a hopeless case.

QFT.

Chavez may be a few fries short a happy meal but he's hardly as much of a threat to his people that some of those Mid-East governments are to theirs. Honestly, the US should be more concerned about the Junta in Myanmar than a few crackpot socialists in South America.

If the US government is using foreign aid money to meedle in Bolivian politics again, and apparently they are, then Bolivia really has no choice but to tell the US government that they cannot accept their aid, unless it's really strapped for cash.

Fortunately for Bolivia, Chávez has been using his petrodollars to finance development projects throughout the developing world. This means that Bolivians no longer have to accept foreign aid from the USA, which is good because US foregin aid comes with strings attached. One of those strings seem to be direct funding of Bolivian political organisations:

The United States previously has used its Bolivian aid to oppose Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism party, or MAS.

A declassified 2002 cable from the U.S. Embassy in La Paz described a USAID-sponsored "political party reform project" to "help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors."

The U.S. Embassy in La Paz declined this week to comment on the memo.

What's with all these threads having ## in the title? Does that mean something?

What's with all these threads having ## in the title? Does that mean something?

It is Ocean Drive's attempt to keep his threads higher than other people's. If you choose to organise the threads by the name of the thread, any threads with ## at the beginning of the title will be placed at the top of the list.

Since most people organise the threads according to latest post, it is mostly useless.

What's with all these threads having ## in the title? Does that mean something?its a way for me to quickly (and easily) find my own threads (OD1/OD2/OD3/Occ1/Occ2/etc).
its like a tag.

its a way for me to quickly (and easily) find my own threads (and OD1/OD2 threads).
its like a tag.

But it gives us a chuckle when you put them there when they are meaningless.

But it gives us a chuckle....as long as it doesn't give you a sudden desire to butthead your monitor.. ;) Yes I know the actual word is headbutt

It is Ocean Drive's attempt to keep his threads higher than other people's. If you choose to organise the threads by the name of the thread, any threads with ## at the beginning of the title will be placed at the top of the list.

Since most people organise the threads according to latest post, it is mostly useless.

its a way for me to quickly (and easily) find my own threads (OD1/OD2/OD3/Occ1/Occ2/etc).
its like a tag.

But it gives us a chuckle when you put them there when they are meaningless.

as long as it doesn't give you a sudden desire to butthead your monitor.. ;) Yes I know the actual word is headbutt

Hmm, I see! I assumed it was the mark of a thread that is responding to some kind of political article. :)

Bolivia receives about $120 million in annual aid from U.S.

I would like to have details on that aid: how it is given, where is comes from, against what it is given.

President Evo Morales warns of "radical decisions" if foreign embassies meddle on Bolivian politics.

Well, in US, it's a crime for a political party or candidate to an election to receive money from a foreign government or organization. I completely understand the reasons behind it, and see no reason why Morales couldn't do the same in Bolivia.

State Department spokesman denies U.S. trying to undermine the Bolivian government.

Yeah, and they also deny attempt to undermine the government of Venezuela, but they still pump (through NED, IRI and USAID) millions of dollars to opposition party every year. I don't have the figures in Bolivia, but I would be surprised if they didn't "invest" anything there.

if they are ready to kiss 120M good bye.. they must be really pissed about something.

Hum... let's see... from someone else than Evo, it could have something to do with the support given by US to the dictatorship in Bolivia during the 70s, but Evo showed many times he doesn't want revenge for the evils of the past.

It could also have been from the fact that USA removed (or tried to) so many leftist leaders from the region, in the latest 50 years.

It could also have been from the fact that USA is making their best to force Bolivia to eradicate all coca culture, while the coca leaf (which by itself contains very very few of cocaine) is strong part of the local culture, is used as a medicine against altitude sickness and provides local farm with energy-rich food that allows two harvest each year.

It could also have been from the refusal of USA to even consider reducing its amount of pollution, while Bolivia is victim of massive floods thanks to global warming, and while Evo, from the Aymara culture, respects the Earth as a mother, considering USA behavior nearly as disgusting as raping his mother.

It could be from neoliberal policies, imposed by the USA through the IMF, that created so much misery in South America.

It could be from the active support given by USA to the violent opposition in Bolivia.

Well, it could be so many things, each of them being enough for an independent country who is sick of colonialism to refuse more interference of this shameless superpower into its domestic affairs.

Except that we are not raping Iraq. They are raping themselves. But this thread is about Bolivia and Chavez and not Iraq.

According to international laws, you're wrong. An occupying power is considered responsible of the security of the local population, failure to protect them is considered a war crime.

You may have thought about that before invading a sovereign country in violation of UN charter...

According to international laws, you're wrong. An occupying power is considered responsible of the security of the local population, failure to protect them is considered a war crime.

You may have thought about that before invading a sovereign country in violation of UN charter...

As long as we're making the effort to protect them, it's not a war crime.

As long as we're making the effort to protect them, it's not a war crime.

But you are not. Like the day of Bagdad's fall, where you protected... the ministry of oil, and a few refinery, but not the hospitals or the Bagdad's museum (holding some of the most precious pieces about human history).

But you are not. Like the day of Bagdad's fall, where you protected... the ministry of oil, and a few refinery, but not the hospitals or the Bagdad's museum (holding some of the most precious pieces about human history).

You missed the surge part.

Also, it's not technically possible to protect everyone and everything, and there's no stipulation to make the effort to that extent.

As long as you're doing something to try and stop the violence, it's all good.

According to international laws, you're wrong. An occupying power is considered responsible of the security of the local population, failure to protect them is considered a war crime.

As we are no longer occupying them but assisting them in securing your own nation, the point stands.

You may have thought about that before invading a sovereign country in violation of UN charter...

As I said, this is about bolivia and chavez and not Iraq. Want a debate on Iraq, feel free to IM me.

You missed the surge part.

Also, it's not technically possible to protect everyone and everything, and there's no stipulation to make the effort to that extent.

As long as you're doing something to try and stop the violence, it's all good.

Its amazing how people are quick to say we are violating the UN Charter forgetting the fact that there are nations that are in gross violation of it and they do nothing about it.

No, Corn, they use whatever the US does to justify whatever they want.

You know, like saying its socialism when Chavez really is a dictator.

No, Corn, they use whatever the US does to justify whatever they want.

You know, like saying its socialism when Chavez really is a dictator.


Any proof of that Bushvik?

I have no problem with cutting off foreign aid to Chavez and his allies. It is rather unfortunate that bleeding heart leftists have the US government throwing my tax dollars away making it easier for foreign politicians to steal money. As far as I'm concerned, they can steal their own money from their own people instead of stealing it from the American people.

I also like how Chavez pulled out of the World Bank. If I had my way, the US would pull out of it as well (not to mention all the other world government organizations such as the UN, NATO, and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission).

However, Chavez still does need to learn that Socialism can't calculate and that it is impossible to institute Socialism while maintaining a modern economy. Rather, it is best to institute laissez-faire Capitalism, which creates the most just distribution of wealth and the greatest amount of wealth for all (besides being the only moral economic system because it is the only one not based upon stealing).

Its amazing how people are quick to say we are violating the UN Charter forgetting the fact that there are nations that are in gross violation of it and they do nothing about it.

You mean, like Israel ? or the USA ?

You mean, like Israel ? or the USA ?

Everyone's done it.

Rather, it is best to institute laissez-faire Capitalism, which creates the most just distribution of wealth

Yeah, sure, that's why in the richest country of the planet, a quarter of the population has no access to healthcare, and why millions of people will be kicked from their house just because the market reacted crazily... do you realize how ridiculous you are ?

(besides being the only moral economic system because it is the only one not based upon stealing).

Of course, being able to take money from others, without working, just because you already had more money is moral. Letting people die of cold, hunger and disease in the street is also very moral. As is being able to buy decision power, as whole stock market is about.

I think Bolivia feels safe enough to act independantly now, since Chavez has guaranteed energy security to Latin America and Cuba sends doctors to Bolivia. This is a welcome sign that shows Latin American anti-imperialism and independance is on the rise.

QFT.

Chavez may be a few fries short a happy meal but he's hardly as much of a threat to his people that some of those Mid-East governments are to theirs. Honestly, the US should be more concerned about the Junta in Myanmar than a few crackpot socialists in South America.

Yeah. There are a lot more pressing matters than this.

As I said, this is about bolivia and chavez and not Iraq. Want a debate on Iraq, feel free to IM me.

Well, the USA behaving like a reckless bully invading countries illegally with no real reason is definitely a reason for which leftist South American leaders like Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez are so strongly opposed to USA.

Remember how the first frontal opposition between Chávez and Bush started... it's when Chávez made a speech on TV, showing a photo of Afghan children killed by US bombing, and said something like "What happened on September 11 was horrible, and nothing can justify it. But look at those children. Yesterday, they were alive. Now they are dead, killed by a bomb from the USA. This is as horrible, and as impossible to justify. You cannot fight terror with more terror. Now, I ask you, think about the consequences before you act."

Well, the USA behaving like a reckless bully invading countries illegally with no real reason is definitely a reason for which leftist South American leaders like Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez are so strongly opposed to USA.

As I said, you want to talk about the legality of the invasion, feel free to IM me.

Remember how the first frontal opposition between Chávez and Bush started... it's when Chávez made a speech on TV, showing a photo of Afghan children killed by US bombing, and said something like "What happened on September 11 was horrible, and nothing can justify it. But look at those children. Yesterday, they were alive. Now they are dead, killed by a bomb from the USA. This is as horrible, and as impossible to justify. You cannot fight terror with more terror. Now, I ask you, think about the consequences before you act."

Which I can say that mistakes happen in war. The difference was that the killing of afghan children was NOT deliberate whereas the attack on the WTC was deliberate. As was the Pentagon but that was a legit target.

Sounds like Idi Amin talking about how the evil British government is always thwarting good things.

And was defeated by the Tanzanian government.

Well, the USA behaving like a reckless bully invading countries illegally with no real reason is definitely a reason for which leftist South American leaders like Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez are so strongly opposed to USA.

Remember how the first frontal opposition between Chávez and Bush started... it's when Chávez made a speech on TV, showing a photo of Afghan children killed by US bombing, and said something like "What happened on September 11 was horrible, and nothing can justify it. But look at those children. Yesterday, they were alive. Now they are dead, killed by a bomb from the USA. This is as horrible, and as impossible to justify. You cannot fight terror with more terror. Now, I ask you, think about the consequences before you act."

Sounds like Idi Amin talking about how the evil British government is always thwarting good things.

Any proof of that Bushvik?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536615
Theres quite a lot of that here, the conversation kinda went to cuba to nutcase communist lenin types but I'll think you'll find theres some amount of substantial evidence to back it up.

You mean, like Israel ? or the USA ?

So the sins of one justify your own?

Which I can say that mistakes happen in war.

That's why war should not be used as lightly as it is by the USA. And that's why there is something called the UN to prevent wars.

The difference was that the killing of afghan children was NOT deliberate whereas the attack on the WTC was deliberate. As was the Pentagon but that was a legit target.

That changes a lot for those children, sure. You know, if you play with a gun and kill someone by "accident", you'll still have a long jail sentence, even if it was your goal to kill...

Weapons kill. Especially the very heavy weapons (such as fragmentation bombs) used by the USA. That what you should think about before invading a country...

And that's what Chávez told the USA, and how the USA started to try to remove Chávez, for daring to say that. So yes, it's relevant in this thread.

I think Bolivia feels safe enough to act independantly now, since Chavez has guaranteed energy security to Latin America and Cuba sends doctors to Bolivia. This is a welcome sign that shows Latin American anti-imperialism and independance is on the rise.

Right so chavez can establish he's sphere of influence like the soviet union.

So the sins of one justify your own?

I don't know many countries violating UN charter and international laws as much as those two do. Irak in 2003 was definitely not, complying (with bad will, sure, but still complying) to the disarming and inspector regime, and the inspectors not having found any trace of WMD (nor of link with Al Qaeda).

That's why war should not be used as lightly as it is by the USA. And that's why there is something called the UN to prevent wars.

Did it prevent the Ugandan-Tanzanian war? Did it prevent the Bosnian conflict? Did it prevent the Iran-Iraq War? What about the 1st Gulf War? The Falkland War? The Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan? What about the two Arab-Israeli Wars? Its failure to prevent these actions means that the United Nations has failed in its mission to prevent war. Hell, the UN can not even stop a genocide from taking place. What makes you think they can prevent war and stop genocide?

That changes a lot for those children, sure. You know, if you play with a gun and kill someone by "accident", you'll still have a long jail sentence, even if it was your goal to kill...

Actually...that's not necessarily true.

Weapons kill.

Um no. They need a human to operate.

Especially the very heavy weapons (such as fragmentation bombs) used by the USA. That what you should think about before invading a country...

They have to be delievered somehow and operated by humans.

And that's what Chávez told the USA, and how the USA started to try to remove Chávez, for daring to say that. So yes, it's relevant in this thread.

Just continue to believe it despite the fact it is not true.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536615
Theres quite a lot of that here, the conversation kinda went to cuba to nutcase communist lenin types but I'll think you'll find theres some amount of substantial evidence to back it up.

Indeed, there is enough proof of the fact you are wrong. Chávez was elected and re-elected many times during elections certified to be fair, protest against him were not repressed, media are massively against him and not bothered, and the RCTV case was just a non-renewal of an expired contract, because RCTV was not respecting its part by violating the law repetitively, but even so, they are still allowed to transmit and cable and satellite (while in most other countries, they would have been sent to jail for calling to violent uprising and murder of the President).

So, do you have any real fact about Chávez being a "dictator" ?

That's why war should not be used as lightly as it is by the USA. And that's why there is something called the UN to prevent wars.




Well if we are talking about the War in Afghanistan then that is a justifiable war. The U.S. first negotiated with them and asked for Osama bin Laden. When they wouldn't turn him over we were forced to go after him and take out that corrupt and cruel government.

Right so chavez can establish he's sphere of influence like the soviet union.

Every country on the planet tries to create "sphere of influence". That's called diplomacy.

I fail to see where the post about the media being massively against him is. He already has announced that he is going to go for president again violating his countries own laws. Perhaps he is not a dictator now, but he most certainly will be.

Actually...he's trying to change the constitution (may have already done so) so that he can legally run again.

Indeed, there is enough proof of the fact you are wrong. Chávez was elected and re-elected many times during elections certified to be fair, protest against him were not repressed, media are massively against him and not bothered, and the RCTV case was just a non-renewal of an expired contract, because RCTV was not respecting its part by violating the law repetitively, but even so, they are still allowed to transmit and cable and satellite (while in most other countries, they would have been sent to jail for calling to violent uprising and murder of the President).

So, do you have any real fact about Chávez being a "dictator" ?

I fail to see where the post about the media being massively against him is. He already has announced that he is going to go for president again violating his countries own laws. Perhaps he is not a dictator now, but he most certainly will be.

Well if we are talking about the War in Afghanistan then that is a justifiable war. The U.S. first negotiated with them and asked for Osama bin Laden. When they wouldn't turn him over we were forced to go after him and take out that corrupt and cruel government.

The corrupt and cruel government you helped to put in power, and happily negotiated with during years.

As for Osama Bin Laden... they said two things: first they wanted _proofs_ that he's implied, that's standard procedure with _any_ case of extradition, you cannot hand over someone without any proof. Then they asked him to be sent and judge to an international court, because the USA were the victims, and the basis of fair justice is that the victim should not be the judge.

Of course, it was probably fast-talk from them, because they knew the USA would not accept those conditions. But it was conditions any government is perfectly allowed to impose before extrading someone.

And btw, I shall remind you that European laws forbid us to extrad people who would risk the death penalty if extraded, because we consider the death penalty to be a barbarian and inhuman penalty. Would the USA have bombed and invaded Europe if we refused to hand over Ben Laden for this reason ?

I don't know many countries violating UN charter and international laws as much as those two do. Irak in 2003 was definitely not, complying (with bad will, sure, but still complying) to the disarming and inspector regime, and the inspectors not having found any trace of WMD (nor of link with Al Qaeda).

Actually I can think of quite a few: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Sudan, Iraq under Sadam, The French and the UK, Cambodia... the list goes on and on.

That's why war should not be used as lightly as it is by the USA. And that's why there is something called the UN to prevent wars.

Please. Lets all be honest with ourselves. The UN only exists to prevent conflict between the security council members.

Every country on the planet tries to create "sphere of influence". That's called diplomacy.

Sorry I should clarify myself, by sphere of influence I meant complete domination as pertaining to how the Soviet Union acted towards its satellite states.

Sorry I should clarify myself, by sphere of influence I meant complete domination as pertaining to how the Soviet Union acted towards its satellite states.

Ala Warsaw Pact.

Actually...he's trying to change the constitution (may have already done so) so that he can legally run again.

He's not "trying to change the Constitution" or "changing it", because he doesn't have the power to do so. He proposed the Assembly a set of changes. The Assembly will have to vote on it. If the Assembly accepts those changes, then it'll be proposed by referendum, and the Venezuelan people will decide if they accept the changes or not. That's called "democracy".

As for term limits, there are none in most of Europe, and it never was a problem - the problem here is more than leaders tend to be so unpopular that they are fired at the first occasion (not always, but often).

He already has announced that he is going to go for president again violating his countries own laws.

It's amazing how people are misinformed...

He'll not violate the laws of his country. He made a proposal of changes to the Constitution, which include among other the removing of term limits. But it'll be up to the Venezuelan people to accept or reject, through referendum, those changes. And yes, in democracy, if the people really want a leader to stay, he should be able to do so - as long as they want him, of course.

He's not "trying to change the Constitution" or "changing it", because he doesn't have the power to do so. He proposed the Assembly a set of changes. The Assembly will have to vote on it. If the Assembly accepts those changes, then it'll be proposed by referendum, and the Venezuelan people will decide if they accept the changes or not. That's called "democracy".

As for term limits, there are none in most of Europe, and it never was a problem - the problem here is more than leaders tend to be so unpopular that they are fired at the first occasion (not always, but often).

It's amazing how people are misinformed...

He'll not violate the laws of his country. He made a proposal of changes to the Constitution, which include among other the removing of term limits. But it'll be up to the Venezuelan people to accept or reject, through referendum, those changes. And yes, in democracy, if the people really want a leader to stay, he should be able to do so - as long as they want him, of course.

Thank you for agreeing with me even though your post to me tried to prove me wrong.

The corrupt and cruel government you helped to put in power, and happily negotiated with during years.

As for Osama Bin Laden... they said two things: first they wanted _proofs_ that he's implied, that's standard procedure with _any_ case of extradition, you cannot hand over someone without any proof. Then they asked him to be sent and judge to an international court, because the USA were the victims, and the basis of fair justice is that the victim should not be the judge.

Of course, it was probably fast-talk from them, because they knew the USA would not accept those conditions. But it was conditions any government is perfectly allowed to impose before extrading someone.

And btw, I shall remind you that European laws forbid us to extrad people who would risk the death penalty if extraded, because we consider the death penalty to be a barbarian and inhuman penalty. Would the USA have bombed and invaded Europe if we refused to hand over Ben Laden for this reason ?

Well unless Osama bin Laden was cloned I doubt he could be in ALL of Europe, so which part are talking about? :D
Just kidding if they refused to hand him over then probably. I doubt whether the U.S. government would kill him as that would just make him a martyr. Don't bring up the Saddam arguement because it was more important for us at that time to allow the Iraqi government to decide what his punishment should be.

Actually I can think of quite a few: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Sudan, Iraq under Sadam, The French and the UK, Cambodia... the list goes on and on.

Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but it didn't violate international laws as much as USA or Israel did and do. China does pretty evil things in Tibet, and I'm unsure about the state of international laws about Tibet, so I can accept it's as bad as what the USA or Israel do - but definitely not more.

Irak under Sadam, well, before Gulf War I it was about as bad the USA, but since then, definitely not. Irak in 2003 wasn't violating frontally any international law.

UK and France don't violate much of international law either. France behave very badly in Africa, but not by openly invading countries against UN security council and charter.

Everyone's done it.

Name one example of my country, Brazil, doing it. And no, it can't be the gross violations of human rights here caused by the AMERICAN support for the military regime here.

The corrupt and cruel government you helped to put in power, and happily negotiated with during years.


Hey at that time it was far better than being under the Soviet Union.

It's amazing how people are misinformed...

He'll not violate the laws of his country. He made a proposal of changes to the Constitution, which include among other the removing of term limits. But it'll be up to the Venezuelan people to accept or reject, through referendum, those changes. And yes, in democracy, if the people really want a leader to stay, he should be able to do so - as long as they want him, of course.

So if someone could just fake the results of that election or refrendum couldn't they just say they represented teh people?

Sorry I should clarify myself, by sphere of influence I meant complete domination as pertaining to how the Soviet Union acted towards its satellite states.

Chávez definitely doesn't seek complete domination. He seeks leadership over the region, that's true. But definitely not domination, he never said anything about inner policies of any countries, and he's openly friendly and helpful to presidents which definitely don't act like he does, such as in Argentina or Brasil.

Even with he closest allies (Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador) he never did a single move to make them change their inner policies. Correa was very clear about it, by the way: "Chávez is my friend, but in my house, it's not my friends who command, and in Ecuador, it'll always be Ecuadorian".

Check your facts, please.

HA as if.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis#Background

BUSTED!!!!

UK and France don't violate much of international law either. France behave very badly in Africa, but not by openly invading countries against UN security council and charter.

HA as if.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis#Background

So if someone could just fake the results of that election or refrendum couldn't they just say they represented teh people?

The elections of 2004 and 2006 were certified fair by the Carter Center, the OAS and the European Union - all of them not being Chávez supporters.

That can definitely not be said about the elections in USA, nor in some USA allies like Mexico.

Chávez definitely doesn't seek complete domination. He seeks leadership over the region, that's true. But definitely not domination, he never said anything about inner policies of any countries, and he's openly friendly and helpful to presidents which definitely don't act like he does, such as in Argentina or Brasil.


Again how many times has the U.S. been accused of domination of a culture through economic support?

Hey at that time it was far better than being under the Soviet Union.

Yeah... of course... it's better to have absolutely no freedom, have women considered half-persons and stoned for whatever reason, starve to death, and be forced to follow a state religion than having few freedom, have women considered as good as men, have free healthcare and education, and not be forced to have a religion ?

The USSR was far from being a paradise, but it was 100 times better than the Taliban.

But the USA didn't care at all about Afghan people and their suffering - they only cared about defeating their enemy, at any cost.

HA as if.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis#Background

Yeah, sure, we are speaking of modern geopolitics and you give me examples 50 years ago... should I also go down to the use of two nukes by the USA, the bombing of Dresden ? Or even as far as slavery and the slaughter of native american ? Or should we just stay in the realm of modern politics, unless it's directly related to our facts ?

Chávez definitely doesn't seek complete domination. He seeks leadership over the region, that's true. But definitely not domination, he never said anything about inner policies of any countries, and he's openly friendly and helpful to presidents which definitely don't act like he does, such as in Argentina or Brasil.



How long will that helpful and friendly attitude last if the countries were to support some U.S. policy taht contradicted Chavez policy? Do you think perhaps he could just cause a minor shortage of oil to teach some bad country not to contradict him? It doesn't really matter though, once the oil runs out in Venuezuala Chavez will be kicked out of office, thats really the only thing keeping his completely socialized economy together.

But the USA didn't care at all about Afghan people and their suffering - they only cared about defeating their enemy, at any cost.

Actually the people were the ones that supported that government not the U.S., we kind of turned our heads away from it. Do you think we would want a government that could possibly become allies with Iran in place? That could truly devastate any sort of foreign policy in the Middle East.

Yeah, sure, we are speaking of modern geopolitics and you give me examples 50 years ago... should I also go down to the use of two nukes by the USA, the bombing of Dresden ? Or even as far as slavery and the slaughter of native american ? Or should we just stay in the realm of modern politics, unless it's directly related to our facts ?

Well I figured since you've been talking about old poltical stances the U.S. has had I might as well bring up something on a similar level. And by the way the things you've just mentioned about the U.S. in that specific passage took place before the U.N. was formed therefore they can't really violate anything.

I have a few questions:

How much of the US foreign aid goes to eradication of coca plants, as part of the war on drugs? This is important because the many Bolivians use the plant as part of their daily lives, though not as cocaine. Such aid is therefore detrimental to Bolivian cultures.

Last week, U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg said U.S. aid in the 12 months to October would amount to $120 million, not $140 million, adding that a fourth of the money would go to fighting the drug trade in the world's No. 3 cocaine-producing country.

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=74874

How much of the US foreign aid goes to promoting economic development? This is important because the laissez-faire capitalist and mercantile economic models that the US seeks to develop have been very harmful to the devloping world in the past, and Latin America in particular. Such aid is therefore detrimental to the Bolivian economy.

How much of the US aid is accounted for? I am sure that most countries would like to keep track of how foreign governments disburse funds witih their borders. I assume Bolivia would like to do the same.

According to Minister Quintana there are 130 million dollars in cooperation through USAID and only 30 percent of that cooperation engages the Bolivian government, the remaining 70 percent is used by the United States at their own discretion without any type of association with the Bolivian government.

http://www.redbolivia.com/noticias/News%20in%20English/Bolivia/57648.html

The USSR was far from being a paradise, but it was 100 times better than the Taliban.


Apparently the afghani people didn't see this. Religious theocracy>police state. Neither of them very appealing but in Afghanistan they didn't have quite as many power hungry tyrants as the USSR. Not to mention it was easier to critisize the government in Afghanistan. But I really don't want to get into a debate over this so lets get back to chavez.

Thank you for agreeing with me even though your post to me tried to prove me wrong.

How did I prove you ? How is asking to the people "would you like me to able to do one term more" anywhere opposed to democracy ? For Chávez to do one more mandate, he'll still have to won this referendum (meaning the majority of Venezuelan supports this, in which case it's just democracy to allow it), a recall referendum in 2009 if the opposition dares to challenge him at this time, and a new election in 2012. What's wrong if he's able to win so much elections, for him to stay in power ? That's the whole point of "democracy", having the leader the people want !

Again how many times has the U.S. been accused of domination of a culture through economic support?

It's more with the strings attached to its economic support (allow to build military bases, allow support to some political parties, enforce "free market" policies or you lose the support, ...) than anything else.

If you look carefully, Chávez doesn't attach strings to his help. He helped Ecuador before Correa was elected. He helped Kirchner in Argentina even if Kirchner is far from being a socialist (he's more like a social-democrat).

Yeah, sure, we are speaking of modern geopolitics and you give me examples 50 years ago... should I also go down to the use of two nukes by the USA, the bombing of Dresden ? Or even as far as slavery and the slaughter of native american ? Or should we just stay in the realm of modern politics, unless it's directly related to our facts ?

Hate to break this but internatinal law did not cover nuclear weapons in 1945. And Dresden was more psychological than anything else.

I have a few questions:





How much of the US foreign aid goes to promoting economic development? This is important because the laissez-faire capitalist and mercantile economic models that the US seeks to develop have been very harmful to the devloping world in the past, and Latin America in particular. Such aid is therefore detrimental to the Bolivian economy.



http://www.redbolivia.com/noticias/News%20in%20English/Bolivia/57648.html

Firstly I fail to see how providing money for economic development is harmful. Secondly, that site says Red bolivia and its in spanish so I really can't tell what its about and really can only assume its something either in support of socialism or communism making it an unreliable source.

How did I prove you ? How is asking to the people "would you like me to able to do one term more" anywhere opposed to democracy ?

He meant about wanting to change the constitution first of all. And second of all, lets figuratively say that before the war in IRaq, when Bush was still fairly popular, George bush offered a referundem to the people asking to be able to run as many terms as he liked, what would you immediately think?

How did I prove you ? How is asking to the people "would you like me to able to do one term more" anywhere opposed to democracy ?

I suggest reading comprehension. I posted the fact that Chavez was trying to change the constitution so he can run for the presidency more than once. That was all I said. Then you go on a rampage about how that does not prove him trying to become a dictator. Notice I never used the word dictator or tyrant in any of my posts.

Then you posted that he was trying to change the constitution so that he can continue to be elected which validates that he is trying to change the constitution. Thank you for agreeing with me that he is trying to change the constitution so that he can run for office more than once.

As I said, reading comprehension.

If you look carefully, Chávez doesn't attach strings to his help. He helped Ecuador before Correa was elected. He helped Kirchner in Argentina even if Kirchner is far from being a socialist (he's more like a social-democrat).


Oh no strings except the unwritten law that you can't support the U.S. or anyone that Chavez doesn't like.

Oh no strings except the unwritten law that you can't support the U.S. or anyone that Chavez doesn't like.

To be fair, I have not seen evidence of that yet.

How long will that helpful and friendly attitude last if the countries were to support some U.S. policy taht contradicted Chavez policy? Do you think perhaps he could just cause a minor shortage of oil to teach some bad country not to contradict him? It doesn't really matter though, once the oil runs out in Venuezuala Chavez will be kicked out of office, thats really the only thing keeping his completely socialized economy together.

1 - So far he hasn't done anything of the sort.

2- Brazil and most of South America have alternate fuels, and Brazil has a surplus in oil.

3- If he doesn't want to sell oil to someone, he doesn't have to. Or you support free market only when it doesn't harm your interests?

How long will that helpful and friendly attitude last if the countries were to support some U.S. policy taht contradicted Chavez policy?

When Ecuador was ravaged by strikes, during 2005, while it was a right-wing government friendly to the USA, Chávez offered help, he fulfilled Ecuador's contract so to not put them in a very difficult position with international partners, and allowed Ecuador to repay slowly, with a 2% interest rate, and no interest for a few years.

That's an example of it means for Chávez to help other countries of Bolivar. Because that's something you probably don't know, the cultural importance of Simon Bolivar to those countries, and to Hugo Chávez. Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Venezuela were all liberated by Simon Bolivar, and the followers of Bolivar's ideology (Chávez definitely being one) consider those 5 countries as brothers, nearly as if it were one big country. For Chávez, helping those countries is just helping a brother in need - that's something you do even if you have strong disagreement with him.

Another example is found in Mision Milagro Internacional. During his campaign to eradicate illiteracy in Venezuela (which was successful, Venezuela was the first country of South America (Cuba, technically, is in North America) to be recognized free of analphabetism by UNESCO), Chávez discovered than many people couldn't learn how to read because they had eyesight problems, that could be cured, but didn't have the money too. He started the Mision Milagro (Mission Miracle), with the help of Cuba, to freely cure all those people (and if you can imagine how it is, living blind or nearly blind, to be offered to recover eyesight freely, it is really a miracle for them). And then, he started to expand the mission behind the borders of Venezuela. And he did so in all countries of the region - including Peru and Columbia, which are definitely US-friendly and Chávez opponents. Half a million of people were already cured, freely. And the number is growing every passing day.

It doesn't really matter though, once the oil runs out in Venuezuala Chavez will be kicked out of office, thats really the only thing keeping his completely socialized economy together.

Well, first, the oil will flow for long - the Orinoco oil stock is probably the largest of the world.

But then, Venezuela's economy is far, very far from being "completly socialized", and I don't think Chávez ever want that. He's more building a compound economy, made of powerful public services in area in which they have proven (like in France) to be very efficient (energy, healthcare, education, transports), with a strong network of cooperatives, and some private industries still.

Anyway, the economy in Venezuela is doing very well under Chávez (except during the "strike" which more a sabotage than anything else), and the oil sector even more than the rest.

A very important point to note about Chávez policies is the Siembra Petrolera plan, which is about using the oil money to bootstrap other sectors of economy (mostly agriculture right now, but also, through the strong emphasis put on education, the skilled workers needed for the high-tech sector), and to develop infrastructures, like the Caracas metro, hydroeletric power, trains, ...

1 - So far he hasn't done anything of the sort.

2- Brazil and most of South America have alternate fuels, and Brazil has a surplus in oil.

3- If he doesn't want to sell oil to someone, he doesn't have to. Or you support free market only when it doesn't harm your interests?

1-it remains to be seen since no country has really defied that statute.
2-Most of the time I speak of argentina since thats the place he seems to charge the most to, I'll go find the link someone posted it in the other thread.
3-Sure I support the free market system, I'm just using the logic that many people have been using, since when does Chavez have a right to point even a single finger at the U.S. when he's setting up a system similar to what he accuses the U.S. of having?

Is this the same Bolivia that was on verge of collapse not too long ago?

When Ecuador was ravaged by strikes, during 2005, while it was a right-wing government friendly to the USA, Chávez offered help, he fulfilled Ecuador's contract so to not put them in a very difficult position with international partners, and allowed Ecuador to repay slowly, with a 2% interest rate, and no interest for a few years.

That's an example of it means for Chávez to help other countries of Bolivar. Because that's something you probably don't know, the cultural importance of Simon Bolivar to those countries, and to Hugo Chávez. Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Venezuela were all liberated by Simon Bolivar, and the followers of Bolivar's ideology (Chávez definitely being one) consider those 5 countries as brothers, nearly as if it were one big country. For Chávez, helping those countries is just helping a brother in need - that's something you do even if you have strong disagreement with him.

Another example is found in Mision Milagro Internacional. During his campaign to eradicate illiteracy in Venezuela (which was successful, Venezuela was the first country of South America (Cuba, technically, is in North America) to be recognized free of analphabetism by UNESCO), Chávez discovered than many people couldn't learn how to read because they had eyesight problems, that could be cured, but didn't have the money too. He started the Mision Milagro (Mission Miracle), with the help of Cuba, to freely cure all those people (and if you can imagine how it is, living blind or nearly blind, to be offered to recover eyesight freely, it is really a miracle for them). And then, he started to expand the mission behind the borders of Venezuela. And he did so in all countries of the region - including Peru and Columbia, which are definitely US-friendly and Chávez opponents. Half a million of people were already cured, freely. And the number is growing every passing day.



Well, first, the oil will flow for long - the Orinoco oil stock is probably the largest of the world.

But then, Venezuela's economy is far, very far from being "completly socialized", and I don't think Chávez ever want that. He's more building a compound economy, made of powerful public services in area in which they have proven (like in France) to be very efficient (energy, healthcare, education, transports), with a strong network of cooperatives, and some private industries still.

Anyway, the economy in Venezuela is doing very well under Chávez (except during the "strike" which more a sabotage than anything else), and the oil sector even more than the rest.

A very important point to note about Chávez policies is the Siembra Petrolera plan, which is about using the oil money to bootstrap other sectors of economy (mostly agriculture right now, but also, through the strong emphasis put on education, the skilled workers needed for the high-tech sector), and to develop infrastructures, like the Caracas metro, hydroeletric power, trains, ...
There have also been heated disputes between Chávez and other Latin American leaders, including one with former Mexican President Vicente Fox over what Chávez alleged was Fox's support of U.S. trade interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

Chavez regularly meets with Brazil, and yet they made an agreement with the U.S. to increase ethanol production. Chavez pretty much does provide no-strings-attached support. If you want aid from America, you need to submit to neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism.

Firstly I fail to see how providing money for economic development is harmful. Secondly, that site says Red bolivia and its in spanish so I really can't tell what its about and really can only assume its something either in support of socialism or communism making it an unreliable source.

Well, don't take my word for it. Just ask Richard Kozul-Wright, an economist who wroks for the Globalisation and Development Strategies Division, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development:

This lecture suggests that this view of the contemporary global economy is deeply misleading, both in its description of recent economic trends and in its denial of the possibility and the desirability of alternative economic strategies for developing countries. It suggests that the highly uneven way in which domestic and international economic forces have intertwined under the (not so invisible) guidance of unregulated market forces has stymied growth and development prospects across much of the developing world, and that real progress to meet the challenges of these economies will require not only a change of policy direction in these countries, but perhaps more importantly from policy makers in the rich countries as well.

http://www.rsa.org.uk/acrobat/kozul_300403.pdf

And the previous link is to an english article by a Bolivian news source. It is completely readable to those anglophones who click on the link.

Firstly I fail to see how providing money for economic development is harmful.

It depends where and how the money is provided.

Secondly, that site says Red bolivia and its in spanish so I really can't tell what its about and really can only assume its something either in support of socialism or communism making it an unreliable source.

Hehe, "red" in spanish means "network", not the color ;)

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

And the previous link is to an english article by a Bolivian news source. It is completely readable to those anglophones who click on the link.

I was just referring to the website itself, I read the english article but I was curious as to what the website was about and found that I couldn't read it as I am not able to read or speak spanish.

He meant about wanting to change the constitution first of all.

But the most important is that he cannot do it alone, that he needs agreement from the people to do it. That's the difference between democracy and dictatorship.

And second of all, lets figuratively say that before the war in IRaq, when Bush was still fairly popular, George bush offered a referundem to the people asking to be able to run as many terms as he liked, what would you immediately think?

Well, I would not have been pleased by the idea of a 3rd Bush term, but I would consider it normal if the people from USA really wanted it. The fact that I'm unsure about Bush's victory in 2000 and 2004 (well, in 2000, he lost the popular vote, which is the one that should matter in democracy) would make it more worrisome, but the fact of no term limit in itself is not a problem IMHO. I oppose adding term limits in France, for example.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6972901.stm

That seems pretty friendly to me.

But the most important is that he cannot do it alone, that he needs agreement from the people to do it. That's the difference between democracy and dictatorship.

And now show me were I stated that he can do it himself. I never said he couldn't.

Well, I would not have been pleased by the idea of a 3rd Bush term, but I would consider it normal if the people from USA really wanted it. The fact that I'm unsure about Bush's victory in 2000 and 2004 (well, in 2000, he lost the popular vote, which is the one that should matter in democracy) would make it more worrisome, but the fact of no term limit in itself is not a problem IMHO. I oppose adding term limits in France, for example.

Bush's election in 2000 was 100% legal and is a part of democracy. In reality, the US is not a Democracy but a Federal republic.

I was just referring to the website itself, I read the english article but I was curious as to what the website was about and found that I couldn't read it as I am not able to read or speak spanish.

What does it matter if you can't read the other stuff? The article quoted a government representative. Unless you are making the claim that this paper invented the quote merely because it may have a political agenda. Are you making that claim?

If not, I assume you have no other criticisms, so let's get back to that foreign aid.

You can see why the Bolivian government may want to refuse US aid. That would be like accpeting a bank loan with the condition that the bank gets to randomly test you for drugs, force you to buy a security system you don't need, give up your medical insurance, and spend that money on unexplained items without your consent.

Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Venezuela were all liberated by Simon Bolivar, and the followers of Bolivar's ideology (Chávez definitely being one)..Bolivar liberated much of South-America.. He was basically their George Washington.

And much like George Washington he wanted a big strong American federation.. but unlike US.. it did not happen. The United States of SouthAmerica did not materialize.

Bolivar liberated much of South-America.. He was basically their George Washington.

And much like George Washington he wanted a big strong American federation.. but unlike US.. it did not happen. The United States of SouthAmerica did not materialize.

And if I remember correctly, he was pretty much a dictator.

And now show me were I stated that he can do it himself. I never said he couldn't.

Well, saying "he's trying to change the constitution (may have already done so) so that he can legally run again." as you said, without any precision that it would require a referendum can very easily interpreted as if he would change it by himself. Technically speaking he cannot "change the Constitution" (so he certainly can't have "done so"), he can only make proposals.

I may be a bit picky, but I read very often that he's changing the Constitution by himself, so I'm reacting very quickly nowadays... sorry if it was not what you meant.

Bush's election in 2000 was 100% legal and is a part of democracy. In reality, the US is not a Democracy but a Federal republic.

Well, I don't oppose all forms for federalism, but when it allows the president with the higher of votes to be defeated, it's really wrong and not democratic. It may be the way you run your country and you may be happy with it, but then, don't try (your country, not you as a person) to give other lessons of democracy. Or accept us to give them to you too.

Bolivar liberated much of South-America.. He was basically their George Washington.

Well, most of Spanish South America, because Brazil just itself is already a huge part of South America, and was not liberated by Bolivar ;)

And much like George Washington he wanted a big strong American federation.. but unlike US.. it did not happen. The United States of SouthAmerica did not materialize.

That's partly true, but Bolivar's ideals were quite far from Washington's ones. Bolivar, for example, was strongly opposed to slavery, while Washington didn't oppose it. Bolivar was also very strongly in favour of social systems, especially in education. A quote from Bolivar that you can see on the walls of the central university of Caracas is "Only when the people, through education, will know his rights and duties, will democracy be real".

Well, saying "he's trying to change the constitution (may have already done so) so that he can legally run again." as you said, without any precision that it would require a referendum can very easily interpreted as if he would change it by himself. Technically speaking he cannot "change the Constitution" (so he certainly can't have "done so"), he can only make proposals.

I suggest you go back and reread to whom I said it to and to stop implying shit that is not in my posts.

And if I remember correctly, he was pretty much a dictator.

Bolivar or Washington ?

he was a Libertador.

What's a libertador? Oh you mean liberator. :D

What's a libertador? Oh you mean liberator. :D

"Libertador" is the spanish word.

And if I remember correctly, he was pretty much a dictator.he was a Libertador.

Bolivar or Washington ?

Bolivar :rolleyes:

he was a Libertador.

Oh yeah? in 1824 he was elected as dictator of Peru by its congress. ;)

Bolivar was a liberator in a national sense of the word. He liberated countries. A domestic oppressor is often better than a foreign oppressor.

Oh yeah? in 1824 he was elected as dictator of Peru by its congress. ;)they declared him "dictator" (lifetime president).. but after reorganizing the Political and military institutions he left...

A real dictator usually wants to keep the power.

A domestic oppressor is often better than a foreign oppressor.

Like Hitler?

oximoron.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1824/february_10_1824_48528.html


He liberated the south american countries from spain, but then took them as his own little place to dictate.

Like Hitler?like Washington.

he (Bolivar) had seen his dream of eventually creating an American Revolution-style federation between all the newly independent republics, with a government ideally set-up solely to recognize and uphold individual rights, succumb to the pressures of particular interests throughout the region, which rejected that model and allegedly had little or no allegiance to liberal principles.

Source: wikipedia

Hehe, "red" in spanish means "network", not the color ;)

ok I was just making sure.

like Washington.

he (Bolivar) had seen his dream of eventually creating an American Revolution-style federation between all the newly independent republics, with a government ideally set-up solely to recognize and uphold individual rights, succumb to the pressures of particular interests throughout the region, which rejected that model and allegedly had little or no allegiance to liberal principles.

Source: wikipedia

My bad, I was referring to this:

A domestic oppressor is often better than a foreign oppressor.

I should have edited the quote or bolded that part.

But the most important is that he cannot do it alone, that he needs agreement from the people to do it. That's the difference between democracy and dictatorship.





So you would consider the Roman Emperors proponents of democracy? You would consider Mao Zedoung a defender of liberty? You would consider Napoleon a founding father of democratic ideals?

like Washington.

he (Bolivar) had seen his dream of eventually creating an American Revolution-style federation between all the newly independent republics, with a government ideally set-up solely to recognize and uphold individual rights, succumb to the pressures of particular interests throughout the region, which rejected that model and allegedly had little or no allegiance to liberal principles.

Source: wikipedia

Unhappy with what would be the ensuing result, Bolívar's delegates left the convention. After the failure of the convention due to grave political differences, Bolívar proclaimed himself dictator on August 27, 1828 through the "Organic Decree of Dictatorship".

they declared him "dictator" (lifetime president).. but after reorganizing the Political and military institutions he left...

A real dictator usually wants to keep the power.

Speaking of real dictators I've just stumbled across some interesting info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Authoritarian_rule_and_power_consolidation

So you would consider the Roman Emperors proponents of democracy? You would consider Mao Zedoung a defender of liberty? You would consider Napoleon a founding father of democratic ideals?

Where did you see all those people being chosen, and regularly chosen, to be leaders by the people ? They were not.

Speaking of real dictators I've just stumbled across some interesting info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Authoritarian_rule_and_power_consolidation

Well, this part just cites US newspapers, who have a very biased view over Venezuela, and a direct interest against Chávez. I know how the french media are too, on such issue: full of lies.

Give me real facts, please. Not vague analysis from newspapers ideologically opposed to him, who fail to back their claims of facts, or do it on very twisted facts (like forgetting to say that Chávez already won 4 fair elections, and to stay to power until 2018 would require to win 4 more elections... if you're able to win 8 elections during the whole period, I've nothing against someone being in power for 20 years).

So please, once again, what do you have to allow you to call Chávez a dictator ?

Where did you see all those people being chosen, and regularly chosen, to be leaders by the people ? They were not.

Adolf hitler fits that description as does Julius Caesar .

So any outside perspective from the U.S. is false? we have to obviously go to the Venezuelan government to get our answers then because they'll obviously give us an accurate report.

that's what he is saying. Of course, he forgets that most papers lie.

Well, this part just cites US newspapers, who have a very biased view over Venezuela, and a direct interest against Chávez. I know how the french media are too, on such issue: full of lies.

Give me real facts, please. Not vague analysis from newspapers ideologically opposed to him, who fail to back their claims of facts, or do it on very twisted facts (like forgetting to say that Chávez already won 4 fair elections, and to stay to power until 2018 would require to win 4 more elections... if you're able to win 8 elections during the whole period, I've nothing against someone being in power for 20 years).

So please, once again, what do you have to allow you to call Chávez a dictator ?

So any outside perspective from the U.S. is false? we have to obviously go to the Venezuelan government to get our answers then because they'll obviously give us an accurate report. If Chavez were to allow free and fair voting I would have no problem supporting his government but from his current actions that truly does not seem to be the case.

Adolf hitler fits that description as does Julius Caesar .

Hitler was, contrary to the widespread belief, never elected by the people. He was granted power, indirectly, by the Reichstag wanting to use him as a pawn to destroy the communists - well, on that part, he did well. But he never received more than around 30% of the popular vote. Chávez won 62.8% on the latest election.

As for Caesar, he never was elected "president", he took the power by force.

Then, one of the most important part on my sentence was "regularly", which you obviously ignored. Chávez didn't won ONE election. He won, directly, 4 elections, each with a highest score than before. His political side won around 10 elections, since 1998. That's more than one per year, in average ! That's in no way comparable to being elected once on then staying on power.

Where did you see all those people being chosen, and regularly chosen, to be leaders by the people ? They were not.

Just one more question, if you will not support anyone who doesn't fit this description then why do you support Castro?

So any outside perspective from the U.S. is false? we have to obviously go to the Venezuelan government to get our answers then because they'll obviously give us an accurate report. If Chavez were to allow free and fair voting I would have no problem supporting his government but from his current actions that truly does not seem to be the case.

Then, by all means, show any source, from anywhere, that points out American and European watchdogs that DIDN'T say the (THREE) elections was free and fair.

Just one more question, if you will not support anyone who doesn't fit this description then why do you support Castro?

Where did you read that I support Castro ? My view on Cuba is quite complex, and definitely doesn't fit in this thread. You could qualify it of "critical support", but it's mostly something half-way between support, opposition and doubts. I support strongly some things, I oppose strongly others, and I'm doubtful and unsure on what the truth is on others.

But Fidel Castro WAS elected. There are doubts on the fairness of the elections (which I'm unsure about, and which could require a whole thread to speak about), but the fact is that Fidel Castro WAS elected, and re-elected.

So any outside perspective from the U.S. is false?

Not necessarily false, but any broad, unbacked analysis in US mainstream media is very likely to be, yes.

If Chavez were to allow free and fair voting I would have no problem supporting his government but from his current actions that truly does not seem to be the case.

But he did. The election of 2006, which Chávez won with 62.8%, was certified free and fair by the Carter Center, the OAS and the European Union, none of them being Chávez supporters. Even Chávez' opposition accepted the result.

Where did you read that I support Castro ? My view on Cuba is quite complex, and definitely doesn't fit in this thread. You could qualify it of "critical support", but it's mostly something half-way between support, opposition and doubts. I support strongly some things, I oppose strongly others, and I'm doubtful and unsure on what the truth is on others.

But Fidel Castro WAS elected. There are doubts on the fairness of the elections (which I'm unsure about, and which could require a whole thread to speak about), but the fact is that Fidel Castro WAS elected, and re-elected.

So was Saddam Hussein. Just because someone was elected does not mean it is a democracy. Cuba is no democracy. Neither was Iraq and neither is Iran for that matter.

Cuba is a revolutionary, socialist, and democratic state. President Fidel Castro has been reelected every few years by the National Assembly of People's Power, which are elected by the people of Cuba, independant of political parties. You don't understand the nature of democracy or elections in Cuba. The people meet every five years to nominate candidates, and every candidate needs a majority approval. In Cuba, there is a very high voter turnout, usually in the 90% range. The people overwhelmingly support Comrade Fidel. Although I will admit some personal freedoms are lacking, Cuba needs to take a strong stance against "traitors," with U.S. imperialism breathing down its neck. Even Amnesty International says there are only around 75 political prisoners, a fairly small amount out of 11 million people.

Cuba is a revolutionary, socialist, and democratic state. President Fidel Castro has been reelected every few years by the National Assembly of People's Power, which are elected by the people of Cuba, independant of political parties

Yes, as the only real candidate. Good luck starting a party that clashes in any way with the mantra of the Communists, or having a real election between multiple parties and political affiliations. Also, good luck accessing the internet without government censors watching you or leaving the country freely.

If Communism is so beloved by the Cuban people, they shouldn't need censorship or dictatorship and the Party should be able to compete freely in multiparty elections.

So was Saddam Hussein. Just because someone was elected does not mean it is a democracy. Cuba is no democracy. Neither was Iraq and neither is Iran for that matter.

This thread is not about Cuba. But if someone is elected on a regular basis in fair elections, then you can hardly call it a dictatorship. It may not be a real democracy, because I agree there is much more in democracy than just that (and according to me, no country in the world currently qualifies for "real democracy" even if some are closer than others), but still it'll not be a dictatorship.

The whole question, for Cuba, being the fairness of the election. And that's where my doubts are. Cuba's supporters say the elections are fair, with secret votes, voting places open for tourists and journalists. Most Cuba's opponents say there are no elections at all - those are just lying, because they are. Some others say the elections are faked. Well, who is right ? How to know ? It's not an easy question, and I've no fixed mind on it. If you real, solid evidence showing it's faked, I'll be interested to see it. But maybe not in this thread ;)

Cuba is a revolutionary, socialist, and democratic state. President Fidel Castro has been reelected every few years by the National Assembly of People's Power, which are elected by the people of Cuba, independant of political parties. You don't understand the nature of democracy or elections in Cuba. The people meet every five years to nominate candidates, and every candidate needs a majority approval. In Cuba, there is a very high voter turnout, usually in the 90% range. The people overwhelmingly support Comrade Fidel. Although I will admit some personal freedoms are lacking, Cuba needs to take a strong stance against "traitors," with U.S. imperialism breathing down its neck. Even Amnesty International says there are only around 75 political prisoners, a fairly small amount out of 11 million people.

Boy are you very ignorant on Cuban affairs. Also, show me where AI says there are 75 prisoners out of 11 million dealing with politics.

Cuba is a revolutionary, socialist, and democratic state. President Fidel Castro has been reelected every few years by the National Assembly of People's Power, which are elected by the people of Cuba, independant of political parties. You don't understand the nature of democracy or elections in Cuba. The people meet every five years to nominate candidates, and every candidate needs a majority approval. In Cuba, there is a very high voter turnout, usually in the 90% range. The people overwhelmingly support Comrade Fidel. Although I will admit some personal freedoms are lacking, Cuba needs to take a strong stance against "traitors," with U.S. imperialism breathing down its neck. Even Amnesty International says there are only around 75 political prisoners, a fairly small amount out of 11 million people.

That's what I would like to believe, but it somehow sounds to beautiful for me to totally believe without any more proof. Well, maybe it's because it's what I would like to believe it that I'm being extra careful and not totally accepting to believe in it ;)

My current state of mind is that until I'm presented with serious, strong evidence that the elections are faked, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and consider the elections to be fair. But I'm still doubtful.

1) Bolivia is probably giving up $120million because Chavez has a better deal.

2) Chavez is a populist, what he says is for domestic consumption.

3) The vast majority of people in Ven. support him because of hand outs; just because a few pissy upper class people get to the streets, doesn't mean that the whole of the nation is angry.

4) The US should be focuse don fixing its own disasters before lecturing others on the faults in other countries.

Boy are you very ignorant on Cuban affairs. Also, show me where AI says there are 75 prisoners out of 11 million dealing with politics.

This http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/Cuba says 69 political prisoners, and the population is 11 millions. Sure you can't count the children, but that makes like 9 millions, 75 on 9 millions is still a low number, not what you have in a "real" dictatorship. Still too much, of course, but both USA and France have a few political prisoners, too.

This http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/Cuba says 69 political prisoners, and the population is 11 millions. Sure you can't count the children, but that makes like 9 millions, 75 on 9 millions is still a low number, not what you have in a "real" dictatorship. Still too much, of course, but both USA and France have a few political prisoners, too.

Who?

Yes, as the only real candidate. Good luck starting a party that clashes in any way with the mantra of the Communists, or having a real election between multiple parties and political affiliations.

On the local level, there are more than one candidate. And those elected on the local level select the candidates to the higher level (a bit like the electoral college, but on several levels, but with a revalidation process each time: you need to receive 50% of votes to be elected, even after being chosen by the level below you).

The political parties in Cuba are just not allowed to support ANY candidate on the local level, and that applies to the Communist Party too. The idea being to chose people trusted by their neighbours, and to avoid to divide the country in two "blocks". It has drawbacks, but with the besieged situation of Cuba since 50 years, it's understandable.

Also, good luck accessing the internet without government censors watching you

Well, the main problem for Internet access from Cuba is the US blockade. This forces Cuba to use expensive and lowspeed satellite connections, and to illegally important computer hardware (AMD, Intel, Apple, IBM, Sun are all from USA, and I don't know any other CPU maker).

or leaving the country freely.[/QUOTE

Actually, you can, if you have a visa granted by the target country. And many do by being social workers (remember that Cuba is the country of the world with the highest number of doctors working abroad in solidarity missions, and that also means a lot of logistic/support staff).

[QUOTE=Vetalia;13015326]If Communism is so beloved by the Cuban people, they shouldn't need censorship or dictatorship and the Party should be able to compete freely in multiparty elections.

Multiparty elections are a form of elections, the cuban system is another, both have pros and cons. Multiparty is not vital for democracy, as long as anyone can be candidate. The main question being if the elections are fair or not, and waiting for proof it's not from all of you who claim so strongly Cuba is a dictatorship.

As for censorship, there is some in Cuba, but there is also some in most of the western world, even if it's a different one. As a french journalist once said: "it's harder to public bad stuff about Fidel Castro in Cuba than bad stuff about Bush in USA, but it's easier to publish good stuff about Bush in Cuba than good stuff about Fidel Castro in USA". The censorship, in the case of USA, is done through the control of the transnational corporations over most, if not all, of newspapers, TV channels and radio channels. That's as bad as government censorship.

Who?

In USA ? Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Peletier, the Move guys. That's the few I know about, not counting Guantanamo which is just a giant prison of political prisoners, held there with no rights at all.

In France ? Well, in 2006, during the students protest against the working code reform, around 200 of them were held in jail for a few months for the mere fact of protesting (officially, for fight against the cops, but the situation was so confused and the trials went so quickly, with lawyers having the case a few minutes before the beginning and such, that most of them were just at the wrong place at the wrong time).

In USA ? Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Peletier, the Move guys. That's the few I know about, not counting Guantanamo which is just a giant prison of political prisoners, held there with no rights at all.

You are going to have to show me links about the people you mentioned. As to Guantanamo, how can terrorists be considered political prisoners? Oh wait, that's because they are not political prisoners. They are not even from the United States.

In France ? Well, in 2006, during the students protest against the working code reform, around 200 of them were held in jail for a few months for the mere fact of protesting (officially, for fight against the cops, but the situation was so confused and the trials went so quickly, with lawyers having the case a few minutes before the beginning and such, that most of them were just at the wrong place at the wrong time).

They had trials? They were released?

You are going to have to show me links about the people you mentioned.

You can search by yourself ;)

As to Guantanamo, how can terrorists be considered political prisoners? Oh wait, that's because they are not political prisoners. They are not even from the United States.

What about the "every one is innocent until proven guilty" part ? In Guatanamo, people are held without any trial. They are not guilty of terrorism, since they were not proven guilty of it with a fair trial. They are political prisoners, people hold in jail just because they displease a government, with no rights.

If labelling someone "terrorist" is enough to hold him in jail, then there is no political prisoner anywhere in the world.

They had trials? They were released?

They had trials, as I said, trials made very quickly, in 15 minutes, with the lawyer put on the case a few minutes before, and it the word of a policeman against the word of a youth, so many were sent to prison (from 2 months to 6 months, usually), even if most of them didn't do anything.

You can search by yourself ;)

The proof is on you to show the links to me. Failure to comply will result in me dismissing your claim.

What about the "every one is innocent until proven guilty" part ? In Guatanamo, people are held without any trial.

Not true. They are being tried as we speak. Some have been found innocent, others guilty and some even got thrown out by military courts as well. Heck several were even released.

They are not guilty of terrorism, since they were not proven guilty of it with a fair trial. They are political prisoners, people hold in jail just because they displease a government, with no rights.

Actually, they do not fit the definition of a political prisoner.

If labelling someone "terrorist" is enough to hold him in jail, then there is no political prisoner anywhere in the world.

oh there are definitely political prisioners in the world.

They had trials, as I said, trials made very quickly, in 15 minutes, with the lawyer put on the case a few minutes before, and it the word of a policeman against the word of a youth, so many were sent to prison (from 2 months to 6 months, usually), even if most of them didn't do anything.

So they are all no longer in jail then?

Invading a country to make it do what you want = Rape.

Forcing a coup in countries to make them do what you want = Rape.

For that matter, I see you admit the US did their best to, yes, rape Venezuela recently, and DID rape most of South America in the 60's and 70's.

Remember: rape is about power, not sex.

Remember: rape is about power, not sex.

I wrote that keeping it in mind. America didn't want to stick Florida in Brazil's Amazon River Delta, America wanted power over Brazil.

Evo Morales is a good movie, I loved the part where his troops took over the oil fields with no compensation to the private oligarchs, funny stuff.

The proof is on you to show the links to me. Failure to comply will result in me dismissing your claim.He already gave you specific examples. You can easily check his claims simply by looking those people up online. But I'll humour you: Political Prisoners and POW's in the US. (http://www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/pplist-alpha.shtml) If you need more information, try your local ABC (http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/abc/list.html) group. Not true. They are being tried as we speak. Some have been found innocent, others guilty and some even got thrown out by military courts as well. Heck several were even released.Doesn't change the fact they've been imprisoned for years without cause. Actually, they do not fit the definition of a political prisoner.That's highly debatable. They're presumably being held imprisoned because it is politically expedient to do so, and nothing else. And that is one definition of a political prisoner. oh there are definitely political prisioners in the world.Indeed. I'd argue, for example, that every one serving time because of the silly three strike shit, or your silly drug laws, are political prisoners. But that, of course, is a matter of definition. So they are all no longer in jail then?I honestly can't remember, but no. I think all have been let go now. There's still political prisoners held in France though, and other European countries for that matter. Political Prisoners.net (http://www.political-prisoners.net/) may be of some help to you, if you're interested. Alternatively check the ABC link I posted and drop an email to one of the European groups.

He already gave you specific examples. You can easily check his claims simply by looking those people up online. But I'll humour you: Political Prisoners and POW's in the US. (http://www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/pplist-alpha.shtml) If you need more information, try your local ABC (http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/abc/list.html) group.

So do you have information that is not from an anarchist website?

And to your political prisoners.net, why are they being held? I am not seeing the information on the website.

To Kilobugya:

Mumia was convicted of murder. Obviously it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, unless you can present evidence that he is 100% innocent, he is just one more murderer that should be executed.

Also, how many civil servants lost their jobs and generally had their lives ruined by the Red Purge in the US?

How many people were rounded up and sent off to the gulag advocating for change in a communist state?

So do you have information that is not from an anarchist website?You asked for links. I provided. Indeed, I offered you the link to Prison Activist precisely because it links to a bunch of other shit which isn't necessarily anarchist or even political in nature.

Just out of curiosity, did you know that even thoroughly despicable bastards like me, thinks poisoning the well is too pathetic?

EDIT:And to your political prisoners.net, why are they being held? I am not seeing the information on the website.Uh.. If you're able to find the actual names of the imprisoned, you'll see the full info on where they're held right next to their names. If you're not able to figure out how to navigate the site.. Well.. I just don't know mate. But I suppose I can post direct links to each country if you're really desperate. Alternatively, if you read French APA (http://apa.online.free.fr/) also lists the info.

EDIT 2: Corny you need to understand that while I have indeed spend time trying to raise awareness of political prisoners, I've only done so locally. You also need to realize that you're addressing an anarchist who for various reasons has spend his life speaking everything but English. Meaning, it's idiotic to try the poisoning the well shit with me, and it's unreasonable to demand obscure American info from me. If you don't like the convenience of having clear, concise and reliable information offered to you, go find your own sources. I'm not gonna tie your shoelaces for you either. Don't expect me to.

Also, how many civil servants lost their jobs and generally had their lives ruined by the Red Purge in the US?

Mumia was convicted of murder. Obviously it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Obviously?

seems to me like you feel the Venezuelan elections were not fair.

Prove that they were

and at the same time you feel the elections that gave the White House to George bush were fair and balanced.

Prove that it wasn't.

If Chavez were to allow free and fair voting I would have no problem supporting his government.seems to me like you feel the Venezuelan elections were not fair.

and at the same time you feel the elections that gave the White House to George bush were fair and balanced.

Maybe we should ask citizens from Countries other than US or Venezuela for their impartial ViewPoint

Obviously?

If it was not proven then a) he would not have been sent to death row and/or b) the state supreme court would have overturned it and they didn't.

No x2

Then you do not have a leg to stand on. Good day.

Prove that they were (fair
Prove that they were not fair.)No x2

Prove that they were

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/venezuela/intro/index.htm
They were verified by the UN and EU. The US elections however were illegal in many respects yet escaped said criticism.

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/venezuela/intro/index.htm
They were verified by the UN and EU. The US elections however were illegal in many respects yet escaped said criticism.

I love how you say the word illegal and yet provide no proof to back it up.

I love how you say the word illegal and yet provide no proof to back it up.

I suggest you read up on Greg Palast, his evidence of this is staggering, including emails send by Gonzales, this includes vote caging done by GOP friendly elements, tampered voting machines which voided many black votes which would have gone to the democrats. It's estimated over 100,000 votes were nulled by illegal GOP activities.

http://www.gregpalast.com/

No such evidence from you on the Venezuelan election being rigged I see.

his link says that the Venezuelan elections were fair.

I gathered that since he posted but does not show that the US elections were unfair or illegal.

On the local level, there are more than one candidate. And those elected on the local level select the candidates to the higher level (a bit like the electoral college, but on several levels, but with a revalidation process each time: you need to receive 50% of votes to be elected, even after being chosen by the level below you).

The main concern is that those candidates are all vetted by the Communists to ensure they remain ideologically faithful even if there is some local competition. Ultimatelt

The political parties in Cuba are just not allowed to support ANY candidate on the local level, and that applies to the Communist Party too. The idea being to chose people trusted by their neighbours, and to avoid to divide the country in two "blocks". It has drawbacks, but with the besieged situation of Cuba since 50 years, it's understandable.

But the system is designed to keep the Communist Party in power. If the Cuban people truly support the ideals of the party, it should have zero problem competing with other ideologies and parties at any level.

Well, the main problem for Internet access from Cuba is the US blockade. This forces Cuba to use expensive and lowspeed satellite connections, and to illegally important computer hardware (AMD, Intel, Apple, IBM, Sun are all from USA, and I don't know any other CPU maker).

But why do they need to censor it?

I hardly doubt anyone on either side of the blockade seriously thinks it makes any bit of ethical, economic, or practical sense, even among the nitwits in government, and I don't think there is any particular hostility towards the Cuban nation or government from US citizens (except for Cuban expats, but they're a minority relative to the rest of the population).

If anything, the Cuban government has nothing to fear from the rest of the world. Nobody but the US government supports the blockade, and they're barely supported by a fraction of the American public.

Actually, you can, if you have a visa granted by the target country. And many do by being social workers (remember that Cuba is the country of the world with the highest number of doctors working abroad in solidarity missions, and that also means a lot of logistic/support staff).

Doctors and scientists, yes. Few countries, even in the Soviet bloc, didn't allow those kind of staff to leave the country for goodwill and humanitarian purposes. However, what about the average person?

(I'm interested secondly because there is no free immigration program between the US and Cuba, which means there is little information on the process in general)

Multiparty elections are a form of elections, the cuban system is another, both have pros and cons. Multiparty is not vital for democracy, as long as anyone can be candidate. The main question being if the elections are fair or not, and waiting for proof it's not from all of you who claim so strongly Cuba is a dictatorship.

Here's an honest question: Could a candidate advocating the dismantling and removal of the Communist Party's monopoly on power and its planned economic system in Cuba be allowed to run for office?

A system where all the candidates are vetted by the party leadership and no real ideological competition occurs is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship masked as a democracy. Fidel is certainly no Pinochet or Pol Pot, not by a mile, but his government is inherently a dictatorship.

As for censorship, there is some in Cuba, but there is also some in most of the western world, even if it's a different one. As a french journalist once said: "it's harder to public bad stuff about Fidel Castro in Cuba than bad stuff about Bush in USA, but it's easier to publish good stuff about Bush in Cuba than good stuff about Fidel Castro in USA". The censorship, in the case of USA, is done through the control of the transnational corporations over most, if not all, of newspapers, TV channels and radio channels. That's as bad as government censorship.

I think censoring the bad is probably more serious than censoring the good. Dissent is vital to a free state; any government propaganda arm could publish good things about a leader or foreign leaders, but it takes a free society to allow dissent to flourish.

Even so, censorship is wrong no matter its source. Batista's Cuba was far, far more vile than Castro's has ever been, even if it was a capitalist nation with ties to the US.

I love how you say the word illegal and yet provide no proof to back it up.his link is addressing your first demand for proof (about Venezuela)

Where's the opposition in Cuba? If it is so democratic... why is it always Castro we hear from, and not his opponents?

Why are candidates approved in popular votes at such enormous rates... and when they are, why is turnout so high nevertheless?

Well, the main problem for Internet access from Cuba is the US blockade. This forces Cuba to use expensive and lowspeed satellite connections, and to illegally important computer hardware (AMD, Intel, Apple, IBM, Sun are all from USA, and I don't know any other CPU maker).




So building a nice fibre-optic link from say the western tip of Cuba to the yucatan in Mexico is'nt feasible?
or to Venuzuala?
And then importing old PC's from various 3rd world countries where they are sent to be scrapped?

Lets face it, the US blockade stops the US from trading with Cuba, and Cuba from trading with the US, but it does'nt stop Cuba from trading with the other 198 countries on the planet!:rolleyes:

But its very useful politically speaking because it can be used by the Cuban government to make it appear as the country is 'under siege' thus unifying the country behind the government.

I suggest you read up on Greg Palast, his evidence of this is staggering, including emails send by Gonzales, this includes vote caging done by GOP friendly elements, tampered voting machines which voided many black votes which would have gone to the democrats. It's estimated over 100,000 votes were nulled by illegal GOP activities.

http://www.gregpalast.com/
Palast makes a very large quantity of very extreme claims, constantly. Oftentimes he's argued entirely untenable points (take a look at his argument about Ohio being stolen in 2004, it's fraught with problems and disregards the criticism that has already been leveled at some of his key arguments). He is obsessed with proving a conspiracy, it's practically a messianic vision. It's his gimmick, what he does to make himself stand out from the crowd, that and the fedora.

No such evidence from you on the Venezuelan election being rigged I see.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050214/14edit.htm

Not that this is a particularly good bit of evidence, but Zuckerman is roughly on par with Palast as far as accuracy and sensibility towards the topic go: Not at all.

seems to me like you feel the Venezuelan elections were not fair.
and at the same time you feel the elections that gave the White House to George bush were fair and balanced.Maybe we should ask citizens from Countries other than US or Venezuela for their impartial ViewPoint

I have never stated either of those two things. Obviously asking your buddy from france who seems to be socialist gung ho is a good idea right?

I have never stated either of those two things. Obviously asking your buddy from france who seems to be socialist gung ho is a good idea right?

Also, nothing has been shown that the election in 2000 was not free.

Also, nothing has been shown that the election in 2000 was not free.

Other than a crazy conspiracy story by some wack job.

And then importing old PC's from various 3rd world countries where they are sent to be scrapped?


Hey they did it with cars.

Other than a crazy conspiracy story by some wack job.

I agree.

Other than a crazy conspiracy story by some wack job.The election was not monitored by 3rd parties, but between the findings of various native NGOs, it's pretty clear the proceedings were fucked up rather badly in a number of ways and places.

OSCE did monitor the 2004 elections to some extent, and have released their final report on that election. It's freely available online. (http://osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.pdf)

Assuming there had been some successful efforts to address the problems of the 2000 election, I think it's fairly safe to say it cannot have been fair. After all, the 2004 election wasn't.

The election was not monitored by 3rd parties, but between the findings of various native NGOs, it's pretty clear the proceedings were fucked up rather badly in a number of ways and places.

OSCE did monitor the 2004 elections to some extent, and have released their final report on that election. It's freely available online. (http://osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.pdf)

Assuming there had been some successful efforts to address the problems of the 2000 election, I think it's fairly safe to say it cannot have been fair. After all, the 2004 election wasn't.

*dies of laughter*

The left never ceases to surprise me. And they call those of us who disagree with them nuts.

Dude. I hate to break this, but the elections of both 2000 and 2004 were indeed fair.

*dies of laughter*

The left never ceases to surprise me. And they call those of us who disagree with them nuts.

Dude. I hate to break this, but the elections of both 2000 and 2004 were indeed fair.

And the right never ceases to amaze me. You first say there was no evidence, and then when presented with it you laugh it off. If you want to be taken seriously, read the report then refute the issues it nakes. Just saying "they were fair" without any sort of evidence or argument does not make it so.

And the right never ceases to amaze me. You first say there was no evidence, and then when presented with it you laugh it off. If you want to be taken seriously, read the report then refute the issues it nakes. Just saying "they were fair" without any sort of evidence or argument does not make it so.

Ollieland, I have read every report and you know what? Everything I have seen points to a fair election in both 2000 and 2004. Sorry but the elections were fair.

EDIT: Even reading the report indicates that there was very little problems in the 2004 elections meaning that the election was indeed fair.

Rinse..... lather......... repeat..........

So refute the reports points and prove your own point. I bet if you try reeeeally hard you can.

The report is straight forward. Outside of a few irregularities, things went smoothly. They even offered suggestions to make it run even more smoothly. Show me in the report that I am missing that declares that the election in 2004 were in fact, unfair. The report I read does not even come close in saying it nor is it implying it.

Ollieland, I have read every report and you know what? Everything I have seen points to a fair election in both 2000 and 2004. Sorry but the elections were fair.

EDIT: Even reading the report indicates that there was very little problems in the 2004 elections meaning that the election was indeed fair.

Rinse..... lather......... repeat..........

So refute the reports points and prove your own point. I bet if you try reeeeally hard you can.

The election was not monitored by 3rd parties, but between the findings of various native NGOs, it's pretty clear the proceedings were fucked up rather badly in a number of ways and places.

OSCE did monitor the 2004 elections to some extent, and have released their final report on that election. It's freely available online. (http://osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.pdf)

Assuming there had been some successful efforts to address the problems of the 2000 election, I think it's fairly safe to say it cannot have been fair. After all, the 2004 election wasn't.

Reading the executive summary, one would think that their conclusion was that the 2004 was fair.

In fact, what I've read indicates that the issues that developed were issues that were unavoidable, such as longer lines than past turnout would have ever led anyone to predict.

Reading the executive summary, one would think that their conclusion was that the 2004 was fair.

In fact, what I've read indicates that the issues that developed were issues that were unavoidable, such as longer lines than past turnout would have ever led anyone to predict.

IT'S A BUSH CONSPIRACY!!!

seems to me like you feel the Venezuelan elections were not fair.
and at the same time you feel the elections that gave the White House to George bush were fair and balanced.

Maybe we should ask citizens from Countries other than US or Venezuela for their impartial ViewPointI have never stated either of those two things. Obviously asking your buddy from france who seems to be socialist gung ho is a good idea right?friend from France? which one? I have more than one. ;)

I also have friends in the UK and other European Countries. And when it 2000 and 2004 we talked about all this fair and balanced elections..

Do you really want to know what do they say about Bush and the Floridagate?

friend from France? which one? I have more than one. ;)

I also have friends in the UK and other European Countries. And when it 2000 and 2004 we talked about all this fair and balanced elections..

Do you really want to know what do they say about Bush and the Floridagate?

Likely through the mechanism of seeing what you want to see, where you want to see it.

It's easy to charge malfeasance from a distance, especially when your case is composed of hearsay and assumptions. Take a look at that article I posted by Zuckerman, your friends opinions are likely roughly on par with his opinions about the quality of the Venezuelan elections.

friend from France? which one? I have more than one. ;)

I also have friends in the UK and other European Countries. And when it 2000 and 2004 we talked about all this fair and balanced elections..

Do you really want to know what do they say about Bush and the Floridagate?
Specifically this one: Kilobugya
I'd like to see figures and reports, actual facts not just gander from some friend of yours.

I also rather resent the charge that I was directly involved in the commission of a crime, given that I was in the employ of a County Board of Elections, and the certification of Diebold touchscreen voting machines, in a state where you and your friends charge that the elections were stolen.

I also rather resent the charge that I was directly involved in the commission of a crime, given that I was in the employ of a County Board of Elections, and the certification of Diebold touchscreen voting machines, in a state where you and your friends charge that the elections were stolen.

Oh damn.

Specifically this one: Kilobugya
LOL.. I did not know he was my friend.. and I did not know he was French.. but its all good.
.

I'd like to see figures and reports, actual facts not just gander from some friend of yours.well.. make up your mind.. you bring my "European friends" into the debate.. and now.. you no longer want to talk about my friends?

well.. make up your mind.. you bring my "European friends" into the debate.. and now.. you no longer want to talk about my friends?
Its the same issue, you would use the testimony of someone close to you or someone who agrees in almost all ideological issues.