NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4A83DT20081109

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's increasingly bellicose President Hugo Chavez warned that he may put tanks on the streets if a former television star running for his Socialist Party loses a state election this month.

Chavez is expected to lose control of some key states and cities in the November 23 nationwide elections for governors and mayors.

In Carabobo, where a Chavez loyalist and former late-night talk show host risks losing the governorship, Chavez told party activists he might use the tanks to "defend the people."

"If you let the oligarchy return to government then maybe I'll end up sending the tanks of the armoured brigade out to defend the revolutionary government," he said late on Saturday.

In recent weeks the former tank officer also has threatened to jail the country's top opposition leader, Manuel Rosales, whom he accuses of corruption and of plotting to kill him.

Chavez frequently uses polarizing rhetoric as a campaign tactic to mobilise party activists to vote, but rarely carries through on his threats.

But at a rally in Carabobo in September, Chavez said he was expelling the U.S. ambassador. It was his toughest action yet against Washington, which he accuses of trying to topple him.

The president, who has spent billions of dollars on weapons from Russia in recent years, ordered tanks to the border with Colombia in March after Bogota attacked guerrillas in neighbouring Ecuador.

Popular for social spending, Chavez was first elected 10 years ago. He and his allies won every vote after that until last year, when they lost a referendum to change the country's constitution.


I'm not sure if this is just an issue with translation or what, but he seems to be saying "Vote for my party member or else" and directly threatening military intervention if they fail to vote the right way. Kind of pushes against the democracy title.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4A83DT20081109



I'm not sure if this is just an issue with translation or what, but he seems to be saying "Vote for my party member or else" and directly threatening military intervention if they fail to vote the right way. Kind of pushes against the democracy title.

Since when has the RL troll ever really cared about democracy?

Since when has the RL troll ever really cared about democracy?

At the very least, so far he has pretended to care enough that I haven't heard of him going against popular votes. This would be a scary break from that policy that CLEANLY marks him as a dictator instead of a politician.

And nobody with any semblance of a focused and open mind would believe Head Up The Ass Hugo to be a seriously democratic leader. At the very least not now anyways.

It's a problem where you have such discrepancy in wealth, where a few urban elite are up against the populist masses. Similarly, there's a debate in Thailand as to whether farmers outside Bangkok should have equal vote - the entire Thaksin Shinawatra debacle is centred on this split.

Democracy requires a certain equality, where that diverges too much, civil conflict ensues.

God christing dammit.

And nobody with any semblance of a focused and open mind would believe Head Up The Ass Hugo to be a seriously democratic leader. At the very least not now anyways.
Occean Drive and Andaras (wherever they are) are still drinking the Kool-Aid on this one.

sounds a lot like democracy in Iraq.

sounds a lot like democracy in Iraq.I wonder how much of the world revolves around Iraq....

America's new friends, fuck yeah.

America's new friends, fuck yeah....lolwut? o_0
Did you completely miss the part about the US ambassador being kicked out of the country?

...lolwut? o_0
Did you completely miss the part about the US ambassador being kicked out of the country?

Facts have never been important when it comes to Rusty's arguements, why would they matter now?

Facts have never been when it comes to Rusty's arguements, why would they matter now?...You couldn't even leave me a shred of hope, could you?
Could you!?
>.>
<.<
*flees*

But at a rally in Carabobo in September, Chavez said he was expelling the U.S. ambassador. It was his toughest action yet against Washington, which he accuses of trying to topple him.

Really, how shocking! The US trying to topple the regime of a psychopath who lives within a missile's launch away from our borders! Never! Why would we do that? We love Democracy... and Capitalism... errmmm I mean Communism and Dictatorships!

...lolwut? o_0
Did you completely miss the part about the US ambassador being kicked out of the country?

Hey, take it up with your President, he's the one who wants to be friendly with Venezuela.

Hey, take it up with your President, he's the one who wants to be friendly with Venezuela....I'll play.
Source?

...I'll play.
Source?

He does want to have diplomatic relations with Ven. That much is true.

Because its usually a good idea to have good relations with your neighbors. Especially when theyre oil producing neighbors.

He does want to have diplomatic relations with Ven. That much is true.

Because its usually a good idea to have good relations with your neighbors. Especially when theyre oil producing neighbors.I know, but I want to see why he thinks it's so bad.

He does want to have diplomatic relations with Ven. That much is true.

Because its usually a good idea to have good relations with your neighbors. Especially when theyre oil producing neighbors.

So you're saying that it's ok to have friendly relations with dictators and psychos if they give you oil?

Nice.

So you're saying that it's ok to have friendly relations with dictators and psychos if they give you oil?

Nice.

Bush family, House of Saud - seems pretty okay no?

So you're saying that it's ok to have friendly relations with dictators and psychos if they give you oil?

Nice.

Funny, you didn't complain about this when Dear Leader Dubya was cozy with Saudi Arabia huh Potato Boy?

Then again you do miss the Axis of Complicity.

Bush family, House of Saud - seems pretty okay no?

Funny, you didn't complain about this when Dear Leader Dubya was cozy with Saudi Arabia huh Potato Boy?

Then again you do miss the Axis of Complicity.

Hey, I don't care either way. You're the ones who are meant to be liberal. Although I would rather invade Saudi Arabia.

Hey, I don't care either way. You're the ones who are meant to be liberal. Although I would rather invade Saudi Arabia.

Invade Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is housed... give Bin Ladin the biggest orgasm of his life as he can finally truly say the West is trying to destroy Islam, not to mention skyrocket oil prices to where Head Up The Ass Hugo and Uncle Vlad get even more money out of the deal?

You're definitely not a brilliant geopolitical strategist by any stretch of the imagination Potato Boy.

Invade Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is housed... give Bin Ladin the biggest orgasm of his life as he can finally truly say the West is trying to destroy Islam, not to mention skyrocket oil prices to where Head Up The Ass Hugo and Uncle Vlad get even more money out of the deal?

You're definitely not a brilliant geopolitical strategist by any stretch of the imagination Potato Boy.

Yeah, that's my problem, because I'm the one who's in charge of the US. Oh wait, no, it's your guy, who's planning on having friendly relations with Venezuela!

Besides, if you're giving me a hypothetical, I'm not going to go into Saudi Arabia with three guys and a packhorse.

So you're saying that it's ok to have friendly relations with dictators and psychos if they give you oil?

Nice.

What, this is new?

Does anyone remember, say, before Saddam Hussein was painted as Hitler 2: The Madman Returns, he was the US's good buddy during the Iraq-Iran war?

How about Musharraf, the military dictator under whose regime nuclear secrets were sold across the globe?

There were the Contras in Nicaragua, who were anything but angels but hey, they were anti-Communist, and so that was good enough for us, right?

Heck, the Cold War is full of this -- anti-Communist made you a "good guy" in the US, pretty much no matter how psychopathic/dictatorial you were otherwise. (Pinochet, anyone?)

The US has a long history of palling around with scumbags if we thought it served any particular specific purpose -- after all, they may be scumbags, but they were/are *our* scumbags, right?

I'd suspect Chavez has more to fear from Obama than Bush, he has less ability to bolster himself with his public through anti-Bush rhetoric. One might hope that many Venezuelan's can remember that there's alternatives.

Yeah, that's my problem, because I'm the one who's in charge of the US. Oh wait, no, it's your guy, who's planning on having friendly relations with Venezuela!

News flash, Obama hasn't been sworn into office yet, it's one part of your favorite Axis of Complicity, Dear Leader Dubya!

:tongue:

Besides, if you're giving me a hypothetical, I'm not going to go into Saudi Arabia with three guys and a packhorse.

Again you show how much you admire Bush to where you share his same deficiency geopolitical foresight by even hypothetically entertaining the notion of throwing an invasion force at Saudi Arabia.

Then again you do hate them darkies and would love it if they all did in fact unite behind Al'Qaeda.

And please don't try to cop out of your ignorance by saying you don't care Potato Boy. Because nothing says "I Don't Care" like bothering everyone with your inane and Palin-esque brainfarts.

What, this is new?

Does anyone remember, say, before Saddam Hussein was painted as Hitler 2: The Madman Returns, he was the US's good buddy during the Iraq-Iran war?

How about Musharraf, the military dictator under whose regime nuclear secrets were sold across the globe?

There were the Contras in Nicaragua, who were anything but angels but hey, they were anti-Communist, and so that was good enough for us, right?

Heck, the Cold War is full of this -- anti-Communist made you a "good guy" in the US, pretty much no matter how psychopathic/dictatorial you were otherwise. (Pinochet, anyone?)

The US has a long history of palling around with scumbags if we thought it served any particular specific purpose -- after all, they may be scumbags, but they were/are *our* scumbags, right?

Potato Boy's excuse for his ignorance is almost always "I Don't Care." Don't be surprised if that's his response to this.

News flash, Obama hasn't been sworn into office yet, it's one part of your favorite Axis of Complicity, Dear Leader Dubya!

Bush is an idiot.

Again you show how much you admire Bush to where you share his same deficiency geopolitical foresight by even hypothetically entertaining the notion of throwing an invasion force at Saudi Arabia.

Then again you do hate them darkies and would love it if they all did in fact unite behind Al'Qaeda.

And again, you're assuming that I'd still invade Saudi Arabia with a military as useless as the US's.

And please don't try to cop out of your ignorance by saying you don't care Potato Boy. Because nothing says "I Don't Care" like bothering everyone with your inane and Palin-esque brainfarts.

We're on a worthless rock, orbiting a ball of fire, with every pointless act of humanity stupidity bringing us closer to annihilation. The only thing I care about is how everything affect me until I get out of this stupid world.

I'd suspect Chavez has more to fear from Obama than Bush, he has less ability to bolster himself with his public through anti-Bush rhetoric. One might hope that many Venezuelan's can remember that there's alternatives.

I have absolutely no faith in the South American democratic process.

Bush is an idiot.

Yet you didn't raise one stink about him being buddy-buddy with the House of Saud when here today you bitch about Obama (who's not even sworn into office yet) trying to improve relations with Venezuela and come off with this "It's okay to be friends with dictators if they have oil" tripe.


And again, you're assuming that I'd still invade Saudi Arabia with a military as useless as the US's.

No, I'm assuming you're stupid enough to attempt an invasion of Saudi Arabia with any military. Lo and behold you are.

We're on a worthless rock, orbiting a ball of fire, with every pointless act of humanity stupidity bringing us closer to annihilation. The only thing I care about is how everything affect me until I get out of this stupid world.

Why stick around if it's so worthless to you?

And here's something to tide you over until you finally do:

http://www.medgadget.com/archives/img/pacifier.jpg

Get back on topic or I'll report you.

so very scary...might want to point out your own existential whinges should you find yourself over in moderation.

So you're saying that it's ok to have friendly relations with dictators and psychos if they give you oil?

Nice.

Psycho, maybe. Not Dictator (yet?) as he was elected by his people.

Heck, if we didn't accept friendly relations with people who are annoying or difficult, we'd never speak to the French ever again.

Psycho, maybe. Not Dictator (yet?) as he was elected by his people.

He just said he was going to attack his own people with tanks if they didn't vote for his party.

He just said he was going to attack his own people with tanks if they didn't vote for his party.

Words aren't deeds.

When has Obama ever indicated that the U.S. should be "friends" with Chavez? Rusty is just making crap up, as usual.

Summary of Obama's Latin America Policy (http://obama.3cdn.net/f579b3802a3d35c8d5_9aymvyqpo.pdf)[pdf]. This is what it says about Venezuela.
President Obama will stand with struggling democrats as they denounce elections that are not free or fair and fight those who seek to undermine the democratic process, so that flawed elections can no longer be used to legitimize rule in places like Venezuela, or Colombia, where the FARC has routinely kidnapped government officials.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has increased his anti-U.S. rhetoric and tried to counter American influence throughout Latin America. Some commentators fear that Chavez threatens oil markets and regional stability. Barack Obama believes the U.S. must restore its traditional leadership in the region – on democracy, trade and development, energy and immigration. This will tamp down the anti-Americanism that has sprung up in opposition to the Bush administration’s global policies and lack of engagement in Latin America.

Hey, take it up with your President, he's the one who wants to be friendly with Venezuela.

Bush wants to be friendly with Chavez? Since when?

He just said he was going to attack his own people with tanks if they didn't vote for his party.

In Carabobo, where a Chavez loyalist and former late-night talk show host risks losing the governorship, Chavez told party activists he might use the tanks to "defend the people."

"If you let the oligarchy return to government then maybe I'll end up sending the tanks of the armoured brigade out to defend the revolutionary government," he said late on Saturday.

That hardly sounds like a threat to "attack his own people with tanks if they didn't vote for his party" Potato Boy.

Words aren't deeds.

Ok, I give up. What Chavez is doing is fine. Is that what you wanted me to say?

In fact, this editorial (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/hayden) from left-leaning The Nation, strongly criticizes Obama's Latin America policy for being too harsh on Venezuela.

Ok, I give up. What Chavez is doing is fine. Is that what you wanted me to say?

No, I want you to be accurate. If you had said "Chavez's words go beyond the appropriate for a democratic leader" or "Chavez may be foreshadowing a coup" I would have agreed with you.

Stating outright that he's now a "Dictator" just makes you sound like Bush with his "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.

Ok, I give up. What Chavez is doing is fine. Is that what you wanted me to say?

Chavez is a product of the inequality in Venezuela between urban elite and rural poor.

I don't think he's any good, at the same time I'm not sure there's much better given the choice.

Lula seems much better in terms of an ideal leadership in South America because the fact is that until inequality is dealt with, there won't be much stability and progress.

Ok, I give up. What Chavez is doing is fine. Is that what you wanted me to say?

I want you to defend your statements about Obama's foreign policy, or admit that you just like playing Six Degrees of Separation with everything you dislike and Obama.

No, I want you to be accurate. If you had said "Chavez's words go beyond the appropriate for a democratic leader" or "Chavez may be foreshadowing a coup" I would have agreed with you.

Stating outright that he's now a "Dictator" just makes you sound like Bush with his "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.

So it's ok until he actually does overthrow the democratic govt.?

i want you to defend your statements about obama's foreign policy, or admit that you just like playing six degrees of separation with everything you dislike and obama.

what!? Obama is linked to kevin bacon!? Unbelievable!! Recall election now!!

:D

I want you to defend your statements about Obama's foreign policy, or admit that you just like playing Six Degrees of Separation with everything you dislike and Obama.

He said he want to talk to Venezuela. You people (apparently) dislike the Venezuelan regime. How are those things compatible?

He said he want to talk to Venezuela. You people (apparently) dislike the Venezuelan regime. How are those things compatible?

If I always avoided talking to people I dislike, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.

So it's ok until he actually does overthrow the democratic govt.?

Overthrow the same government he has been re-elected to time and time again?

Really now Potato Boy.

Well this is a retarded threadjack. Anyway, aye, saw this coming a mile away.

If I always avoided talking to people I dislike, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.

So it's ok to have friendly relations with unsavoury regimes until they actually do something blatant?

So it's ok to have friendly relations with unsavoury regimes until they actually do something blatant?
If there's something in it for you, aye.

So it's ok until he actually does overthrow the democratic govt.?

Pretty much, yeah. Ultimately, as the elected President, it's his job to get things done, and in EVERY governmental system, you need to occasionally use unusual or backdoor channels to do that.

Provided he doesn't out-and-out go against the constitution of Venezuela or cancel elections with Machine-Guns, he's still the true, elected President of Venezuela.

So it's ok to have friendly relations with unsavoury regimes until they actually do something blatant?

Like provide support to Iraq until it invaded Kuwait?

So it's ok until he actually does overthrow the democratic govt.?

um...yeah, actually, exactly. That's the whole point of diplomacy. We don't have to like the guy, we don't have to like his policies, we don't have to like his beliefs. But he is a legitimately elected world leader, chosen by his people.

And until he does something to counter that, he remains a democratically elected leader, chosen by his people. And regardless of how we feel personally about him, he is a world leader, and should be treated as such.

That's what diplomacy is all about.

Pretty much, yeah. Ultimately, as the elected President, it's his job to get things done, and in EVERY governmental system, you need to occasionally use unusual or backdoor channels to do that.

Provided he doesn't out-and-out go against the constitution of Venezuela or cancel elections with Machine-Guns, he's still the true, elected President of Venezuela.
And you would say that threatening to send the tanks in is a legitimate way of keeping power?

Like provide support to Iraq until it invaded Kuwait?

That was YOUR government.

And you would say that threatening to send the tanks in is a legitimate way of keeping power?

No. See my 2nd previous reply in this thread.

No. See my 2nd previous reply in this thread.
Ah ok.

That was YOUR government.

But you conveniently didn't bitch about it whereas it's "OMG Obama iz frenz with Chavez!!!!111". Hypocrisy much?

So it's ok to have friendly relations with unsavoury regimes until they actually do something blatant?

It's okay to talk to countries that aren't your allies. We're talking to North Korea, aren't we?

It's okay to talk to countries that aren't your allies. We're talking to North Korea, aren't we?

Though calling that "Friendly Relations" might be stretching it.

um...yeah, actually, exactly. That's the whole point of diplomacy. We don't have to like the guy, we don't have to like his policies, we don't have to like his beliefs. But he is a legitimately elected world leader, chosen by his people.

And until he does something to counter that, he remains a democratically elected leader, chosen by his people. And regardless of how we feel personally about him, he is a world leader, and should be treated as such.

That's what diplomacy is all about.

Well, that would explain your country's stance on Sudan.

Though calling that "Friendly Relations" might be stretching it.

And no one's saying we're going to have "friendly relations" with Chavez, except for Spud Boy here.

And no one's saying we're going to have "friendly relations" with Chavez, except for Spud Boy here.

True.

Well, that would explain your country's stance on Sudan.

You mean this (http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/fs/2008/103969.htm) and this (http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/fs/2008/103970.htm)? Do you actually know anything about U.S. foreign policy?

You mean this (http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/fs/2008/103969.htm) and this (http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/fs/2008/103970.htm)? Do you actually know anything about U.S. foreign policy?

Yeah, I'm sure all that aid is going exactly where it's intended to go.

Hmm Venezuela! I wonder, is the friendlier US Regime in Colombia more Democratic? Seriously guys, some regions just need stability before Democracy kicks in. If you want to be fair about it, compare Venezuela to Columbia - the crack capital of the World.

*Sips Andaras' Kool-Aid* Where is that guy?

Sweet! something for me to look forward to when I go back down there. :D

Yeah, I'm sure all that aid is going exactly where it's intended to go.

Why not fess up and admit you'd love to see the United States go belly up as much as Head Up the Ass Hugo and Osama Bin ladin does?

Why not fess up and admit you'd love to see the United States go belly up as much as Head Up the Ass Hugo and Osama Bin ladin does?

Huh? Ok, I'm a bit confused here.

Why not fess up and admit you'd love to see the United States go belly up as much as Head Up the Ass Hugo and Osama Bin ladin does?

I wouldn't be complaining if it did.

Huh? Ok, I'm a bit confused here.

Just pointing out Potato Boy's pathological obcession with Reading Between The Lines, Naysaying and Looking For The Flimsiest Pretense to scream about Obama's foreign policy failures.

And the man hasn't even been sworn into office yet.

Just pointing out Potato Boy's pathological obcession with Reading Between The Lines, Naysaying and Looking For The Flimsiest Pretense to scream about Obama's foreign policy failures.

And the man hasn't even been sworn into office yet.

Ahh ok. Thought you were comparing Hugo and bin Laden, thank goodness that wasn't the case. As for Ferrous Oxide - come on he can be entertaining occasionally. Plus it's like the Liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

Yeah, I'm sure all that aid is going exactly where it's intended to go.

You implied that the U.S. is friendly with Sudan because of its oil. That's completely untrue. Sudan's biggest international supporters have been Russia and China.

And if you're suggesting that relief aid is some sort of surreptitious subsidy for Khartoum, then cite sources.

You implied that the U.S. is friendly with Sudan because of its oil. That's completely untrue. Sudan's biggest international supporters have been Russia and China.

And if you're suggesting that relief aid is some sort of surreptitious subsidy for Khartoum, then cite sources.

How about Equatorial Guinea? Would that be ok for supporting a murderous dictators? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701368_pf.html

Ahh ok. Thought you were comparing Hugo and bin Laden, thank goodness that wasn't the case. As for Ferrous Oxide - come on he can be entertaining occasionally. Plus it's like the Liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

The only thing Head Up The Ass Hugo and Bin Ladin have in common is that they both despise the United States.

And Potato Boy is a political emo who neither bothers to do some basic primers on what he talks about or brings up, nor cares that he's often refuted.

The only thing Head Up The Ass Hugo and Bin Ladin have in common is that they both despise the United States.

And Potato Boy is a political emo who neither bothers to do some basic primers on what he talks about or brings up, nor cares that he's often refuted.

ROFL! I just imagined Bill O'Rielly as an emo. I am not going to extend this train of thought.... thank you for the explanation :D

How about Equatorial Guinea? Would that be ok for supporting a murderous dictators? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701368_pf.html

It's not as bad as Sudan, but sure. Saudi Arabia's not great either. De Tocqueville said that democracy is the worst form of government for foreign policy. It can get in the way of the ruthless cynicism needed to operate on an anarchic world stage. Fortunately for U.S. policymakers, Americans might hold candlelight vigils for Darfur, but they have poor attentions spans and aren't capable of caring about places like Equatorial Guinea. And like China and Russia, they can always rely on a healthy dose of nationalism.

Aww, c'mon guys. We should give communism another chance, I know the next time it'll work.

Aww, c'mon guys. We should give communism another chance, I know the next time it'll work.

Everyone knows Pure Communism is a complete failure outside of Hippy Communes.

Everyone knows Pure Communism is a complete failure outside of Hippy Communes.

Bah, communism can't fail. It can only be failed by those who try to implement it.

Everyone knows Pure Communism is a complete failure outside of Hippy Communes.

Even they sort of fell apart when they started to need food.

*cough* Kibbutzes *cough*

And you would say that threatening to send the tanks in is a legitimate way of keeping power?

Hmmmm....for leadership on the Left? sure. He's doing it to them for their own good, after all, in the Name of THE PEOPLE and, of course, "FOR THE CHILDREN".
It's "Change you can Believe in"-because it comes in 55 tonnes of armoured, tracked, 120mm gunned PROGRESS driven by the Revolutionary Vanguard People's Militia Army of Venezuela's Beloved Leader.

No doubt, if he doesn't back down and the opposition isn't cowed, Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers will host the benefit to raise money for Hugo's lobbyists in D.C.

Hmmmm....for leadership on the Left? sure. He's doing it to them for their own good, after all, in the Name of THE PEOPLE and, of course, "FOR THE CHILDREN".
It's "Change you can Believe in"-because it comes in 55 tonnes of armoured, tracked, 120mm gunned PROGRESS driven by the Revolutionary Vanguard People's Militia Army of Venezuela's Beloved Leader.

No doubt, if he doesn't back down and the opposition isn't cowed, Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers will host the benefit to raise money for Hugo's lobbyists in D.C.
:rolleyes:

It amazes me how much anger right-wingers are able to focus on wacky college professors.

Hmmmm....for leadership on the Left? sure.
Eh no.

:rolleyes:

It amazes me how much anger right-wingers are able to focus on wacky college professors.

Well...you know, the Left doesn't have a Rush Limbaugh, so we have to lower our sights on people with Tenure who can't be fired. :p

Rusty

I was wondering when that nickname would surface.

By the way: Can we keep him? Can we? Can we? :D

Hmmmm....for leadership on the Left? sure. He's doing it to them for their own good, after all, in the Name of THE PEOPLE and, of course, "FOR THE CHILDREN".
It's "Change you can Believe in"-because it comes in 55 tonnes of armoured, tracked, 120mm gunned PROGRESS driven by the Revolutionary Vanguard People's Militia Army of Venezuela's Beloved Leader.

No doubt, if he doesn't back down and the opposition isn't cowed, Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers will host the benefit to raise money for Hugo's lobbyists in D.C.

Was there a point to this piece of senseless, incoherent, utter tripe? Are we discussing Obama now? Did you hear a word from Obama in support of Hugo Chávez? Besides, go right the fuck on and suggest something. You want to start a war in SA? Remember that Venezuela borders my country, so that you sure as hell will not.

I have absolutely no faith in the South American democratic process.

I have quite a lot if it's not tampered with - see 1964. You see, South America isn't a hivemind of countries that "elect the wrong people, so we must force them to want our own". If we elect the wrong people, we either don't elect them again or we throw them out. We don't need the help, neither of America, nor of the former prison colony down under.

He said he want to talk to Venezuela. You people (apparently) dislike the Venezuelan regime. How are those things compatible?

For the same reason we're here talking to you: Trying to talk some sense into the thick skull of the other party. Besides, what do you suggest? A war? In a country that borders mine? You won't.

He's in fine fettle today isn't he? So Rust, what would you say about Reagan's paling around with brutal right-wing dictators, so long as they were anti-communist? What would you say about Reagan and the Contras? Is being buddies with dictators fine as long as your on the Right, is that it?

He's in fine fettle today isn't he? So Rust, what would you say about Reagan's paling around with brutal right-wing dictators, so long as they were anti-communist? What would you say about Reagan and the Contras? Is being buddies with dictators fine as long as your on the Right, is that it?

The Iron Potato will cop out with "I Don't Care".

The Iron Potato will cop out with "I Don't Care".

How many nicknames does he have now? Yes, your probably right though.

He said he want to talk to Venezuela. You people (apparently) dislike the Venezuelan regime. How are those things compatible?

So if you talk with another regime you must therefore like it. What a grasp of politics you have.

Will you all kindly stop feeding the troll? Yeesh.

Not even Cuba wastes money on tanks to keep its people in line. It's like Chavez is using plays from Brezhnev's 1968 playbook.

Will you all kindly stop feeding the troll? Yeesh.

Yeah, in both ways. Stop feeding Rusty and lets stop paying attention to Hugo.

Not even Cuba wastes money on tanks to keep its people in line. It's like Chavez is using plays from Brezhnev's 1968 playbook.

Tanks are idiotic anti-rebellion stuff anyway.

Tanks are idiotic anti-rebellion stuff anyway.

Unless you're Czechoslovakia...but then again, they still managed to ultimately bring down the Soviet system through their defiance. The Prague Spring really was the death knell of any remaining intellectual support for communism; it lost all of its moral legitimacy compared to capitalism and was basically rendered another dying totalitarian ideology after that point.

If that hasn't happened to the "Bolivarian Revolution" already, it sure as hell has now.

Tanks are idiotic anti-rebellion stuff anyway.

Tiananmen square begs to differ.

Tiananmen square begs to differ.

Lots of ways to disable tanks, they're sitting ducks in urban situations. Not to mention I sincerely doubt his tank brigade is particularly loyal to his cause.

Lots of ways to disable tanks, they're sitting ducks in urban situations. Not to mention I sincerely doubt his tank brigade is particularly loyal to his cause.

Yeah, I think Chavez might end up getting deposed if he tries to assume total dictatorial control over the country.

Yeah, I think Chavez might end up getting deposed if he tries to assume total dictatorial control over the country.

War Nerd presumes that's the reason behind his purchase of large amounts of aircraft a while back. Chavez is trying to build up a force loyal to himself in opposition to the regular military. Then it's just phase out the older officers for loyalists, for that he needs to get rid of term limits though.

it lost all of its moral legitimacy compared to capitalism

You do, of course, realize that capitalism set up and propped up equally devastating, horrible and murderous dictatorships, all for the sake of an argument that could have been solved with measuring tape in a bathroom stall?

You do, of course, realize that capitalism set up and propped up equally devastating, horrible and murderous dictatorships, all for the sake of an argument that could have been solved with measuring tape in a bathroom stall?

Yes. We realise this.

But this thread isnt about the coups. Can we have one South American thread that isnt threadjacked into a thread about the Coups and Pinochet?

*cough* Kibbutzes *cough*

The Kibbutz movement is a dying movement in Israel. It is only being kept alive by people giving them money. The movement once dominated Israel, but is now made up of about 1% of the population.

Yes. We realise this.

But this thread isnt about the coups. Can we have one South American thread that isnt threadjacked into a thread about the Coups and Pinochet?

Considering the last time there WAS an intervention here, I have plenty of reasons not to want to see another one. And I'm pointing out that going "see? Capitalism is morally better" is idiotic. Both are amoral systems, neither good nor bad.

It's like Chavez is using plays from Brezhnev's 1968 playbook.
I'll respond with something out of a certain Coach Ditka's 1985 playbook.

Considering the last time there WAS an intervention here, I have plenty of reasons not to want to see another one. And I'm pointing out that going "see? Capitalism is morally better" is idiotic. Both are amoral systems, neither good nor bad.

However, one system (Capitalism) starves and kills far less of its own people when all is said and done.

*cough* Kibbutzes *cough*
Those were actually kept alive by the Israeli government after a few years. They were useful while they were actually at war, with everyone there working to survive and fully committed, as soon as that pressure was gone things started to grind to a halt. Many of the kids left as soon as they could.

However, one system (Capitalism) starves and kills far less of its own people when all is said and done.

You see, a blend, like the one that happens in Scandinavia, is quite less harmful.

I'll respond with something out of a certain Coach Ditka's 1985 playbook.

Ditka 225 Venezuela 3

However, one system (Capitalism) starves and kills far less of its own people when all is said and done.

Capitalism just starves and kills other people usually. Especially those with no money after they all went broke from being unable to compete against dumping practices of foodstuff and forced to sell farmland for urban development, leading to them being left to starve to death.

How many nicknames does he have now? Yes, your probably right though.

I go with rusty potato. If you guys stop quoting the troll, I wouldn't have to see its droppings.

You do, of course, realize that capitalism set up and propped up equally devastating, horrible and murderous dictatorships, all for the sake of an argument that could have been solved with measuring tape in a bathroom stall?

Of course. That being said, capitalism's strongest argument is that it works, not that it's moral; anyone who argues economics on the basis of ethics is making a grave mistake, because economics is ultimately an amoral matter of resource allocation...the ethics lie elsewhere, mainly in how it's regulated and how it is managed.

The morality lies in the realm of representative democracy and civil rights, both of which are possible in a capitalist state but not any socialist one that has ever existed.

War Nerd presumes that's the reason behind his purchase of large amounts of aircraft a while back. Chavez is trying to build up a force loyal to himself in opposition to the regular military. Then it's just phase out the older officers for loyalists, for that he needs to get rid of term limits though.

Or purge them, which is the most likely step. Of course, that means there would be a lot of ex-military out there potentially willing to cause trouble, but with continued restrictions on the press it won't be hard to kill them outright and prevent them from causing problems.

I think in the end he'll pull an Amin and do something stupid like invade a neighbor, ending up with US-backed forces in Caracas in a few months at most.

Was there a point to this piece of senseless, incoherent, utter tripe? Are we discussing Obama now? Did you hear a word from Obama in support of Hugo Chávez? Besides, go right the fuck on and suggest something. You want to start a war in SA? Remember that Venezuela borders my country, so that you sure as hell will not.


Heikoku 2, nothing I do or say up here has any relevance to what's going on in Venezuela or countries that have the misfortune to share their border, beyond an occasional dig at what's happening there. Kind of like the U.N. "Viewing with Alarm", but without the self-important illusion that my opinions matter for shit.

Fact is, if he's REALLY doing this, then It's Y'alls who've got the problem, and a serious one-if the guy's using these kind of tactics on his own folks, what's he going to do to anyone he happens to think is not on his side, and weak enough to go after?

i.e. if the report is factual, and not mistranslated bullshit, what's he going to do to, say...you?


Now, I reckon the whole report could be a compilation of bullshit just about equally with it being real, however, I can look over history up here, in "El Norte" and see that tactics that folks view with shock and revulsion are perfectly acceptable if the guy using them happens to lean hard-left with a "Kill the Yankees" attitude. Especially if he uses the words:

Imperialism
Imperialists
Capitalists
Corrupt West

Or any combination of the above, or synonyms of the above as justification for his actions. It's all about the double-standard, and it's been that way since "Fair Play for Cuba" was a Russian front in the early sixties.

Those were actually kept alive by the Israeli government after a few years. They were useful while they were actually at war, with everyone there working to survive and fully committed, as soon as that pressure was gone things started to grind to a halt. Many of the kids left as soon as they could.

Yeah - but if the kids were motivated to stay... I mean even if they worked for a short period of time, one has to admit that they worked.

Yeah - but if the kids were motivated to stay... I mean even if they worked for a short period of time, one has to admit that they worked.

ANY system can work-for a short period of time. Getting "From each according to his ability, to each according to her need" only works for a VERY limited time, and usually requires some external force to either join the workers together, or keep them from leaving/quitting/slagging off.

In the small scale, this can be bonds of loyalty or common interest/faith (The Shakers are a good example, as are Kibbutzim), but these are heavily life-limited systems. It is in the nature of humans to want MORE for themselves and their offspring. How they go about getting it varies, but you also have to remember we're an apex-predator species, there is GOING to be a pack order no matter how much we believe in or desire an egalitarian or equalitarian system. There are going to be those who have power, and those who have none, only the methods of determining that really change.

Yeah - but if the kids were motivated to stay... I mean even if they worked for a short period of time, one has to admit that they worked.
How could you motivate the kids to stay? The reason they left wasn't a lack of nice houses or other amenities, but the oppressiveness of having to live in a society in which everything belongs to everyone. In the Kibbutzim, kids weren't raised by their parents, but together with all the other kids in some common system. They didn't have any private time or private possessions. That extreme state was loosened a bit later on, but the basic idea was still very similar. It turns out people can't deal with that, because they need their individuality.

I have heard of vastly better theoretical ideas for how to built a left-libertarian society, and there have even been better attempts at practical applications (eg anarchists in Spain and Ukraine, maybe even the Paris Commune). The latter were in the same position of outside threats forcing everyone to work together to survive though, so it's hard to tell how they might have survived into the future.

Point being, the Kibbutzim sucked.

Now, I reckon the whole report could be a compilation of bullshit just about equally with it being real, however, I can look over history up here, in "El Norte" and see that tactics that folks view with shock and revulsion are perfectly acceptable if the guy using them happens to lean hard-left with a "Kill the Yankees" attitude. Especially if he uses the words:

1- You didn't tell me what that has got to do with Obama.

2- The US seemed perfectly comfortable with propped-up hard-right dictatorships that killed, maimed, raped and destroyed here. Furthermore, considering that Henry Kissinger has yet to be jailed for war crimes (and yes, propping up dictatorships is one), and that there are STILL morons in the US who think the dictatorships were somehow acceptable, necessary or justified, do you really wonder why is it that his rhetoric gets traction? Especially after an US-supported coup attempt against him as close back as 2002, and with the whole dickwaving?

3- If it's our problem, good: We are agreed that the US needs to STAY THE HELL OUT. We'll trade with you, we'll buy your stuff and we'll welcome your tourism; we find you people very kind and we will strive to maintain good relations; but if the US meddles in our internal affairs it'll just be like 1964. Because that's what the US does when it meddles in internal affairs of others. It sets up dictatorships or destroys countries to its liking. And that I will not have.

Can someone please stay on topic so I can participate in the thread related to the problems in MY country?

I mean, you have brought to this Obama, US foreign policy, Pinochet, Chile, Brasil, now the Kibbutz policy and Israel.

Let's make a context check to see if we can start this thread from da capo again.

1.- Chávez candidate, Luís Acosta Carlez, won as Carabobo's governor in 2004 through electoral vote. However, his advantage was pretty slim over the opposition's candidate. I must mention the main merit of Acosta Carlez. Back in 2002, during the turmoil of the general strike, he was an Army General that made a forced entry in a soda warehouse. He claimed that the soda company, (can't remember if it was Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola), was storing the products against the law. He claimed that soda was a "necessity product". In front of all the cameras from the media, he claimed to have liberated the soda shipments for the people, procceded to open a bottle of cola, drank more than half of it in one gulp and then eructed soundly. That made him a hero of the people and one of the three Chávez's champions after April 13th 2002, earning him all the goverment support for the Carabobo's State. How..."colorful".


2.- However, as you can expect with a guy with those merits, his rule was plagued with ineptitude and corruption. He even spent a large amount of taxpayer's money into a media campaign that advocated that women should stop to dress provocatively to avoid being raped (The guy is THAT much of a clown, really, we all know that rape is always women's fault for being such sluts). So much that even Chávez refused to support him for the reelection. So, our little eruct guy was wild and launches his campaign for the reelection nevertheless, without Chávez support.

3.- The opposition, however, fail again to capitalize on the situation and launches the same guy as before, Enrique Salas Feo, former and failed governor of the state, that already lost once the Acosta Carlez buffon, and linked to the traditional white elite of the country. Yet, he has a steady amount of followers, so he maybe could have a chance.

4.- Chávez spends time trying to elect a candidate for the state, as it holds Valencia, third city of Venezuela in size, and first industrial stronghold of the nation. The lands of Carabobo also have an agriculture powerhouse, and remains one of the richest and most influential states of the entire country. Several options are available, but the loyalty of most to the process is in doubt. So he goes with Mario Silva, a known media figurehead. Let's talk a bit about Mario Silva. He has a TV show in the main state Channel, Venezolana de Televisión, called "La Hojilla", (The Razor). The main aim of the show is to mock and insult figureheads of any groups opposed to Chávez. I had the "privilege" to "star" once in the show, where he aired a picture of me in front of a student protest and said that "This girl smells like an oligarch, she works for a newspaper. However, you people know that these girls smell differently every saturday's morning after their noisy night in a backwater motel". Again, colorful. It seems like Carabobo is the mainland of colorful candidates and governors.

5.- The problem with Mario Silva is that he won the "primaries" held in the state by a really short margin, as he represents the hardest wing of "Chavism", and the moderate side of the Socialist party PSUV do not support his views of "total war against the opposers" usually expressed in his show. Many from both sides of the political fence argue that he won mainly because Chávez raised his hand, as happens with most candidates. Others chavistas criticize that he is just a TV figure, and won't be able to manage such an industrial state properly. So, the support to Silva is scarce at best, even alongside the lines of Chávez.

6.- Thus, take that lack of support. Sum that the opposition candidate could get the same amount of votes than in the last elections of 2004, as he is the same guy. Sum to that that even with his flaws, Acosta Carlez is going to attract a part of the electorate devoted to Chávez, as he was a former workhorse of the regime. We can conclude that the chance of Silva to win are dim at best. So, measures must be taken. Chávez go to Valencia several weeks ago, raises Silva's hand again, and claims that he won't give any resources to the Carabobo State if Silva isn't elected. As that tactic didn't seem to work and the candidate is not advancing further in the polls, he goes full in force and announces the tank tactic if his cronies do not get elected. Classic, again, colorful.

Conclusion, it's not anything new. Let's see what happens November 23th. Even I find Chávez tolerable at best, the problem are his cronies, guys like Silva and Acosta Carlez. I hope to have shed some light in the issue, and give you a bit of inner insight into Venezuela's realpolitiks.

Can someone please stay on topic so I can participate in the thread related to the problems in MY country?

I mean, you have brought to this Obama, US foreign policy, Pinochet, Chile, Brasil, now the Kibbutz policy and Israel.


Don't you just love NSG :tongue:

Don't you just love NSG :tongue:Said Senator Stevens:
NO!

Snip.

And is this threat working? Moreover, think Chávez will actually come through with this threat?

Also, do you live in Carabobo?

Also, do you live in Carabobo?
Caracas, if memory serves.

And is this threat working? Moreover, think Chaves will actually come through with this threat?

Also, do you live in Carabobo?

Is the threat working? No idea. Depends on the typical undecided pool of people. The people voting for Chávez will largely remain electing his candidates due to the bandwagon effect of "anything he wants is ok". The people opposing Chávez will vote against his candidates because "anything he wants is wrong". I think that the first treat, the one of not giving resources to the governor if Silva doesn't win, would be more effective than the tank bluff, that he is perhaps not going to implement anyway. He said that the people and army should take the streets if his project of constitutional reform failed. It failed, and neither the people or the army took the streets. He called for calm the next day. However, the president is always unpredictable, (one of his main political merits/flaws) so there is no way to know if he is going to do it or not.

No, I don't live in Carabobo. It's a 2 hour trip from Caracas, and I have family there, so I'm partially involved, if not directly involved.

Is the threat working? No idea. Depends on the typical undecided pool of people. The people voting for Chávez will largely remain electing his candidates due to the bandwagon effect of "anything he wants is ok". The people opposing Chávez will vote against his candidates because "anything he wants is wrong". I think that the first treat, the one of not giving resources to the governor if Silva doesn't win, would be more effective than the tank bluff, that he is perhaps not going to implement anyway. He said that the people and army should take the streets if his project of constitutional reform failed. It failed, and neither the people or the army took the streets. He called for calm the next day. However, the president is always unpredictable, (one of his main political merits/flaws) so there is no way to know if he is going to do it or not.

No, I don't live in Carabobo. It's a 2 hour trip from Caracas, and I have family there, so I'm partially involved, if not directly involved.

I wish you well, and hope the Venezuelan people (and no one else) deal with this.

I wish you well, and hope the Venezuelan people (and no one else) deal with this.

I hope the same. I heartily oppose any kind of foreign intervention here. Should something as an US intervention occur, count me at the head of a protest against the illegal invasion.

I hope the same. I heartily oppose any kind of foreign intervention here. Should something as an US intervention occur, count me at the head of a protest against the illegal invasion.

It would be bad for Brazil too, as it would feed the psychotic delusion that the US has the right to some moronic people that should die slow and painful deaths.

Blame the Monroe Doctrine. I really hate those postulates. It has been more than a century. Grow and let it rest.

Blame the Monroe Doctrine. I really hate those postulates. It has been more than a century. Grow and let it rest.

I was wondering Aelosia...

Now that Obama is President, what's Chavez going to use in place of his usual screeching about the US invading Venezuela?

Blame the Monroe Doctrine. I really hate those postulates. It has been more than a century. Grow and let it rest.It's really more the Roosevelt Corollary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine#Roosevelt_corollary)'s fault, though...
The Monroe Doctrine only really says "Hey, Eurofreaks! Hands off our continents!"

I was wondering Aelosia...

Now that Obama is President, what's Chavez going to use in place of his usual screeching about the US invading Venezuela?

Given Bush's penchant for invading countries "because they are there" and Bush's attempt at removing him, Chávez's reaction wasn't improper, really.

One also wonders if, should Chávez be granted an audience, and, y'know, get to act like an adult and TALK to Obama, this whole debacle wouldn't get that much better.

I was wondering Aelosia...

Now that Obama is President, what's Chavez going to use in place of his usual screeching about the US invading Venezuela?

No idea. Depends on Obama's stance, I guess. I just can wonder that certain postulates, as racism, are going down. However, the supreme commander of Venezuelan Armed Forces said last week that no matter who the president of the Empire is, even if he is a negro, the army and the militias will remain in constant full alert against an invasion, as any administration of the US has plans to seize the venezuelan oil reserves. So go and figure. As I said before, you may wonder, but any prediction about the venezuelan goverment's actions is blurry at best. They're pretty unstable and improvisers to be really that predictable.

Given Bush's penchant for invading countries "because they are there" and Bush's attempt at removing him, Chávez's reaction wasn't improper, really.

One also wonders if, should Chávez be granted an audience, and, y'know, get to act like an adult and TALK to Obama, this whole debacle wouldn't get that much better.

I think Chavez plays that invasion line just to keep people distracted from local problems. We weren't anywhere near invading Venezuela.

I doubt if any "talk" is really necessary - what major contentious issue is there between the US and Venezuela?

I think Chavez plays that invasion line just to keep people distracted from local problems. We weren't anywhere near invading Venezuela.

I doubt if any "talk" is really necessary - what major contentious issue is there between the US and Venezuela?

1- Plenty of dickwaving from a psychopath who showed willingness to invade Iraq.

2- For starters, how to deal with the fact that Venezuela has oil that the US consumes.

I think Chavez plays that invasion line just to keep people distracted from local problems. We weren't anywhere near invading Venezuela.

I doubt if any "talk" is really necessary - what major contentious issue is there between the US and Venezuela?

Diplomatic relations are strained. We still have important business deals. Do you know how many cars GM and Ford sells here monthly? More than in many US states. And that's just an example. Citgo comes to mind. Have you been in a Citgo oil station?

Altohugh I do not play along the officcial policy of "be afraid of the gringos", because I also label it as a distraction tecnique, you can't deny that there was (and perhaps is) a certain plan of meddling into our affairs from Washington.

Altohugh I do not play along the officcial policy of "be afraid of the gringos", because I also label it as a distraction tecnique, you can't deny that there was (and perhaps is) a certain plan of meddling into our affairs from Washington.

Same here. And given the rapes committed by the US against South America in the '60s and '70s, it's not acceptable.

Diplomatic relations are strained. We still have important business deals. Do you know how many cars GM and Ford sells here monthly? More than in many US states. And that's just an example. Citgo comes to mind. Have you been in a Citgo oil station?

Altohugh I do not play along the officcial policy of "be afraid of the gringos", because I also label it as a distraction tecnique, you can't deny that there was (and perhaps is) a certain plan of meddling into our affairs from Washington.

In a little bit, there won't be a Ford or GM. So that's solved.

Most of the Citgo stations in our area closed, and 7-11, which used to sell Citgo gasoline, no longer does so.

My point is that Obama is unlikely to "meddle". So once that's gone, what's Chavez going to shout about?

In a little bit, there won't be a Ford or GM. So that's solved.

Well played...

Well played...

I see no reason to support idiots.

The executives at Ford, GM, and Chrysler have known for years that they were in trouble, making huge SUVs and crap vehicles for decades.

The labor unions in those companies got truly greedy, and have wages that by comparison to workers in other auto companies (well, except Ferrari and Porsche) are exorbitant, and would crush any sensible business model.

We don't have the money to bail out every idiot in the country.

In a little bit, there won't be a Ford or GM. So that's solved.

Going on the numbers on here, and other countries I know. I wouldn't predict that with so much certainty. I am not a fan of their cars, but if that happens I guess it's up to Mitsubishi and Renault to get a huuuge market.

My point is that Obama is unlikely to "meddle". So once that's gone, what's Chavez going to shout about?

So far, I can't say Obama is not going to meddle. It's unlikely, as you just said. Perhaps he will, and all our theories and scenarios will go down the toilet, because everything will remain the same. In the case he doesn't meddle, well, let's rephrase what I just said. My crystal ball is broken, and you seem to have a working one. Borrow it to me for a bit and I'll give you a certain and foolproof answer.

Borrow it to me for a bit and I'll give you a certain and foolproof answer.

"Lend" it, sweetie. ;)

You lend to, you borrow from. The verb is one and the same in Portuguese, and I'm pretty sure it's so in Spanish as well, so it's an understandable mistake...

Going on the numbers on here, and other countries I know. I wouldn't predict that with so much certainty. I am not a fan of their cars, but if that happens I guess it's up to Mitsubishi and Renault to get a huuuge market.



So far, I can't say Obama is not going to meddle. It's unlikely, as you just said. Perhaps he will, and all our theories and scenarios will go down the toilet, because everything will remain the same. In the case he doesn't meddle, well, let's rephrase what I just said. My crystal ball is broken, and you seem to have a working one. Borrow it to me for a bit and I'll give you a certain and foolproof answer.

A lot of people here voted for him, believing that he won't meddle. You know, "hope and change".

Ford and GM are going out of business.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4A83DT20081109



I'm not sure if this is just an issue with translation or what, but he seems to be saying "Vote for my party member or else" and directly threatening military intervention if they fail to vote the right way. Kind of pushes against the democracy title.

Considering Chávez's trajectory as president of Venezuela, I think it is as you suspect. He is saying "vote for my party or else there'll be hell to pay". I hope this doesn't escalate too much. But I know several people from Venezuela who are already fed up with Hugo. There will be problems.

Someone ought to lynch that bastard. And for chrissakes, US, don't get involved.

"Lend" it, sweetie. ;)

You lend to, you borrow from. The verb is one and the same in Portuguese, and I'm pretty sure it's so in Spanish as well, so it's an understandable mistake...

Sorry and thanks. "Lend & Lease". I should know better.

A lot of people here voted for him, believing that he won't meddle. You know, "hope and change".

Well, but I wouldn't take that for granted. He spoke harshly against Chávez once. Then again, he could meddle or not. I hope he doesn't of course.

Considering Chávez's trajectory as president of Venezuela, I think it is as you suspect. He is saying "vote for my party or else there'll be hell to pay". I hope this doesn't escalate too much. But I know several people from Venezuela who are already fed up with Hugo. There will be problems.

Someone ought to lynch that bastard. And for chrissakes, US, don't get involved.

He has threatened it before, and didn't have the guts to back it. Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have the guts now. What do you mean by "fed up with Hugo"?

He has threatened it before, and didn't have the guts to back it. Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have the guts now. What do you mean by "fed up with Hugo"?

Varios de tus compatriotas y que conozco, viviendo acá en España, han expresado su creciente enfado con las últimas acciones de Hugo Chávez en Venezuela. Eso fue lo que traté de decir.

Claro está, viviendo tan lejos no creo que deban opinar mucho, pero ese es el sentimiento general de varios venezolanos aquí en España.

Ah, entiendo. Bueno, pasa mucho.

I'm fed up with this too. To the point of breaking. Actually, I'm going to Spain next year. April. I was accepted in a postgrade in the Universidad Pontificia of Salamanca. Así que ya te hablaré mal de Chávez desde allá, tía.

Ah, entiendo. Bueno, pasa mucho.

I'm fed up with this too. To the point of breaking. Actually, I'm going to Spain next year. April. I was accepted in a postgrade in the Universidad Pontificia of Salamanca. Así que ya te hablaré mal de Chávez desde allá, tía.

Tía, vas a ser Salmantina? Qué bien! Bueno, pues ya nos veremos por acá y de chupito en chupito, nos cargamos a Chávez conversacionalmente.:wink:

1- You didn't tell me what that has got to do with Obama.
Remind me-what's this got to do with Obama??


2- The US seemed perfectly comfortable with propped-up hard-right dictatorships that killed, maimed, raped and destroyed here. Furthermore, considering that Henry Kissinger has yet to be jailed for war crimes (and yes, propping up dictatorships is one), and that there are STILL morons in the US who think the dictatorships were somehow acceptable, necessary or justified, do you really wonder why is it that his rhetoric gets traction? Especially after an US-supported coup attempt against him as close back as 2002, and with the whole dickwaving?

Sorry, facts not in evidence there-check history again, if the U.S. sponsors a coup, it generally works. We are very good indeed at destabilizing governments and sowing, if not change we desire, then chaos. The only exception that's come readily to mind being Cuba-and Castro had Soviet support including 75,000 Soviet regulars back in '63, plus KGB support. Neither of which were, as they say, "Readily available and in evidence" in Venezuela in '02. Bush was focused entirely on the Middle East. There was almost a complete Lack of Official commentary about Hugo's kooky klaim that the U.S. was trying to kill him. It wasn't even worth a press-conference 'denial' by a lower-level state department flunkie.


3- If it's our problem, good: We are agreed that the US needs to STAY THE HELL OUT. We'll trade with you, we'll buy your stuff and we'll welcome your tourism; we find you people very kind and we will strive to maintain good relations; but if the US meddles in our internal affairs it'll just be like 1964. Because that's what the US does when it meddles in internal affairs of others. It sets up dictatorships or destroys countries to its liking. And that I will not have.

Why stop at 1964? Read "War is a Racket" By retired USMC General Smedley Butler, in which he details U.S. intervention, invasion, overthrow and Coup techniques going well into the eighteen nineties.

But you gotta realize something else-if the U.S. is going to send in an invasion, first it has to prep the population-this usually is done by running lots of stories about the target country, showing or talking about grim deeds and goings-on that offend U.S. civil sensibilities. The target leader's name is repeated many times during these news items. Hence, everyone in the U.S. in 2002 was prepped to oppose "The Taliban", or "Saddam", or "Usama Bin Laden".

Outside of some political junkies, most of the time you'll get a "Hugo Who?, OH, the guy who organized the fruit-pickers in California, right? Back in the SEventies?" and/or a blank look, followed by a change of subject, usually to bitching about the price of gas or the difficulties involved in getting a decent mortgage.

Remind me-what's this got to do with Obama??

Hell if I know. You're the one that brought up "change we can believe in", "Ayers" and so on.

Hell if I know. You're the one that brought up "change we can believe in", "Ayers" and so on.

I believe that "change" means "not like Bush".

So, if I take that correctly, Obama isn't going to be up Venezuela's ass.

Sorry, facts not in evidence there-check history again, if the U.S. sponsors a coup, it generally works. We are very good indeed at destabilizing governments and sowing, if not change we desire, then chaos. The only exception that's come readily to mind being Cuba-and Castro had Soviet support including 75,000 Soviet regulars back in '63, plus KGB support. Neither of which were, as they say, "Readily available and in evidence" in Venezuela in '02. Bush was focused entirely on the Middle East. There was almost a complete Lack of Official commentary about Hugo's kooky klaim that the U.S. was trying to kill him. It wasn't even worth a press-conference 'denial' by a lower-level state department flunkie.

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela)
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez

Hell if I know. You're the one that brought up "change we can believe in", "Ayers" and so on.

That was just digging a little bit at (U.S. of)American tendency to use soundbite politics and empty, meaningless, but possibly orwellian phrasing and glittering generalities. I couldn't very well use "Nation Building" or "Thousand points of light"-the phrasing would have been entirely too hard to work in to the subject. Also, it helped that Hugo endorsed Obama back in August, which put a bunch of people further-to-the-right-than-me into a tizzy. (Others view with alarm, I view with amusement. We NEED a good circus...)

There is a darker shade, of course-if Hugo IS sending the tanks in the event his buddy doesn't get the office, then what? What kind of apologies and justifications are likely to be used by Yanquis of the Left-leaning variety to cover for him? They do, they will, it's a matter of what and when, not if.

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela)
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez

You trust the Guardian? that's like trusting Rush Limbaugh to deliver "Facts".

You trust the Guardian? that's like trusting Rush Limbaugh to deliver "Facts".

The newspaper has an overt bias, but it has not, to my knowledge, ever disseminated misleading information. Rather than simply attempting to discredit the source by slur and innuendo, perhaps you could actually show how the Guardian is wrong?

Okay, let's look at the Guardian article again...

...The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich...

"Sources". Not "Documentary Evidence", but the guy who headed the coup-attempt, and is likely looking for an easy way out, and "Sources".

"Sources" have said that Chavez is planning to run tanks through neighbourhoods that vote against him, that he's used violence to keep opposition party supporters from the polls, and that he's in-neck-deep with Sendero Luminoso and FARC.

(the difference there, being Chavez' own statements of support for those groups, and his threats of war after a couple of successful Columbian ops netted intelligence and rescued some hostages.)

"Sources" are unreliable if they're un-named, unless they can provide authentic documents.

Okay, let's look at the Guardian article again...

"Sources". Not "Documentary Evidence", but the guy who headed the coup-attempt, and is likely looking for an easy way out, and "Sources".

"Sources" have said that Chavez is planning to run tanks through neighbourhoods that vote against him, that he's used violence to keep opposition party supporters from the polls, and that he's in-neck-deep with Sendero Luminoso and FARC.

(the difference there, being Chavez' own statements of support for those groups, and his threats of war after a couple of successful Columbian ops netted intelligence and rescued some hostages.)

"Sources" are unreliable if they're un-named, unless they can provide authentic documents.

It is common knowledge that Carmona and his associates met with White House officials in the weeks leading up to the coup.

Mr. Carmona, who heads Venezuela's largest business association, was one of numerous critics of Mr. Chavez to call on administration officials in recent weeks. Officials from the White House, State Department and Pentagon, among others, were hosts to a stream of Chávez opponents, some of them seeking help in removing him from office.

Link to the New York Times article. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D81F3CF934A25757C0A9649C8B63)

It is common knowledge that Carmona and his associates met with White House officials in the weeks leading up to the coup.



Link to the New York Times article. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D81F3CF934A25757C0A9649C8B63)

Then it would appear I was mistaken. My apologies to all.

You trust the Guardian? that's like trusting Rush Limbaugh to deliver "Facts".

Epic phail. They spell things wrong, and aren't brilliant, but they're really not that bad.

Lots of ways to disable tanks, they're sitting ducks in urban situations. Not to mention I sincerely doubt his tank brigade is particularly loyal to his cause.

You'd be surprised, Chavez, as a former coup-ist and military man is widely viewed as a popular figure amongst the Venezuelan military and the nationalist right. From what I've read, they view him as a revanchist of the nationalist right, whether they're deluded or not has yet to be seen.

Knowing the nationalist right, though, delusion is not out of the question.

Ford and GM are going out of business.

Not that you'd know it from their overseas sales, much of which is tied to their overseas manufacturing. Dollars to donuts the average Venezuelan won't notice when the Big Three go belly-up, as the infrastructure & nameplate will be sold and licensed to the highest bidder. You can still buy a Rolls-Royce and a Bentley, after all.

You trust the Guardian? that's like trusting Rush Limbaugh to deliver "Facts".
The Guardian is excellent and actually pretty non-partisan, it's just for an MC audience.

I was wondering when that nickname would surface.


Don't rob a poor old Hobo of the credit:

No shit Sherlock.

He's exactly like every other hard-drinking mustache-wearing guy named Rusty that I've ever met.

I bet he cuts down trees for a living and regularly wins the pool contest at his local pub, too.

You'd be surprised, Chavez, as a former coup-ist and military man is widely viewed as a popular figure amongst the Venezuelan military and the nationalist right. From what I've read, they view him as a revanchist of the nationalist right, whether they're deluded or not has yet to be seen.

Knowing the nationalist right, though, delusion is not out of the question.

This is true. I have met several people that define themselves as "Venezuelan National Socialists", or as "right wing", (derechistas), that support Chávez because they see him as the "Strong man this country needs". If you casually argue that they sohuld listen to him, that he is a leftist, that he is actually supporting socialism and leftist measures, they will just answer. "Bah, that's just a demagogue discourse aimed to deceit those dirty blue collar people from the cerros. He's the man, trust me. The military can't be wrong".

Argue with them generates a headache surprisingly fast. Even faster than with the people of NSG.

Don't rob a poor old Hobo of the credit:

*In childlike voice* Sorry, Mr. Hobo!

This is true. I have met several people that define themselves as "Venezuelan National Socialists", or as "right wing", (derechistas), that support Chávez because they see him as the "Strong man this country needs". If you casually argue that they sohuld listen to him, that he is a leftist, that he is actually supporting socialism and leftist measures, they will just answer. "Bah, that's just a demagogue discourse aimed to deceit those dirty blue collar people from the cerros. He's the man, trust me. The military can't be wrong".

Argue with them generates a headache surprisingly fast. Even faster than with the people of NSG.

Tienes que concordar que, quando vemos una persona que habla de "enganar a las personas de los cerros", el resultado és un tipo de lucha entre derecha y izquierda que cría las condiciones para un Chávez - o para un derechista como él...

(Espero que mi castellano estea al menos entiendible... Si está muy malo, lo paso al inglés.)

Tienes que concordar que, cuando vemos una persona que habla de "engañar a las personas de los cerros", el resultado es un tipo de lucha entre derecha e izquierda que crea las condiciones para un Chávez - o para un derechista como él...

(Espero que mi castellano estea al menos entiendible... Si está muy malo, lo paso al inglés.)

Puede que la gente de los cerros, y ésto no lo digo en tono despectivo ni mucho menos, sean un poco ignorantes en cuanto a éste tipo de conflicto. Ahora bien, en un país que está al borde de serios problemas civiles y económicos (no uso a Venezuela de ejemplo porque la verdad es que no conozco mucho del quehacer político de este país), es ambiente propicio para crear figuras cómo Hugo Chávez.

Tu castellano está maravilloso, Heiko-kun.

Puede que la gente de los cerros, y ésto no lo digo en tono despectivo ni mucho menos, sean un poco ignorantes en cuanto a éste tipo de conflicto. Ahora bien, en un país que está al borde de serios problemas civiles y económicos (no uso a Venezuela de ejemplo porque la verdad es que no conozco mucho del quehacer político de este país), es ambiente propicio para crear figuras cómo Hugo Chávez.

Tu castellano está maravilloso, Heiko-kun.

El problema está en el discurso: Cuando vemos uno tipo que dice que demagogia és una BUENA cualidad en una persona para "enganar" a el "Otro" (y digo "el otro" con el sentido de "los que no son nosotros", en inglés seria "the Other"), estamos vendo una situacción que resulta en este tipo de político: El conflito, "nosotros" contra "ellos". Ocorre una desumanizacción, o una demonizacción, del oponente político, que cria una situacción propícia para este tipo de cosa que Chávez hace...

(Gracias! Si alguna palabra está muy errada o imposíble de entender, di-me, bueno?) :)

El problema está en el discurso: Cuando vemos uno tipo que dice que demagogia és una BUENA cualidad en una persona para "enganar" a el "Otro" (y digo "el otro" con el sentido de "los que no son nosotros", en inglés seria "the Other"), estamos vendo una situacción que resulta en este tipo de político: El conflito, "nosotros" contra "ellos". Ocorre una desumanizacción, o una demonizacción, del oponente político, que cria una situacción propícia para este tipo de cosa que Chávez hace...

(Gracias! Si alguna palabra está muy errada o imposíble de entender, di-me, bueno?) :)

Entendible. Más aún si se está haciendo algún tipo de segregación, cómo lo que tú estipulas: nosotros (Chávez en este sentido) contra los otros (la gente de los cerros). No únicamente se demoniza la figura política de una parte, también ocurre lo contrario. La parte contraria, la del político en cuestión (nosotros) le semi-canoniza.

Acá en España eso pasó con Francisco Franco. La milicia y la clase acomodada lo veía cómo un santo. Enviado por Dios a sacar a la España monárquica de las garras del rey (en ese caso tildado de ser el mismísimo demonio). Pero la clase que estaba siendo oprimida, veía a Franco cómo un enviado de Satanás (y a mi parecer lo era).

Entendible. Más aún si se está haciendo algún tipo de segregación, cómo lo que tú estipulas: nosotros (Chávez en este sentido) contra los otros (la gente de los cerros). No únicamente se demoniza la figura política de una parte, también ocurre lo contrario. La parte contraria, la del político en cuestión (nosotros) le semi-canoniza.

Acá en España eso pasó con Francisco Franco. La milicia y la clase acomodada lo veía cómo un santo. Enviado por Dios a sacar a la España monárquica de las garras del rey (en ese caso tildado de ser el mismísimo demonio). Pero la clase que estaba siendo oprimida, veía a Franco cómo un enviado de Satanás (y a mi parecer lo era).

Verdad, verdad...

Tu castellano es muy bueno, Heikoku. Hay una que otra palabrita, pero nada que lo haga ininteligible. Y sí, esa misma gente es del tipo falangista. Nanatsu, ¿Sabías que para acá para Venezuela vinieron muchos falangistas en la década de los 50', porque el dictador venezolano de ese tiempo, Pérez Jiménez, era admirador del "Caudillo"? Muchos de ellos respaldan a Chávez usando ese razonamiento. Más curioso todavía es que en los 60 inmigraron muchos españoles opositores al régimen, como mi padre, y terminaron chocando sus ideologías aquí.

Nanatsu, ¿Sabías que para acá para Venezuela vinieron muchos falangistas en la década de los 50', porque el dictador venezolano de ese tiempo, Pérez Jiménez, era admirador del "Caudillo"? Muchos de ellos respaldan a Chávez usando ese razonamiento. Más curioso todavía es que en los 60 inmigraron muchos españoles opositores al régimen, como mi padre, y terminaron chocando sus ideologías aquí.

Sí, sabía que muchos falangistas habían emigrado a Venezuela, pero desconocía que miembros de la Falange española en tiempos de Franco hubiese apoyado a Pérez Jiménez al emigrar a Venezuela. Mis abuelos abandonaron España en 1949, y todavía hoy rehusan volver. Mi abuela perdió un hermano en Asturias, lo asesinaron miembros de la Falange. Cómo opositores del régimen, resultó ser mejor irse del país después de ésto.

Sí, sabía que muchos falangistas habían emigrado a Venezuela, pero desconocía que miembros de la Falange española en tiempos de Franco hubiese apoyado a Pérez Jiménez al emigrar a Venezuela. Mis abuelos abandonaron España en 1949, y todavía hoy rehusan volver. Mi abuela perdió un hermano en Asturias, lo asesinaron miembros de la Falange. Cómo opositores del régimen, resultó ser mejor irse del país después de ésto.

Sí, Pérez Jiménez, cuando lo derrocaron, se fue a vivir asilado a España, (robándose un avión lleno de dinero público, por supuesto), porque tenía sus amigos allá, en 1958. Y vivió en España hasta su muerte. Mi padre, al contrario que tus abuelos, quiere volver a España. Dice que si de joven no quiso vivir bajo un régimen autoritario, de viejo menos. Él también perdió a sus dos hermanos mayores a manos de los falangistas, y dice que no quiere que sus hijos pasen por lo que pasaron sus hermanos. Como yo he sido opositora a este gobierno desde hace algún tiempo, y ya tengo alguna notoriedad en ese sentido, me está presionando para irme con él.

I love it when you guys talk that way. :)

Mi padre, al contrario que tus abuelos, quiere volver a España. Dice que si de joven no quiso vivir bajo un régimen autoritario, de viejo menos. Él también perdió a sus dos hermanos mayores a manos de los falangistas, y dice que no quiere que sus hijos pasen por lo que pasaron sus hermanos. Como yo he sido opositora a este gobierno desde hace algún tiempo, y ya tengo alguna notoriedad en ese sentido, me está presionando para irme con él.

Creo que, si la cosa en Venezuela está escalando cómo parece y ya que tú eres natural de España, deberías hacerle caso a tu abuelo y regresen acá. Mi madre está, hace varios años, tratándo de convencer a mi abuelo para traelos de vuelta. Ya ambos están viejillos, mi abuelo tiene 81 y mi abuela 72. Creo que es hora de que estén más cerca de la familia y aunque ahora el mundo está connectado por aviones, sólo 6-7 horas a Puerto Rico, estamos muy lejos de todas formas. Si algo les pasara... imagínate.

Como yo he sido opositora a este gobierno desde hace algún tiempo, y ya tengo alguna notoriedad en ese sentido, me está presionando para irme con él.

Nice, I know someone relevant! :D

Escucha, si conosces alguién que necesite de traducción Inglés-Portugues, cuenta-me, por favor. Te mando mi e-mail en un telegrama...

Heh, nice, Vampire Knight, if you need a translation just ask for it.

Mis tíos fueron los que convencieron a mi padre, ya habían convencido a mi hermano hace algún tiempo. Mi hermano mayor está sorprendido de lo bien que puede ejercer su profesión allá en Barcelona, (es médico), en comparación a las maromas que tenía que hacer aquí.

Mi objeción es que las cosas aquí ya no están tan mal, como estuvieron en 2001/2002, y tengo un trabajo menos peligroso, (antes tenía que salir a la calle como reportera, ahora trabajo en oficina). Y sí, convence a tus abuelos, lo mejor es siempre estar en familia. ¿será que de repente no quieren por el clima? :P

Nice, I know someone relevant! :D

Escucha, si conosces alguién que necesite de traducción Inglés-Portugues, cuenta-me, por favor. Te mando mi e-mail en un telegrama...

Excellent, I'll let you know when I need translations from the Brazilian News Agency. I'm a stubborn ignorant regarding that language. I should learn some of my own, as we are neighbours, after all. I thought for months that "obrigado", meant "obligado". Imagine the shame when an employee from Odrebrecht was the one in charge of correct my mistake.

(I'm not that relevant, but I'm a journalist and for a while, I worked in a newspaper clearly opposed to the goverment, thus, I was for a while targeted by goverment' sympathizers)

Excellent, I'll let you know when I need translations from the Brazilian News Agency.

You actually MAY need my services?

Thank you, Luck, for being my Lady!

Uhm, mind you, I meant English-Portuguese translations... I'm REALLY not competent enough at Spanish to translate it... We may have had a misunderstanding there...

Excellent, I'll let you know when I need translations from the Brazilian News Agency. I'm a stubborn ignorant regarding that language. I should learn some of my own, as we are neighbours, after all. I thought for months that "obrigado", meant "obligado". Imagine the shame when an employee from Odrebrecht was the one in charge of correct my mistake.

(I'm not that relevant, but I'm a journalist and for a while, I worked in a newspaper clearly opposed to the goverment, thus, I was for a while targeted by goverment' sympathizers)Ignorant is actually an adjective. Ignoramus is the person =P

Heh, nice, Vampire Knight, if you need a translation just ask for it.

Nah, I don't want to intrude. ;)

Y sí, convence a tus abuelos, lo mejor es siempre estar en familia. ¿será que de repente no quieren por el clima? :P

Eso tratamos. A mi me parece que el clima es un factor, pero los fantasmas del pasado son los que les detienen tan lejos. Tal vez mis abuelos no quieren volver a vivir en el lugar dónde perdieron tanto. Pero después de 30+ años de estar tan lejos, creo que es hora de que estén con la familia.

You actually MAY need my services?

Thank you, Luck, for being my Lady!

Uhm, mind you, I meant English-Portuguese translations... I'm REALLY not competent enough at Spanish to translate it... We may have had a misunderstanding there...

Although my use of the language here may suggest otherwise, sometimes I am proficient with the use of the english language. You can do the switch of portuguese/english, and I'll switch from english to spanish in no time.

Ignorant is actually an adjective. Ignoramus is the person =P

From all people, it had to be YOU the one pointing at my flaws, right? Shame on me.

From all people, it had to be YOU the one pointing at my flaws, right? Shame on me.I can't help it. I get paid to do corrections now...

I was thinking about pointing out the "lend/borrow" thing, but thought "Nah. I don't want to be seen as a grammar Nazi". And then Heikoku did it and so I was all "fine! Next time! *shakes fist*".

But ignoramus is such a cool word to know, too.

Acá en España eso pasó con Francisco Franco. La milicia y la clase acomodada lo veía cómo un santo. Enviado por Dios a sacar a la España monárquica de las garras del rey (en ese caso tildado de ser el mismísimo demonio). Pero la clase que estaba siendo oprimida, veía a Franco cómo un enviado de Satanás (y a mi parecer lo era).
Mira, entiendo que Espana tenia (y todovia tiene) muchas problemas con Franco y su autoritarismo y nacionalismo (y la militar, claro) pero personalemente pienso que era mejor que Franco assumio el Poder en vez de las Republicanas izquierdas que fueron anarquistas, socialistas y marxistas. Un estado un poquito tan derecho es preferible a un estado izquierdo.

Y mira, yo se que el regimen tenia sus problemas y no es preferible, pero estoy diciendo que en esa situacion, es preferible que la otra option.

Y tambien tienes que darte cuenta de la situacion internacional. La Guerra Civil Espanola era muy importante porque era la primera Realizacion de la tension (en Europa) entre las fuerzas socialistas y las fuerzas nacionalistas que finalmente llevo a la Segunda Guerra Mundial....era mejor por la imagen futura de Europa que las nacionalistas ganaron que las socialistas en mi opinion, naturalmente....:p

Snip.

You know, I didn't think you'd stoop low enough to call an illegal regime that had as one of its mottos "Down with intelligence, long live death" and that killed a fellow poster's blood relative and caused her grandparents to flee never to return "preferable" to an alternative you never saw in practice and that would have been democratic.

I stand corrected, and wish Nanatsu no Tsuki luck on dealing with you.

I always wanted to see her in action anyways...

Mira, entiendo que Espana tenia (y todovia tiene) muchas problemas con Franco y su autoritarismo y nacionalismo (y la militar, claro) pero personalemente pienso que era mejor que Franco assumio el Poder en vez de las Republicanas izquierdas que fueron anarquistas, socialistas y marxistas. Un estado un poquito tan derecho es preferible a un estado izquierdo.

Y mira, yo se que el regimen tenia sus problemas y no es preferible, pero estoy diciendo que en esa situacion, es preferible que la otra option.

Y tambien tienes que darse cuenta de la situacion internacional. La Guerra Civil Espanola era muy importante porque era la primera Realizacion de la tension (en Europa) entre las fuerzas socialistas y las fuerzas nacionalistas que finalmente llevo a la Segunda Guerra Mundial....era mejor por la imagen futura de Europa que las nacionalistas ganaron que las socialistas en mi opinion, naturalmente....:pI'm kind of glad I only know enough Romansque to figure out what you're talking about and not enough Spanish to potentially be offended.

I'm kind of glad I only know enough Romansque to figure out what you're talking about and not enough Spanish to potentially be offended.

He's calling Franco's regime "preferable". There. Be offended. I have a translation with my name on it that is diverting my attention from that person.

Mira, entiendo que Espana tenia (y todovia tiene) muchas problemas con Franco y su autoritarismo y nacionalismo (y la militar, claro) pero personalemente pienso que era mejor que Franco assumio el Poder en vez de las Republicanas izquierdas que fueron anarquistas, socialistas y marxistas. Un estado un poquito tan derecho es preferible a un estado izquierdo.

El problema es con en el legado de Franco. Recuerda, el Generalísimo hijo de puta ese ya está muerto. Ningún gobierno absoluto es, fue o será mejor opción, para ningún país. Las heridas que quedan no sanan con facilidad.

Y mira, yo se que el regimen tenia sus problemas y no es preferible, pero estoy diciendo que en esa situacion, es preferible que la otra option.

El fascismo no es nunca preferible, sea la opción que sea. El régimen absolutista de Franco no tenía sus problemas, para citarte. Era malo, de principio a fin.

Y tambien tienes que darse cuenta de la situacion internacional. La Guerra Civil Espanola era muy importante porque era la primera Realizacion de la tension (en Europa) entre las fuerzas socialistas y las fuerzas nacionalistas que finalmente llevo a la Segunda Guerra Mundial....era mejor por la imagen futura de Europa que las nacionalistas ganaron que las socialistas en mi opinion, naturalmente....:p

La Guerra Civil Española marcó demasiadas vidas para que a los españoles que perdieron familiares o que se vieron forzados al exilio nos importe, un comino, que se haya dado cuenta el resto de Europa de la lucha entre izquierda y derecha. Franco subió al poder en el '35, la guerra ya había empezado. Y olvidas un pequeño detalle, España es, en éstos momentos, un país que profesa ideas socialistas, me cargo la imagen futura de Europa.

Y te voy a pedir, encarecidamente que, si no sabes lo que es vivir bajo un gobierno absoluto, no cotorrees, abstente. Me jode, sobremanera, que la gente hable sin saber de antemano, sea tu humilde opinión o no.

Mira, entiendo que Espana tenia (y todovia tiene) muchas problemas con Franco y su autoritarismo y nacionalismo (y la militar, claro) pero personalemente pienso que era mejor que Franco assumio el Poder en vez de las Republicanas izquierdas que fueron anarquistas, socialistas y marxistas. Un estado un poquito tan derecho es preferible a un estado izquierdo.

Y mira, yo se que el regimen tenia sus problemas y no es preferible, pero estoy diciendo que en esa situacion, es preferible que la otra option.

Y tambien tienes que darte cuenta de la situacion internacional. La Guerra Civil Espanola era muy importante porque era la primera Realizacion de la tension (en Europa) entre las fuerzas socialistas y las fuerzas nacionalistas que finalmente llevo a la Segunda Guerra Mundial....era mejor por la imagen futura de Europa que las nacionalistas ganaron que las socialistas en mi opinion, naturalmente....:p

Bravo bravo. ¿Podrías continuar con una apologia de Pinochet para terminar con una de Somoza?

Bravo bravo. ¿Podrías continuar con una apologia de Pinochet para terminar con una de Somoza?

Por favor, di-me que estás a jugar... :p

Por favor, di-me que estás a jugar... :p

Sí, Santiago está bromeando. Entre líneas, el tío está siendo sarcástico.

Estou aposentado. Mas aí eu deixo para você as desculpas dos ditadores, colocá-la no lugar.

Y te voy a pedir, encarecidamente que, si no sabes lo que es vivir bajo un gobierno absoluto, no cotorrees, abstente. Me jode, sobremanera, que la gente hable sin saber de antemano, sea tu humilde opinión o no.

Zankoku na tenshi no yoo ni, Nanatsu no Tsuki wa katta! O_O

Sí, Santiago está bromeando. Entre líneas, el tío está siendo sarcástico.

Si, Sietima Luna, estaba apenas ciertificando-me. :)

Zankoku na tenshi no yoo ni, Nanatsu no Tsuki wa katta! O_O

Hai hai.

Si, Sietima Luna, estaba apenas ciertificando-me. :)

Acabo de caer en cuenta lo que Nanatsu no Tsuki quiere decir. :eek:

Estou aposentado. Mas aí eu deixo para você as desculpas dos ditadores, colocá-la no lugar.

Uhm, I didn't get some of it. Could you put it in English, kudasai? ^_^

meh, bueno...ya sabes como yo pienso. Entonces voy a dejarlo....es certo que no me vas a convencer y no te voy a convencer tampoco.....

Santiago:...Es posible que ya sabes como veo Pinochet, no? Y no me gusta Somoza. Por que has preguntado?

meh, bueno...ya sabes como yo pienso. Entonces voy a dejarlo....es certo que no me vas a convencer y tampaco no te voy a convencer.....

Santiago:...Es posible que ya sabes como veo Pinochet, no? Y no me gusta Somoza. Por que has preguntado?

"Dejarla". Nanatsu is a female. And as you may or, more likely, not, notice, Santiago was being sarcastic. Furthermore, you know fully well that we don't argue to convince the opponent. We argue to convince the audience. Show of hands here, who thinks Nanatsu no Tsuki, the Seventh Moon, won?

*Raises hand*

meh, bueno...ya sabes como yo pienso. Entonces voy a dejarlo....es certo que no me vas a convencer y no te voy a convencer tampoco.....

Santiago:...Es posible que ya sabes como veo Pinochet, no? Y no me gusta Somoza. Por que has preguntado?

No, no sabía que también eras un apologista de Pinochet, pero gracias por confirmarlo. Sólo una pregunta: Es claro que nunca has vivido en un régimen autoritario, por eso la diatriba de que es preferible un tirano homicida como Franco o Pinochet que un gobierno democrático de (oh horror de horrores) izquierda. ¿Has alguna vez conversado con algún sobreviviente de las masacres o persecuciones que alguno de estos dos asesinos cometieron? Eso te daría una persepectiva más cercana y humana de las atrocidades y no te quedarías solamente con la propaganda de sus complices internacionales.

Eso te daría una persepectiva más cercana y humana de las atrocidades y no te quedarías solamente con la propaganda de sus complices internacionales.

Dá-le alguno crédito. Él no oye propaganda de complices internacionales, esa basura que él piensa e escribe és toda de él.

"Dejarla". Nanatsu is a female. And as you may or, more likely, not, notice, Santiago was being sarcastic. Furthermore, you know fully well that we don't argue to convince the opponent. We argue to convince the audience. Show of hands here, who thinks Nanatsu no Tsuki, the Seventh Moon, won?

*Raises hand*
I can tell she is female, but I was saying "I'm gonna leave it", the issue/discussion/whatever you want to call it : "dejarlo".

Yes he was being sarcastic, but also assuming that I liked him. And furthermore it was not a debate to be won or lost by using facts and statistics, but a total difference in opinion about values and perferance of government.

Grow up, don't be so childish.

Grow up, don't be so childish.

You support murderers, as long as they agree with your notions of economics. I don't know if you agree or not, but I will point out that children are the ones that would be more likely to be friends with someone they have a mild resemblance to regardless of the evil this person does.

And no, it's not a discussion on "values", mainly because tyranny is not one.

No, no sabía que también eras un apologista de Pinochet, pero gracias por confirmarlo. Sólo una pregunta: Es claro que nunca has vivido en un régimen autoritario, por eso la diatriba de que es preferible un tirano homicida como Franco o Pinochet que un gobierno democrático de (oh horror de horrores) izquierda. ¿Has alguna vez conversado con algún sobreviviente de las masacres o persecuciones que alguno de estos dos asesinos cometieron? Eso te daría una persepectiva más cercana y humana de las atrocidades y no te quedarías solamente con la propaganda de sus complices internacionales.
You're wasting your time. No matter what evidence you present to refute his hero-worship of Pinochet, he'll simply slink off, smugly claiming that no one has proven anything.

A la raja con ése.

*Sigh*

Look, and Santiago, I'll post this in English if you don't mind so others can see it too, I don't LIKE dictatorships or large oppressive governments, whether they be right or left. Regardless of what this Brazilian here will tell you, that's the truth. But unfortunatly, in reality it's not about what we wish were possible, what we'd like to see, but about what exists. And in these cases, one must choose between the sides that existed (if one is debating the issue)...not the hypothetical sides one wishes existed....

So in that case, yes I prefer Nationalist Spain over a Spain run by Leftists, Socialists, Marxists with ties to the Soviet Union....and that is exactly the case with Chile. And, for example, in Chile, it is historically accurate to say that Chile (under Leftist rule) was becoming more and more just another puppet of the Soviet Union, with the KGB actively influencing intelligence, government and leadership (Allende himself) in Chile. So does that make Pinochet (or Franco in Spain) a fabolous person? No. Does that make him the better option at the time? Absolutely.

Also, Santiago, to what you asked....I do indeed know of people (actually friends of my grandparents) who lost their business under Allende in Chile and starved (you know why they were starving??) and eventually had to leave Chile to find a place they could support themsleves (they came to the United States), only to return to Chile later after the revolution when Pinochet returned them their business (they were not government officials, but private businessmen).

And I've travelled through Eastern Europe and Central Europe and spoken with many who lived under these leftist governments tied to the Soviet Union and heard of only the horrors they had to endure. I've listened to their life stories and heard about how happy they are, now to be free.

So I know that these are just personal anectdotes but you were asking about that so I responded with that.

Right wing authoritarian societies that have economic freedom are more preferable to left wing authoritarian societies that have no economic freedom, because economic freedom has led and does indeed lead to progress, reduction of government, less corruption, and eventually a free society.

And, for example, in Chile, it is historically accurate to say that Chile (under Leftist rule) was becoming more and more just another puppet of the Soviet Union, with the KGB actively influencing intelligence, government and leadership (Allende himself) in Chile.

Oh that's rich.

Sources.

Oh that's rich.

Sources.

Quoting of BS "Economist" editorial article from 1973 (yup, nineteen-seventy-three!) in 3... 2...

Sources.
Yes, ma'am.


How 'weak' Allende was left out in the cold by the KGB
In the second exclusive extract from The Mitrokhin Archive Volume II, the historian Christopher Andrew and KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin reveal how the Soviet Union influenced the rise and fall of the first democratically elected Marxist leader
Read the first extract of The Mitrokhin Archive Volume IIhere

BY FAR the most important of the KGB's contacts in South America was Salvador Allende Gossens (codenamed Leader by the KGB), whose election as President of Chile in 1970 was hailed as “a revolutionary blow to the imperialist system in Latin America”.
Allende was the first Marxist anywhere in the world to win power through the ballot box. He was unlike any stereotype of a Marxist leader. During his visits to Havana in the 1960s, he had been privately mocked by Castro's entourage for his aristocratic tastes: fine wines, expensive objets d’art, well-cut suits and elegantly dressed women. Allende was also a womaniser. Gabriel García Márquez described him as “a gallant with a touch of the old school about him, perfumed notes and furtive rendezvous”.

(A man after my own heart :p)

Despite the private mockery which they aroused in Allende’s Communist allies, however, his bourgeois appearance and expensive lifestyle were electoral assets, reassuring middle-class voters that their lives would continue normally under an Allende presidency. As even his opponents acknowledged, he had enormous personal charm.

Allende’s election left President Nixon, according to his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, “beside himself” with rage. Having berated the Democrats for more than a decade for allowing Cuba to go Communist, Nixon now faced the prospect as a Republican president of seeing Chile follow suit. There was, he angrily told Kissinger, “only a one in ten chance” of preventing Allende’s confirmation, but the attempt must be made in order to “save Chile” from communism. The CIA drew up a two-track plan. Track 1 was to find some method of persuading the Chilean Congress not to vote Allende into office. Track 2 was to engineer a military coup. Both failed. On October 24, Allende was formally elected President by vote of the Chilean Congress.

Regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained not by the Soviet Ambassador but by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending “a great deal of time” in her company. “His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.” Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. Allende also mentioned to Kuznetsov his desire to acquire “one or two icons” for his private art collection. He was presented with two icons as a gift.

On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with [ie, bribery of] political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians”. Allende was to be urged to strengthen his authority by establishing “unofficial contact” with Chilean security chiefs and “using the resources of friends [Communists]” in the Interior Ministry.

In June 1972, Kuznetsov's close relationship with Allende was disturbed by the arrival in Santiago of a tough new Soviet ambassador, Aleksandr Vasilyevich Basov, whose membership of the Central Committee indicated both his high rank and the importance attached by Moscow to relations with Allende’s Chile. Unlike his predecessor, Basov was not prepared to play second fiddle to a KGB officer. His relations with the residency worsened, apparently soon after his arrival in Santiago, after the discovery in the walls of both his office and apartment of American listening devices with miniature transmitters which could be activated from some distance away. Basov doubtless blamed the KGB for failing to protect the security of the embassy. Basov initially insisted on accompanying Kuznetsov to meetings with Allende, thus hampering the conduct of KGB business which the resident was reluctant to discuss in the presence of the ambassador.

Within a few months Basov was seeking to replace Kuznetsov as the main Soviet contact with Allende. His aim was to reduce most Soviet contact with Allende to “a single channel” controlled by himself. But it is clear from KGB reports that without the ambassador’s knowledge, Kuznetsov succeeded in establishing a secret channel “for handling the most confidential and delicate matters” directly with Allende.

In 1972 Moscow downgraded its assessment of the prospects of the Allende regime. The “truckers’ strike”, allegedly backed by CIA funding, virtually paralysed the economy for three weeks, providing dramatic evidence of the weakness of the Popular Unity Government and the power of its opponents. The mounting evidence of chronic economic mismanagement made Moscow reluctant to provide large-scale support.

Anxious to do what it could to prevent the defeat of the Allende regime, the KGB gave an exaggerated impression of its ability to influence Chilean politics.

After Allende’s Unidad Popular lost its majority in Congress in March 1973, the KGB tried to explain to the Politburo why its “confidential relations” with leading Chilean politicians across the political spectrum had failed to produce the UP victory which it had led the Politburo to expect three months earlier. Preferring as usual to concentrate on its successes, it emphasised instead the President’s willingness to provide further assistance to its operations.

In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.

The first attempt to overthrow the regime was made by activists of the extreme right-wing Patria y Libertad movement. The Santiago residency informed the centre that it had obtained intelligence on plans for the coup and warned Allende. On June 28, however, three combat groups of tanks and armoured cars with about 100 troops left their barracks and headed for the centre of Santiago. The coup petered out in farce. “The column obeyed all the traffic lights and at least one tank stopped to fill up at a commercial gas station.”

The most significant aspect of the failed coup was the apathetic response to it by Chilean workers. Allende broadcast an appeal for “the people . . . to pour into the centre of the city” to defend his Government. They did not do so. That highly significant fact was duly noted by the army chief of staff, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarre.


The KGB later complained that Allende paid too little attention to its warnings of an impending disaster. When Pinochet and a junta launched their coup in the early hours of 11 September, the Communist leadership, who had also been kept informed by the KGB, were better prepared than Allende. The Communist Party newspaper that morning carried the banner headline, “Everyone to his combat post!” “Workers of city and countryside” were summoned to combat “to repel the rash attempt of the reactionaries who are determined to bring down the constitutional Government”. Communist factory managers began to mobilise workers in the industrial belt.

Allende, however, failed to live up to his promise six weeks earlier to summon the people to arms to defend his regime. Instead of seeking support in the working-class areas of Santiago, he based himself in the presidential offices in La Moneda, where he was defended by only 50 to 60 of his Cuban-trained guards and half a dozen officers from the Servicio de Investigaciones. Allende’s lack of preparation to deal with the coup partly derived from his preference for improvisation over advance planning. His French confidant, Régis Debray, later claimed that he “never planned anything more than 48 hours in advance”.

But Allende was also anxious to avoid bloodshed. Convinced that popular resistance would be mown down by Pinochet’s troops, he bravely chose to sacrifice himself rather than his followers. Castro and many of Allende's supporters later claimed that he was gunned down by Pinochet’s forces as they occupied La Moneda.

In reality, it seems almost certain that, faced with inevitable defeat, Allende sat on a sofa in the Independence Salon of La Moneda, placed the muzzle of an automatic rifle (a present from Castro) beneath his chin and blew his brains out.

Extracted from The Mitrokhin Archive, Volume II: the KGB and the World by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, to be published by Penguin on September 19 at £30, offer £27.

© Christopher Andrew and Estate of Vasili Mitrokhin 2005



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece
Some background on this information too, if you'd like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive

I don't see what the problem with Chavez is. He's keeping most of his shit within his own borders.

If it's not affecting me, or the rest of the world aside from his surrounding neighbors, why whould it concern us?

Quoting of BS "Economist" editorial article from 1973 (yup, nineteen-seventy-three!) in 3... 2...
Well, how incorrect.

By the way, I did rather enjoy it when the thread was basically all in Spanish 2 pages ago or so. I've never seen a Spanish thread on NSG before, I think and it felt good to type Spanish.

I don't see what the problem with Chavez is. He's keeping most of his shit within his own borders.

If it's not affecting me, or the rest of the world aside from his surrounding neighbors, why whould it concern us?

Not affecting its surrounding neighbors either...

No, no sabía que también eras un apologista de Pinochet, pero gracias por confirmarlo. Sólo una pregunta: Es claro que nunca has vivido en un régimen autoritario, por eso la diatriba de que es preferible un tirano homicida como Franco o Pinochet que un gobierno democrático de (oh horror de horrores) izquierda. ¿Has alguna vez conversado con algún sobreviviente de las masacres o persecuciones que alguno de estos dos asesinos cometieron? Eso te daría una persepectiva más cercana y humana de las atrocidades y no te quedarías solamente con la propaganda de sus complices internacionales.

Si, ha hablado con sobrevivientes, pero no le importa.

TAI. The thread is about Venezuela, not your weird perception about Chile which has been disproven time and time again.

Chavez is obviously influenced by the caudillo archetype. Either he likes playing it, or ha plays it to be the demagogue as has been pointed out. This tank threat seems to be another manifestation of that. Hopefully, he is more bark than bite.

Not affecting its surrounding neighbors either...
Have you somehow managed to spend the past five years or so under a rock?

I don't see what the problem with Chavez is. He's keeping most of his shit within his own borders.

If it's not affecting me, or the rest of the world aside from his surrounding neighbors, why whould it concern us?

Because to a certain extent it can't help but go beyond his borders. Every time a state quashes dissent with heavy handed tactics is an invitation for others to emulate such acts; every victory for freedom and rule of law strengthens those concepts in the world's mind.

And as well as the metaphysical, Chavez can influence the economies of many states with Venezuela's oil reserves and other resources, besides such things as supporting the FARC in Colombia. No nation exists in a vacuum.

Chavez can influence the economies of many states with Venezuela's oil reserves and other resources, besides such things as supporting the FARC in Colombia. No nation exists in a vacuum.

How dare Chavez use his oil for something other then enriching America's oil companies. Why that dictator! As for the FARC - that's just some neighborly love, like Reagan and the Iran-Contra stuff. Ok, so I'm kidding about the FARC, but come on, if Venezuela didn't have oil, do you think the tanks would've still made front-page?

How dare Chavez use his oil for something other then enriching America's oil companies. Why that dictator! As for the FARC - that's just some neighborly love, like Reagan and the Iran-Contra stuff. Ok, so I'm kidding about the FARC, but come on, if Venezuela didn't have oil, do you think the tanks would've still made front-page?
If Venezuela didn't have oil, Chávez would have been removed shortly after coming to power. It's what finances his "missions", which is the primary thing people keep him around for, other than the way he plays to simple people's fears.

*Sigh*

Look, and Santiago, I'll post this in English if you don't mind so others can see it too, I don't LIKE dictatorships or large oppressive governments, whether they be right or left. Regardless of what this Brazilian here will tell you, that's the truth. But unfortunatly, in reality it's not about what we wish were possible, what we'd like to see, but about what exists. And in these cases, one must choose between the sides that existed (if one is debating the issue)...not the hypothetical sides one wishes existed....

So in that case, yes I prefer Nationalist Spain over a Spain run by Leftists, Socialists, Marxists with ties to the Soviet Union....and that is exactly the case with Chile. And, for example, in Chile, it is historically accurate to say that Chile (under Leftist rule) was becoming more and more just another puppet of the Soviet Union, with the KGB actively influencing intelligence, government and leadership (Allende himself) in Chile. So does that make Pinochet (or Franco in Spain) a fabolous person? No. Does that make him the better option at the time? Absolutely.

Also, Santiago, to what you asked....I do indeed know of people (actually friends of my grandparents) who lost their business under Allende in Chile and starved (you know why they were starving??) and eventually had to leave Chile to find a place they could support themsleves (they came to the United States), only to return to Chile later after the revolution when Pinochet returned them their business (they were not government officials, but private businessmen).

And I've travelled through Eastern Europe and Central Europe and spoken with many who lived under these leftist governments tied to the Soviet Union and heard of only the horrors they had to endure. I've listened to their life stories and heard about how happy they are, now to be free.

So I know that these are just personal anectdotes but you were asking about that so I responded with that.

Right wing authoritarian societies that have economic freedom are more preferable to left wing authoritarian societies that have no economic freedom, because economic freedom has led and does indeed lead to progress, reduction of government, less corruption, and eventually a free society.

Allende wasn't a puppet of the Soviets, no matter how much rubbish you want to throw at him. And Allende was NOT an authoritarian, he was the democratic elected president of Chile.

Yes I also know of those poor souls who lost their companies to Allende left-wing policies. Poor poor guys who had to go somewhere else to make lots of money.

I also know of the people who were tortured, raped and 'disapeared' by this right wing fascist authoritarian better option to a democratic elected left wing government.

NO authoritarian regime, left or right, has lead to free society.

So I see what they told me is true. You are willing to tolerate and support authoritarian governments lead by assassins if they apply the economic policies you support, i.e. respect private property above life and human dignity.

I also know of the people who were tortured, raped and 'disapeared' by this right wing fascist authoritarian better option to a democratic elected left wing government.

Is it just me or do you Spaniards use a lot of ironic constructions like that one (fascist authoritarian "better option")? Does it have something to do with your language or is it just your style that's similar to Seventh Moon's? I like it quite a bit.

By the way, I did rather enjoy it when the thread was basically all in Spanish 2 pages ago or so. I've never seen a Spanish thread on NSG before, I think and it felt good to type Spanish.

Por supuesto, apenas más una lengua en que puedes perder debates.

Allende wasn't a puppet of the Soviets, no matter how much rubbish you want to throw at him. And Allende was NOT an authoritarian, he was the democratic elected president of Chile.
There is a distinction between pure "rubbish", and evidence pointing to the obvious and unsurprising links between a fairly communist politician and the KGB. That doesn't make him a puppet, but it also means that imperialism didn't start there with the CIA's involvement in the coup.

At any rate, Allende was democratically elected as president, but his policies were not popular enough to also win him parliament. As a result, he was constantly fighting with it, culminating in his just flat-out ignoring what the congress said and did.

I suppose to his credit, he didn't pull a Correa and just wrote himself a new constitution to overcome pesky opposition parliamentarians, but still...ideological crusaders rarely exhibit much restraint when it comes to opposing vewpoints.

You are willing to tolerate and support authoritarian governments lead by assassins if they apply the economic policies you support, i.e. respect private property above life and human dignity.
Chile under Allende was in massive amounts of shit. It was heading in the direction Zimbabwe is in right now - hyperinflation, food shortages as a result of bungled land redistribution and so on. You can argue about the relative merits of left- vs right-wing policies with regards to life and human dignity, but that shouldn't stop anyone from acknowledging that Allende wasn't doing well on those criteria.

"Dejarla". Nanatsu is a female. And as you may or, more likely, not, notice, Santiago was being sarcastic. Furthermore, you know fully well that we don't argue to convince the opponent. We argue to convince the audience. Show of hands here, who thinks Nanatsu no Tsuki, the Seventh Moon, won?

*Raises hand*
Can't convince the audience in spanish

I don't see what the problem with Chavez is. He's keeping most of his shit within his own borders.

If it's not affecting me, or the rest of the world aside from his surrounding neighbors, why whould it concern us?

Same here with Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and all those wackos. Can't get all the fad about them.

Is it just me or do you Spaniards use a lot of ironic constructions like that one (fascist authoritarian "better option")? Does it have something to do with your language or is it just your style that's similar to Seventh Moon's? I like it quite a bit.

Spanish is filled with sarcasm. Even then, I think both Nanatsu, Heikoku and myself are on more or less the same page here, and use similar grammar coonstruction and usages.

Same here with Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and all those wackos. Can't get all the fad about them.



Spanish is filled with sarcasm. Even then, I think both Nanatsu, Heikoku and myself are on more or less the same page here, and use similar grammar coonstruction and usages.

Oh, yes, but I particularly like the "lying, cheating saint" build I've seen you folks use at times. :) I don't think Portuguese uses it much, and it resembles a sword feint to me a bit. :p (Yes, I have a STRANGE view of arguments. Why, I pictured Nanatsu with her hair in two buns covered by some cloth, a blue silk dress with puffy shoulder sleeves and golden details, spiked bracelets and a pair of white boots when she dealt with TAI... Cookie for whoever gets the reference.) (Before anyone asks: Rolent. Those among us more knowledgeable of the series can make the connection quite easily.)

(And I still can't believe this thread might actually get me a contact. Muchas gracias!) ;)

There is a distinction between pure "rubbish", and evidence pointing to the obvious and unsurprising links between a fairly communist politician and the KGB. That doesn't make him a puppet, but it also means that imperialism didn't start there with the CIA's involvement in the coup.

There was a cold war going on and both sides tried to influence what they saw as unclaimed territories, like Chile. At any rate KGB involvement with Allende government was much less profound that CIA involvement with Pinochet dictatorship.


At any rate, Allende was democratically elected as president, but his policies were not popular enough to also win him parliament. As a result, he was constantly fighting with it, culminating in his just flat-out ignoring what the congress said and did.

I suppose to his credit, he didn't pull a Correa and just wrote himself a new constitution to overcome pesky opposition parliamentarians, but still...ideological crusaders rarely exhibit much restraint when it comes to opposing vewpoints.

A political conflict between the president and the parliament:eek:...oh my god somebody please throw a cuop d'etat before it gets out of hand!!!


Chile under Allende was in massive amounts of shit. It was heading in the direction Zimbabwe is in right now - hyperinflation, food shortages as a result of bungled land redistribution and so on. You can argue about the relative merits of left- vs right-wing policies with regards to life and human dignity, but that shouldn't stop anyone from acknowledging that Allende wasn't doing well on those criteria.

A inexcusable cause belis to throw a coup, install a dictatorship and murder thousands of people. Yes... much better, the economy is safe now...phew....for some that is.

Oh that's rich.

Sources.
Hmm...avoiding this thread now because you've realized it wasn't so "rich"?? Maybe take a look at that source..and the two below....
Quoting of BS "Economist" editorial article from 1973 (yup, nineteen-seventy-three!) in 3... 2...
Well...no snide remarks on the "BS 'Economist' editorial article from 1973"???

No defense of Allende's corruption and ties to the Soviet Union??

Wow, Heikoku...:confused:

Allende wasn't a puppet of the Soviets, no matter how much rubbish you want to throw at him.
Ah, how fun. When confronted with facts that Santiago doesn't like, he crouches over in the corner and just gets emotionally defensive of his beloved socialist leader. Unfortauntly, you can't just simply call facts rubbish if you don't like them..... So who are we to believe? The in depth details and facts of the KGB....or you and your emotional defense of Allende? (cute, by the way)
And Allende was NOT an authoritarian, he was the democratic elected president of Chile.
Really? Hmm..I wonder what you'd call abuse of the presidential powers and clearly ignoring his congress, then? (By the way it is possible to be authoritarian having been democratically elected, don't you know? :wink:)

If you truley care for this issue, not just for your emotions, you will read this statement from Chile's Chamber of Deputies, which was approved by 81 votes against 47.

The Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973


(Note from José Piñera: This is my translation of the complete text of the Resolution that Chile’s Chamber of Deputies approved, by 81 votes against 47, on August 22, 1973. The original text in Spanish is here. This Resolution accuses the government of President Salvador Allende of several violations to the Constitution and the laws and it "represents" the military ministers in his cabinet with this "grave breakdown of the Republic’s constitutional and legal order." Likewise, it reminds them "that, by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the laws of the land . . . it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land." On September 11, 1973 --18 days after this Resolution-- the Chilean Armed Forces removed from office the President thus charged with violating the Chilean Constitution. My essay on the extraordinary historic importance of this Resolution is here and it was published in the journal "Society" of September/October 2005. As a contribution to the historic truth, I release this translation and my essay into the "public domain".)

Spanish | French | German | Polish


The Resolution

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress’s principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country’s social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country’s institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress’s oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller’s Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration’s constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile’s Channel 9, by assaulting that university’s new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile’s institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.
http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_quiebredemoc_en.htm


Here is the most important thing....the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, calls Allende a tyrant, even though he was democratically elected....and by more than a 2/3 majority, pleas for the military to remove the tyrant from control of Chile:


"Resolution by Chamber of Deputies. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SERIOUSLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION."

The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3 percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations included: support of armed groups (**Left-Wing Paramilitary Groups**), illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country, confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury. The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner, with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system," that is, a Communist dictatorship.

It is an extraordinary fact that the Chamber's Resolution had been approved by all of the members from the Christian Democratic Party, the majority party whose undisputed leader was Senate President and former President of the Republic Eduardo Frei Montalva. Only three years earlier, on October 24, 1970, that same party had given all of its votes in order to elect Salvador Allende president in the Congress.

For John Locke, the great English political thinker, tyranny is "the exercise of power beyond the bounds of law." When such a tyrant appears, it is he who places the country in a state of war by exceeding the limits of his power. That is to say, he has "rebelled," in the strict Latin sense of the word ("re-bellare" coming from "bellum,"war").

The essence of the Chamber Resolution, therefore, was the accusation made against President Allende that, in spite of his having been elected democratically, he had rebelled against the Constitution and thereby become a tyrant.

Twenty violations and a desperate plea

The Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies has 15 Articles and can be broken down conceptually into the following four concepts:

a) a Preamble contained in Articles 1 through 4, which describe the known conditions essential for the existence of the Rule of Law. It contains a warning charged with significance: "a government that assumes powers not granted to it by the people engages in sedition." It also contains a reminder that President Allende was not elected by a majority of the popular vote, but by the Congress, "subject to a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated into the Constitution."

b) twenty Accusations of violations of the Constitution and the laws: one general accusation (Articles 5 and 6); seven accusations of violations of the separation of powers (Articles, 7, 8 and 9); ten accusations of actual violations of specified human rights (Article 10); and, finally, two accusations of seditious acts (Articles 11 and 12). This listing has a structure similar to the chain of accusations against King George III made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

c) a Clarification regarding the role of the military ministers that President Allende had nominated to key cabinet posts (Articles 13 and 14). It should be pointed out that a year earlier Allende himself opened the doors of politics to the military by placing various generals and admirals in key ministries. For several months, he had even appointed Army Commander-in-Chief Carlos Prats to the Ministry of the Interior, a highly controversial and important political office. In August 1973, an admiral was made Minister of Finance, an office that was key to the economic management of the country.

d) a Plea to the military ministers (Article 15) to put "an immediate end" to these serious constitutional violations.

http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_nuncamas_en.htm


So you see, you may not like what I have to say, but there is a factual reason I am saying it.


Yes I also know of those poor souls who lost their companies to Allende left-wing policies. Poor poor guys who had to go somewhere else to make lots of money.
Didn't you read what I said? We were discussing personal anecdotes...so I told you one. It wasn't about "making lots of money" it was about the government voilating this family's economic freedom, and, due to this, the family had no income or way of supporting themselves (they were starving) so they had to leave the country. All in the name of Allende's bullshit "via chilena al socialismo" :rolleyes:

I also know of the people who were tortured, raped and 'disapeared' by this right wing fascist authoritarian better option to a democratic elected left wing government.
Indeed. Quite unfortunate.

NO authoritarian regime, left or right, has lead to free society.
Wel that's just not true. Didn't Chile under Pinochet lead to economic freedom, social freedom and political freedom, eventually? (without a revolution)? If you say yes, then you lied in your post. If you say no then you are lying now and will shock the Chilean population who thinks they are living in a free society, right now.

So I see what they told me is true.
Why don't you stop worrying about what 'they' told you and listen to what I'm telling you. The truth, even if you don't wish to hear it.

Dá-le alguno crédito. Él no oye propaganda de complices internacionales, esa basura que él piensa e escribe és toda de él.

No la oye, no, es muy cierto. Pero tampoco sabe un comino de lo que es estar bajo un gobierno absoultista. Y cómo no tiene idea, sus opiniones no se basan en ninguna fuente, lo que piense o deje de pensar es imaterial.

Well...no snide remarks on the "BS 'Economist' editorial article from 1973"???

No defense of Allende's corruption and ties to the Soviet Union??

Wow, Heikoku...:confused:

1- So? You didn't quote it like you use to, I suspect because I mentioned it.

2- I never defended Allende's "corruption". You defend Pinochet's.

3- I have an 80-page translation, worth a LOT, to be delivered by monday. I have no time to play with you.

3- I have an 80-page translation, worth a LOT, to be delivered by monday. I have no time to play with you.
Yeah, yeah.... suspect whatever you want.

Good luck with your translation. I'll be expecting you to addres the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and there formal declaration against Allende, when you get back. ;)

Recapitulando y cerrando para regresar al tema original, Chávez... Pinochet, Franco, Fidel, Batista, Hitler, Musolinni, y ahora Hugo Chávez, todos presidiendo gobiernos que uno podría considerar absolutos, fueron y son lo peor de lo peor. Nada, absolutamente nada, excusa la matanza injusta del mismo pueblo que se dice se está protegiendo. Y no quiero que nadie haga más referencias sobre Francisco Franco a menos de que haya vivido en gobiernos absolutos, sea estudiante de historia con concentración en historia o tenga familiares que hayan sufrido bajo dictaduras. Está claro?

Ahora regresamos con el tema de Hugo.

Ese tío es un cabrón!

Yeah, yeah.... suspect whatever you want.

Good luck with your translation. I'll be expecting you to addres the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and there formal declaration against Allende, when you get back. ;)

Did Allende use the military to impose his economic ideals? No.

Did Pinochet? Yes.

So, Chavez seems to be taking a page of Pinochet's paybook. This should make you happy, TAI. Or is violent coercion only moral when it enforces a free market agenda?

If the US governments of yore hadn't meddled so often in the sovereignty of Latin American nations, I don't think the nationalist demagoguery of Chavez would be as succesful at is has been. Sort of a political blowback, as it were.

Recapitulando y cerrando para regresar al tema original, Chávez... Pinochet, Franco, Fidel, Batista, Hitler, Musolinni, y ahora Hugo Chávez, todos presidiendo gobiernos que uno podría considerar absolutos, fueron y son lo peor de lo peor. Nada, absolutamente nada, excusa la matanza injusta del mismo pueblo que se dice se está protegiendo. Y no quiero que nadie haga más referencias sobre Francisco Franco a menos de que haya vivido en gobiernos absolutos, sea estudiante de historia con concentración en historia o tenga familiares que hayan sufrido bajo dictaduras. Está claro?

Ahora regresamos con el tema de Hugo.

Ese tío es un cabrón!
In a debate...the formal declaration against Allende of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies is worth much more than personal stories....

Though I will leave Franco, the debate between the military and the congress of Chile against Allende is very important, historically relates alot of south american leftist authoritarian regimes, so I don't think it's correc to drop that....even more so until the people who I am debating against address that declaration from the Chilean Chamber of Deputies.....

Ese tío es un cabrón!
Pero claro, de accordo.

Recapitulando y cerrando para regresar al tema original, Chávez... Pinochet, Franco, Fidel, Batista, Hitler, Musolinni, y ahora Hugo Chávez, todos presidiendo gobiernos que uno podría considerar absolutos, fueron y son lo peor de lo peor. Nada, absolutamente nada, excusa la matanza injusta del mismo pueblo que se dice se está protegiendo. Y no quiero que nadie haga más referencias sobre Francisco Franco a menos de que haya vivido en gobiernos absolutos, sea estudiante de historia con concentración en historia o tenga familiares que hayan sufrido bajo dictaduras. Está claro?

Stylish! Spoken like an anime character. I could picture this coming from Kenshin Himura's mouth. Muy bueno, me gusta ver-te discutir. Pudríamos crear uno pequeño equipo. :D

Did Allende use the military to impose his economic ideals? No.

Did Pinochet? Yes.

Really?

Perhaps read the loads of factual backing that I posted....until you do and acknowledge that, nothing you say against that matters, because it is incorrect.

In a debate...the formal declaration against Allende of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies is worth much more than personal stories....

Did they make a declaration IN FAVOR of Pinochet? No? Then what's your point?

Geez, I have GOT to stop looking at here...

Did Pinochet? Yes.

So, Chavez seems to be taking a page of Pinochet's paybook. This should make you happy, TAI. Or is violent coercion only moral when it enforces a free market agenda?


And you know what's interesting? Pinochet died, not too long ago, in Spanish soil. Ese hijo de puta era fanático de Franco.

Stylish! Spoken like an anime character. I could picture this coming from Kenshin Himura's mouth. Muy bueno, me gusta ver-te discutir. Pudríamos crear uno pequeño equipo. :D

Muito brigado, Heiko-kun. Hagamos un pequeño equipo de debate. ¿Qué te parece?:D

Did they make a declaration IN FAVOR of Pinochet? No? Then what's your point?

Geez, I have GOT to stop looking at here...

Well if you would have read what I quoted....they made a declaration in favor of the military to put an "immediate end" to his constitutional violations.

Which the military certainly did, I should add. The military was should acting out the wishes of the vast majority (2/3 majority) of the Chamber of Deputies. :wink:

Muito brigado, Heiko-kun. Hagamos un pequeño equipo de debate. ¿Qué te parece?:D

Uno "nakama", digamos? Bueno. :D

...If you truley care for this issue, not just for your emotions, you will read this statement from Chile's Chamber of Deputies, which was approved by 81 votes against 47....

http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_respallende.htm

Allende's point by point response to that resolution. Knock yourself out. The rest of will discuss Chavez.

Well if you would have read what I quoted....they made a declaration in favor of the military to put an "immediate end" to his constitutional violations.

Which the military certainly did, I should add. :wink:

Holy...

Nanatsu... As I said, I'm busy. Could you please deal with him? Lest I not only miss my deadline, but also throw up?

Well if you would have read what I quoted....they made a declaration in favor of the military to put an "immediate end" to his constitutional violations.

Which the military certainly did, I should add. The military was should acting out the wishes of the vast majority (2/3 majority) of the Chamber of Deputies. :wink:

The Chamber of Deputies. Granted, the military wanted to put an end to Allende's reputed corrption. But, after Allende was gone, was it necessary for Pinochet to murder so many citizens? Was it? The seed of Allende had been yanked out by his death. His family also fled Chile and still reside in exile. Why then, for more than 2 decades, did Pinochet murdered the same people he claimed was protecting from ex-President Allende? Can you answer that, TAI?

Really?

Perhaps read the loads of factual backing that I posted....until you do and acknowledge that, nothing you say against that matters, because it is incorrect.

Yes. really. If you bothered to read what you posted, you would notice that nowhere does it say that Allende was using the military to further his economic ideals.

Yes. really. If you bothered to read what you posted, you would notice that nowhere does it say that Allende was using the military to further his economic ideals.

Take a look at TAI's sig and tell if you're reading the same thing I am...

Take a look at TAI's sig and tell if you're reading the same thing I am...

You mean the part where he quotes Phil Collins?

EDIT: I see.
Whatever.