NationStates Jolt Archive

So, for the first time since several years, each and every side in Venezuela's politics have a reason to feel happy and satisfied after an election.

With 17 governors and a nice number of mayors elected, the allies and supporters of the president Hugo Chávez feel that they still remain in power, and that have a good base to maintain their policies.

Yet, 5 of the main and more populated 7 states are now in control of the opposition, including largely the capital city of Caracas, and the economic powerhouses of Zulia and Carabobo, in what is a new surge of the political movement opposed to the central goverment. Before these elections, Chávez supporters held 21 states.

This would mean that both sides will be forced to discuss and cooperate, or would it mean the situation will degenerate in a deadlock similar to the regional versus central contest we saw this year in Bolivia?

Chávez said before the elections that he won't give resources to the states controlled by the opposition. Will he fulfill that promise, or was just another political strategy? He even declared that he would send the tanks out in the street should he lose in the Carabobo state. He lost, will he truly send the armed forces out or was just another empty threat?

Here is the link, please discuss:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7745165.stm

So, for the first time since several years, each and every side in Venezuela's politics have a reason to feel happy and satisfied after an election.

With 17 governors and a nice number of mayors elected, the allies and supporters of the president Hugo Chávez fell that they still remain in power, and that have a good base to maintain their policies.

Yet, 5 of the main and more populated 7 states are now in control of the opposition, including largely the capital city of Caracas, and the economic powerhouses of Zulia and Carabobo, in what is a new surge of the political movement opposed to the central goverment. Before these elections, Chávez supporters held 21 states.

This would mean that both sides will be forced to discuss and cooperate, or would it mean the situation will degenerate in a deadlock similar to the regional versus central contest we saw this year in Bolivia?

Chávez said before the elections that he won't give resources to the states controlled by the opposition. Will he fulfill that promise, or was just another political strategy? He even declared that he would send the tanks out in the street should he lose in the Carabobo state. He lost, will he truly send the armed forces out or was just another empty threat?

Here is the link, please discuss:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7745165.stm

Is it me or Chávez doesn't take well to defeat. I hope he understand that his country is sending him a clear message to step down. I hope things don't escalate so much that the military is indeed sent to the streets. I hope Chávez was bluffing when he threatened to put tanks on the streets. :(

He said that the results show that the venezuelan people want him to continue in the same path to revolution, as the map is still "painted red". While indeed a picture of the map of Venezuela can show you that more than the 85 per cent of the extension of the country is controlled by his supporters, the parts that aren't controlled by them holds most of the population and the production centers. As I said, the results can be taken in each and every way possible.

So, for the first time since several years, each and every side in Venezuela's politics have a reason to feel happy and satisfied after an election.

With 17 governors and a nice number of mayors elected, the allies and supporters of the president Hugo Chávez feel that they still remain in power, and that have a good base to maintain their policies.

Yet, 5 of the main and more populated 7 states are now in control of the opposition, including largely the capital city of Caracas, and the economic powerhouses of Zulia and Carabobo, in what is a new surge of the political movement opposed to the central goverment. Before these elections, Chávez supporters held 21 states.

This would mean that both sides will be forced to discuss and cooperate, or would it mean the situation will degenerate in a deadlock similar to the regional versus central contest we saw this year in Bolivia?

Chávez said before the elections that he won't give resources to the states controlled by the opposition. Will he fulfill that promise, or was just another political strategy? He even declared that he would send the tanks out in the street should he lose in the Carabobo state. He lost, will he truly send the armed forces out or was just another empty threat?

Here is the link, please discuss:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7745165.stm
you live in venezuela, what do YOU think is going to happen?

my opinion is worthless.

He said that the results show that the venezuelan people want him to continue in the same path to revolution, as the map is still "painted red". While indeed a picture of the map of Venezuela can show you that more than the 85 per cent of the extension of the country is controlled by his supporters, the parts that aren't controlled by them holds most of the population and the production centers. As I said, the results can be taken in each and every way possible.

It could be interpreted as Hugo having lost most of his supporters. What do you think could happen?

you live in venezuela, what do YOU think is going to happen?

my opinion is worthless.

Politics in Venezuela are too unpredictable as to form a quality and veritable assumption based just in my opinion.

Yet, I don't think Chávez most of his supporters. I think he lost many, incidentally due to his inability to surround himself with acceptable cronies, but instead choosing babboons as his lieutenants. More than due to his actions, he lost supporters due to the inept ruling of many of his subordinates.

If the new opposition governors and mayors can maintain a decent rulership of the areas under their control now, they will send a powerful message that can resonate and oust the Chávez's party from power in 2012. If they fail to really improve the standard of living in those areas, then Chávez's power will be maintained as the main venezuelan political force.

Anyway, Chávez is out in 2012, unless he wants to try ANOTHER constitutional reform to extend his term and his ability to get reelected. I don't find another one of those succesful, given the results of last sunday, and what happened the last time he tried.

Politics in Venezuela are too unpredictable as to form a quality and veritable assumption based just in my opinion.

Yet, I don't think Chávez most of his supporters. I think he lost many, incidentally due to his inability to surround himself with acceptable cronies, but instead choosing babboons as his lieutenants. More than due to his actions, he lost supporters due to the inept ruling of many of his subordinates.

If the new opposition governors and mayors can maintain a decent rulership of the areas under their control now, they will send a powerful message that can resonate and oust the Chávez's party from power in 2012. If they fail to really improve the standard of living in those areas, then Chávez's power will be maintained as the main venezuelan political force.

Anyway, Chávez is out in 2012, unless he wants to try ANOTHER constitutional reform to extend his term and his ability to get reelected. I don't find another one of those succesful, given the results of last sunday, and what happened the last time he tried.

What kind of support does he enjoy with the military? If the military decides to back him, it won't matter what the constitution says.

So, for the first time since several years, each and every side in Venezuela's politics have a reason to feel happy and satisfied after an election.

With 17 governors and a nice number of mayors elected, the allies and supporters of the president Hugo Chávez feel that they still remain in power, and that have a good base to maintain their policies.

Yet, 5 of the main and more populated 7 states are now in control of the opposition, including largely the capital city of Caracas, and the economic powerhouses of Zulia and Carabobo, in what is a new surge of the political movement opposed to the central goverment. Before these elections, Chávez supporters held 21 states.

This would mean that both sides will be forced to discuss and cooperate, or would it mean the situation will degenerate in a deadlock similar to the regional versus central contest we saw this year in Bolivia?

Chávez said before the elections that he won't give resources to the states controlled by the opposition. Will he fulfill that promise, or was just another political strategy? He even declared that he would send the tanks out in the street should he lose in the Carabobo state. He lost, will he truly send the armed forces out or was just another empty threat?

Here is the link, please discuss:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7745165.stm


Question: what were the results for the state of Miranda. I was there over summer, in Cua and the people I was around were evenly split over Chavez and opposition to him.

What kind of support does he enjoy with the military? If the military decides to back him, it won't matter what the constitution says.

Depends, apparently, total and absolute support from the military, but as far as I know, few military officers, while are content with backing Chávez as an elected president, will follow him in a self-coup to instate a truly revolutionary goverment. They are fearful of the militias he is arming, and of the new reserve. They back him as a president, but few of them would back a dictator.

Even his own supporters won't agree with a dictatorial goverment. Many, if not most, of his political supporters are steadfast supporters of democracy, and won't follow any armed attempt to achieve full power. It's part of the electoralism system. You need votes to maintain said system, not coups or armed initiatives.

I hope he understand that his country is sending him a clear message to step down.
How does winning 17 out of 22 states equate to "clear message to step down"? :confused:

I hope things don't escalate so much that the military is indeed sent to the streets. I hope Chávez was bluffing when he threatened to put tanks on the streets. :(
Don't see any reports of them, and I imagine, like Aelosia inferred - it was merely rhetoric and puffing out his chest.

As batshit crazy as he's become, he does seem to accept electoral defeats (see referendum last year or 2006). This election seems to have given a viable voice to not only the opposition, but the opposition of more moderates in his own party. I only hope this leads to a less polarised spectrum in the country.

Question: what were the results for the state of Miranda. I was there over summer, in Cua and the people I was around were evenly split over Chavez and opposition to him.

In Miranda, one of the principal states of the country, the opposition largely won. Enrique Capriles Radonski, former mayor of the Baruta municipality and one of the main opposition figures, was elected as the new governor of Miranda over Diosdado Cabello, the main counselor of Chávez and former Vicepresident AND Miranda governor, who failed to get reelected. This was a surprise for many, as most people, me included, was sure that Cabello was a rather strong candidate, (although he is one of the Chávez's subordinates that I qualify as an inept). Miranda used to be a strong bastion of Chávez, and now it has switched sides.

In the main municipalities of Miranda, as Baruta and Sucre, the opposition also won. Let me check about Cúa.

How does winning 17 out of 22 states equate to "clear message to step down"? :confused:

He lost the cities with the most population and major production centers. I would think that's a message.

Chavez still has a lot of support, specially in rural areas. But as has been said before, not even his supporters want him as a dictator. He will have to step down of power by 2012.

This all strikes me as "wait and see".

Chavez still has a lot of support, specially in rural areas. But as has been said before, not even his supporters want him as a dictator. He will have to step down of power by 2012.

Unless he tweaks with the law (I hope he doesn't dare) and extends his term.

How does winning 17 out of 22 states equate to "clear message to step down"? :confused:

By population. Incidentally, the 5 states where he did lost are the most populated of the country. Each one of them has the weight of american states as California or New York in a general voting. While I don't see this as a major power drain for the president, it truly means a relative drain of his electoral support.

As batshit crazy as he's become, he does seem to accept electoral defeats (see referendum last year or 2006). This election seems to have given a viable voice to not only the opposition, but the opposition of more moderates in his own party. I only hope this leads to a less polarised spectrum in the country.

Incidentally, I was remarking his ability to always say he won't recognize defeat BEFORE each election, and then duly comply and accept it afterwards. I can't be too critic against him in that regard, anyway, as that is a good democratic behavior. Accepting defeat, I mean. So far, said defeats haven't ousted him from power, although.

Yet, I must...remark something. In this election, the political forces were mainly three sides. The PSUV, the Chávez's party that compises his direct supporters, the opposition, that comprises his main antagonists, and the dissidency of the chavistas, formed by ex Chávez's supporters that claim they are not in agreement with his party but still say they are in agreement with the revolution. Incidentally, Chávez's party, the PSUV, claimed a lot of solid and advantageous victories. Also the opposition, in the five economic and population main states. However, the biggest losers here was the dissidency, that saw how each and every of their candidates, in Sucre, Carabobo, Caracas and other states, lost by a wide margin.

The opposition of more moderates in his own party, who calified themselves not as "opposers", but as "dissidents", was crushed, as it was showed they do not have support of their own, but just enjoyed temporary success due to their jump in Chávez's bandwagon. That means a more moderate spectrum is not in order, the situation was even more polarized to a "with us or against us" situation.

However, the biggest losers here was the dissidency, that saw how each and every of their candidates, in Sucre, Carabobo, Caracas and other states, lost by a wide margin.

The opposition of more moderates in his own party, who calified themselves not as "opposers", but as "dissidents", was crushed, as it was showed they do not have support of their own, but just enjoyed temporary success due to their jump in Chávez's bandwagon. That means a more moderate spectrum is not in order, the situation was even more polarized to a "with us or against us" situation.

Ah shit.

Unless he tweaks with the law (I hope he doesn't dare) and extends his term.

He already tried and failed, and he had a lot more support then than now. I think if he tries again he will fail again.

He already tried and failed, and he had a lot more support then than now. I think if he tries again he will fail again.

At least, then, 2012 will be the last year of his tenure as Venezuela's president/"caudillo wanna be".

At least, then, 2012 will be the last year of his tenure as Venezuela's president/"caudillo wanna be".

I hope so. And he is not a caudillo wanna be. He has all the right to bear the tittle of Caudillo, with capital letter.

I hope so. And he is not a caudillo wanna be. He has all the right to bear the tittle of Caudillo, with capital letter.

And... I like your Chihuahua avatar.:mad:

And... I like your Chihuahua avatar.:mad:

what you have against Chihuahuas? :mad:

what you have against Chihuahuas? :mad:

Nothing whatsoever! They're cute buggers!:mad:

As for Chávez... I stated many times he reminds me too much of Francisco Franco. There's something about his aura, about his speech, about the things he does that makes me feel a chill.

I do hope he loses more ground with his people. I hope that before 2012 he's nothing but a shadow of himself. He smells rotten and I don't think he will bring anything good to Venezuela in the ensuing years before his tenure's over.

As for Chávez... I stated many times he reminds me too much of Francisco Franco. There's something about his aura, about his speech, about the things he does that makes me feel a chill.

I do hope he loses more ground with his people. I hope that before 2012 he's nothing but a shadow of himself. He smells rotten and I don't think he will bring anything good to Venezuela in the ensuing years before his tenure's over.

'cept Franco took power by force and Chavez was democratically elected.

'cept Franco took power by force and Chavez was democratically elected.

Hitler was democratically elected.

'cept Franco took power by force and Chavez was democratically elected.

Which doesn't mean he won't turn into a monster. But meh, para lo que le queda en el poder... *shrugs*

'cept Franco took power by force and Chavez was democratically elected.

only after failing to take it by force.

Nanatsu: cuidadito con lo dices de los chihuahuas

only after failing to take it by force.


Failed coup, went to jail. Served his time - came out and went into politics.

Still not comparable to Franco.

Failed coup, went to jail. Served his time - came out and went into politics.

Still not comparable to Franco.

Comparable on what terms?

I'm comparable to Hitler in that we both hate smoking.

I don't even understand it. the 6 girls from Venezuela at my school all hate Chavez. wouldn't at least one out of 6 be a supporter if he was so popular.

I don't even understand it. the 6 girls from Venezuela at my school all hate Chavez. wouldn't at least one out of 6 be a supporter if he was so popular.

I should ask were your school is. Immigrants do not generally represent well the entire population of a country.

Go to Miami and ask what they think about Castro and you wont be able to believe there is a single cuban that supports him.... yet they are and they live in Cuba.

Are you in Venezuela? because if your not...

I should ask were your school is. Immigrants do not generally represent well the entire population of a country.

Go to Miami and ask what they think about Castro and you wont be able to believe there is a single cuban that supports him.... yet they are and they live in Cuba.

they are international students not immigrants.

Comparable on what terms?


This is what I was referring to.


As for Chávez... I stated many times he reminds me too much of Francisco Franco. There's something about his aura, about his speech, about the things he does that makes me feel a chill.


they are international students not immigrants.
If they are international students studying abroad, then no doubt they have some amount of family money. Ergo, they are not going to be poverty stricken (most of the base of Chavez's support) and are probably at least middle class (normally the majority of whom support the opposition to Chavez and not pro-his economic policies).

they are international students not immigrants.

International students. Well educated, probably middle class urbanites. the results do not surprise me. Go to a town in the middle of a rural area and repeat the questions. Results will most likely vary.

International students. Well educated, probably middle class urbanites. the results do not surprise me. Go to a town in the middle of a rural area and repeat the questions. Results will most likely vary.

yeah was just reading the wiki. apparently college students are one of the groups opposing the revolution.

Failed coup, went to jail. Served his time - came out and went into politics.

Still not comparable to Franco.

Didn't serve his time. Was pardoned because the next president gave him amnesty. He was so thankful as to start bashing said president right after he left the cell.

I don't even understand it. the 6 girls from Venezuela at my school all hate Chavez. wouldn't at least one out of 6 be a supporter if he was so popular.

Venezuelans in the US tend to be those who heavily disagree with Chávez, to the point of leaving the country. I would say a good....90 per cent of the venezuelans abroad do not like him or his goverment. That explains said situation.

yeah was just reading the wiki. apparently college students are one of the groups opposing the revolution.

Indeed, college students are one of the groups more opposed to his rule. That means than in the next ten years we will see a significant decrease of his popularity and his voting base, as the new voters will be more opposed to him. It seems that youngs don't like him, so far.

Didn't serve his time. Was pardoned because the next president gave him amnesty. He was so thankful as to start bashing said president right after he left the cell.

Wiki says he served two years in Yare prison before he was pardoned.... naturally it's Wikipedia, and I'll definitely take your word for it over Wiki's... but, you sure?

Indeed, college students are one of the groups more opposed to his rule. That means than in the next ten years we will see a significant decrease of his popularity and his voting base, as the new voters will be more opposed to him. It seems that youngs don't like him, so far.

Well i wouldn't mind if he stayed in power and some civil disturbances erupt. Venezuelan girls are hot and freaks in bed. leave all the young men fighting, and the young girls from families with means sending their daughters to the US to study.

Wiki says he served two years in Yare prison before he was pardoned.... naturally it's Wikipedia, and I'll definitely take your word for it over Wiki's... but, you sure?

Served some time, not all his time. Indeed, he served two years in prison. Wiki is right. I said he did't served all his time, not even a quarter of it, because he was pardoned. Perhaps it was a language barrier attack.

Wiki says he served two years in Yare prison before he was pardoned.... naturally it's Wikipedia, and I'll definitely take your word for it over Wiki's... but, you sure?

For some reason it is a normal mistake to be lenient on said dictators before they come to power.

Well i wouldn't mind if he stayed in power and some civil disturbances erupt. Venezuelan girls are hot and freaks in bed. leave all the young men fighting, and the young girls from families with means sending their daughters to the US to study.

Thanks, should I say? O.o

But...How do you know venezuelan girls are freaks in bed? Compared to what? Being a venezuelan girl myself, I have to wonder.

And more likely, you don't have a true apprecciation of what venezuelan girls are like, as more likely you have there 6 girls from Caracas, from the same environment, am I wrong?

Served some time, not all his time. Indeed, he served two years in prison. Wiki is right. I said he did't served all his time, not even a quarter of it, because he was pardoned. Perhaps it was a language barrier attack.

Actually yeh, re-reading your post I see what you meant. I'm always going to bow to a local on regional and specific politics. :wink:

For some reason it is a normal mistake to be lenient on said dictators
My overall point was that comparing the actions of someone who was democratically elected and has been shown to accept defeat (albeit not graciously) does not equate with someone like Franco. That is all.

Thanks, should I say? O.o

But...How do you know venezuelan girls are freaks in bed? Compared to what? Being a venezuelan girl myself, I have to wonder.

And more likely, you don't have a true apprecciation of what venezuelan girls are like, as more likely you have there 6 girls from Caracas, from the same environment, am I wrong?

only slept with one not all 6. I think she is from the Caracas. maybe freaks in bed was the wrong word. just lots of energy, lots of claw marks up and down my back a little bit of biting. and she was comfortable letting me tie her up.

I sort of volunteer at the international office so i can meet the exchange and international students pretty easily.

My overall point was that comparing the actions of someone who was democratically elected and has been shown to accept defeat (albeit not graciously) does not equate with someone like Franco. That is all.

much closer to Hitler that was actually elected.

Are you in Venezuela? because if your not...

...then you're not in Venezuela? That's the only sensible correlation I can seem to make with your post.

much closer to Hitler that was actually elected.

......riiiiiiiiiight.

Is this going to end up like Thailand, where the city-folk try and get the government removed but there aren't enough of them to outvote its mostly rural supporters?

Anyways, though this is not a terminal loss for Chávez, you'd have to say that in the current climate (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_on_bi_ge/lt_venezuela_oil_prices_1) his hands are somewhat tied as far as turning things around are concerned.

Nanatsu: cuidadito con lo dices de los chihuahuas

¿Pero no te jode? ¿Qué he dicho yo sobre los chihuahuas que pueda considerarse malo? Si de chica tenía de esos perritos. A mi me encantan los pijillos esos.:eek2:

¿Pero no te jode? ¿Qué he dicho yo sobre los chihuahuas que pueda considerarse malo? Si de chica tenía de esos perritos. A mi me encantan los pijillos esos.:eek2:

Más te vale :mad:

Más te vale :mad:

Engaaaa, abrázame!!!:fluffle:

Engaaaa, abrázame!!!:fluffle:

:$ bueno....solo porque es lunes. :fluffle:

:$ bueno....solo porque es lunes. :fluffle:

Santi Santi, tú sabes que me quieres mucho. No seas timidón. :p

And... back to the OP.

Actually yeh, re-reading your post I see what you meant. I'm always going to bow to a local on regional and specific politics. :wink:

Well, thanks, but take into account that even then, your opinion counts. Even although I am really trying to be quite objective here, the subjective point of view stands, so it isn't like I'm not biased towards one side.

My overall point was that comparing the actions of someone who was democratically elected and has been shown to accept defeat (albeit not graciously) does not equate with someone like Franco. That is all.

I must agree with this.

only slept with one not all 6. I think she is from the Caracas. maybe freaks in bed was the wrong word. just lots of energy, lots of claw marks up and down my back a little bit of biting. and she was comfortable letting me tie her up.

I sort of volunteer at the international office so i can meet the exchange and international students pretty easily.

You got a biter, lucky *wink*

Well, it's not like...You have a big experience as to judge so easily. I have friends that qualify to that stereotype, and some who just don't. I have been wandering for a bit in the "international scene", and all my stereotypes have failed so far. There are good and bad lovers everywhere.

Y a mí no me gustan los chihuahuas, me dan miedo. Mi perrito favorito, entendido como "perro chiquito", es el Shih-Tzu.

Y a mí no me gustan los chihuahuas, me dan miedo. Mi perrito favorito, entendido como "perro chiquito", es el Shih-Tzu.

Tu muerte sera lenta y dolorosa...y ocurrira pronto. :mad: los de la Liga Anti-Difamacion de los Chihuahuas nos haremos cargo de arreglarte. :mad:

Y a mí no me gustan los chihuahuas, me dan miedo. Mi perrito favorito, entendido como "perro chiquito", es el Shih-Tzu.

Tía, creo que el mexicano te ha amenazao...:eek2:

Corre antes de que te saque el chile picoso!!!!

Ooops, se le salió el charro!

You got a biter, lucky *wink*

Well, it's not like...You have a big experience as to judge so easily. I have friends that qualify to that stereotype, and some who just don't. I have been wandering for a bit in the "international scene", and all my stereotypes have failed so far. There are good and bad lovers everywhere.

I miss her. fun in bed but not as crazy as the Mexican ex. though i normally go for Korean and Chinese exchange students. Knowing their language is a really good way to introduce yourself. Where as in Texas knowing Spanish seems to convince upper class South American types that I hang out with trashy Mexicans. ( I don't know conclusion was reached during a hypothetical conversation, when I noticed they never hang out with white Spanish speakers)

Well if there are any more like her starting a civil war in your country just to get more of them here is not against my morals.

So, for the first time since several years, each and every side in Venezuela's politics have a reason to feel happy and satisfied after an election. (snippity snippity)
Before these elections, Chávez supporters held 21 states.
Question is: will this persuade some people that Venezuela isn't ruled by a dictatorship? I'm afraid that many people still think that (and they're wrong: Chavez has strong authoritarian tendencies, but is not a dictator).


This would mean that both sides will be forced to discuss and cooperate, or would it mean the situation will degenerate in a deadlock similar to the regional versus central contest we saw this year in Bolivia?
The latter might be, I'm afraid, expecially if the US continue to fuel attrition.


Chávez said before the elections that he won't give resources to the states controlled by the opposition. Will he fulfill that promise, or was just another political strategy? He even declared that he would send the tanks out in the street should he lose in the Carabobo state. He lost, will he truly send the armed forces out or was just another empty threat?
Armed forces = empty threat. Reducing resources, well, that's quite common; Berlusconi cuts resources for local administrations held by the centre-left.

Question is: will this persuade some people that Venezuela isn't ruled by a dictatorship? I'm afraid that many people still think that (and they're wrong: Chavez has strong authoritarian tendencies, but is not a dictator).


The latter might be, I'm afraid, expecially if the US continue to fuel attrition.

Sweet.
Hot Venezuelan girls looking for citizenship I can hook up with. I will continue to support those who fuel tension in that country.

Sweet.
Hot Venezuelan girls looking for citizenship I can hook up with. I will continue to support those who fuel tension in that country.

Whoa, that's personal interests in politics. :eek2:

Whoa, that's personal interests in politics. :eek2:

I am sure many will seek the comforts of Italy as well. Any increase in the number for us is a good thing don't you agree.

I am sure many will seek the comforts of Italy as well. Any increase in the number for us is a good thing don't you agree.

That would be a bad thing for me. More hot girls here => more jealousy of my fiancee. :(

That would be a bad thing for me. More hot girls here => more jealousy of my fiancee. :(

then the realization she better treat you better to keep you, if you play it right.
Also think like this if we keep the countries with hot women in a constant state of Civil war we could lower the bar for men everywhere.
We could be lazier, drunker, and less concerned about our families then ever before.

Ooops, se le salió el charro!

Dicen que el mejor perfume y el mejor veneno vienen en frascos pequeños...:D

then the realization she better treat you better to keep you, if you play it right.
You're an optimist.

Also think like this if we keep the countries with hot women in a constant state of Civil war we could lower the bar for men everywhere.
We could be lazier, drunker, and less concerned about our families then ever before. Mmhhh... :hail:

You're an optimist.

Mmhhh... :hail:

basically my platform to run for paramount leader of the combined US/EU/Japan and other developed nations. will be to pit 3rd world nations with hot females against each other in war and offer refuge to said hot women so that men the world over can be lazier, drunker, and more concerned about their own stuff. then ever before.

I trust I can depend on your vote then ?

Your venereally oriented plan may run into certain obstacles, such as the inclusion of women in the armed forces. Venezuela is one of those nations that has opened all of roles in the armed forces to women.

Your venereally oriented plan may run into certain obstacles, such as the inclusion of women in the armed forces. Venezuela is one of those nations that has opened all of roles in the armed forces to women.

I'm sigging that first part!:eek2:

basically my platform to run for paramount leader of the combined us/eu/japan and other developed nations. Will be to pit 3rd world nations with hot females against each other in war and offer refuge to said hot women so that men the world over can be lazier, drunker, and more concerned about their own stuff. Then ever before.

I trust i can depend on your vote then ?


yay!:D

basically my platform to run for paramount leader of the combined US/EU/Japan and other developed nations. will be to pit 3rd world nations with hot females against each other in war and offer refuge to said hot women so that men the world over can be lazier, drunker, and more concerned about their own stuff. then ever before.

I trust I can depend on your vote then ?

I'm in.

I'm sigging that first part!:eek2:

Muchas gracias, señorita. Muy amable.

Your venereally oriented plan may run into certain obstacles, such as the inclusion of women in the armed forces. Venezuela is one of those nations that has opened all of roles in the armed forces to women.

yes. Even with all roles opened to women men still out number women at least 5 to 1. This also serves as an advantage as most of the women in the armed forces are butch dykes and of little interest to me.

yes. Even with all roles opened to women men still out number women at least 5 to 1. This also serves as an advantage as most of the women in the armed forces are butch dykes and of little interest to me.

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

jsut calling it as I see it as a veteran of the armed forces. more men in the military. and more women who look Mannish. so overall a net gain in hot chicks.

jsut calling it as I see it as a veteran of the armed forces. more men in the military. and more women who look Mannish. so overall a net gain in hot chicks.

Even if you're telling the truth about being in the military, your experiences would not necessarily be similar to anyone else's. You're making the assumption that your experience is universal instead of simply individual.

Even if you're telling the truth about being in the military, your experiences would not necessarily be similar to anyone else's. You're making the assumption that your experience is universal instead of simply individual.


that's the general consensus i get when drinking and cooking up evil plans with other veterans. there are exceptions to this rule both individually and in things like the nurse career field. The net effect will be a greater decreases in ugly chicks as opposed to hot chicks in the typical American stereotype of thin weak and docile. though those into more athletic chicks might come out behind.


though if it bothers you simply name one nation who's armed forces have greater than or equal 50% female in active duty.

Question is: will this persuade some people that Venezuela isn't ruled by a dictatorship? I'm afraid that many people still think that (and they're wrong: Chavez has strong authoritarian tendencies, but is not a dictator).

No idea. Sometimes mental limitations hold no bonds. Elections= Democratically elected= Not a dictator.


The latter might be, I'm afraid, expecially if the US continue to fuel attrition.

I don't know, I don't think the US have been involved in our politics lately, despite what Hugo says. They were kicked out for good.

Armed forces = empty threat. Reducing resources, well, that's quite common; Berlusconi cuts resources for local administrations held by the centre-left.

Quite authoritarian, don't you think?

And I won't comment on Greed and Death's plan, as it is mainly humorous, and yet it offends me, and I could turn this into a nasty discussion.

quick question - I keep hearing that violent crime in Venezuela (particularly murder) is now 4 times what the rate was in Columbia at the height of their internecine warfare.

Is this true?

that's the general consensus i get when drinking and cooking up evil plans with other veterans. there are exceptions to this rule both individually and in things like the nurse career field. The net effect will be a greater decreases in ugly chicks as opposed to hot chicks in the typical American stereotype of thin weak and docile. though those into more athletic chicks might come out behind.


though if it bothers you simply name one nation who's armed forces have greater than or equal 50% female in active duty.

Again, assuming these people are also veterans, they seem to be making the same error as you. I guess hanging out with people who make the same mistakes must be comforting, but it doesn't make you smarter or even correct.

It is nice to see that you are aware of your assumptions about what beauty is (i.e damsel in distress, as any woman that can take care of herself is presumably a 'butch dyke'), and hopefully one day you can pick up a lot of foreign docile chicks who are tigers in bed.

quick question - I keep hearing that violent crime in Venezuela (particularly murder) is now 4 times what the rate was in Columbia at the height of their internecine warfare.

Is this true?

There is this thing called google which you can use to find out such things.

FUKIT: According to this unsubstantiated article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3184293/Venezuelas-murder-rates-surpass-Colombias-under-Hugo-Chavez.html), Caracas (which has a much higher homicide rate than the rest of the nation) is at 130 per 100,000. One quarter of that would be about 32 per 100,000. Now, wiki has homicide rates for Colombia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) going back several years. At no point do they dip below 37, which is now, after the worst of the killing has stopped.

quick question - I keep hearing that violent crime in Venezuela (particularly murder) is now 4 times what the rate was in Columbia at the height of their internecine warfare.

Is this true?

In Venezuela or just Caracas?

In Venezuela or just Caracas?

Perhaps you can give an overview of various areas. I'd rather hear from someone there, rather than Google.

quick question - I keep hearing that violent crime in Venezuela (particularly murder) is now 4 times what the rate was in Columbia at the height of their internecine warfare.

Is this true?

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html

I call BS on that, but since it's from your government's own Department of State...

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html

I call BS on that, but since it's from your government's own Department of State...

hence, the reason I asked Aelosia

Again, assuming these people are also veterans, they seem to be making the same error as you. I guess hanging out with people who make the same mistakes must be comforting, but it doesn't make you smarter or even correct.


Okay lets toss the concept of beauty out for a moment.
The armed forces are still much more male then female. Which means a much higher rate of men being tied up in a civil war then women. This in turn translate to much more women fleeing the country then men. which means much more to hunt and lower standards for men in the US and Western Europe.

Okay lets toss the concept of beauty out for a moment.
The armed forces are still much more male then female. Which means a much higher rate of men being tied up in a civil war then women. This in turn translate to much more women fleeing the country then men. which means much more to hunt and lower standards for men in the US and Western Europe.

I don't feel like beating the dead horse of your mathematically inaccurate sexual fantasies anymore. Do you have anything on the Venezulea elections?

I don't know, I don't think the US have been involved in our politics lately, despite what Hugo says. They were kicked out for good.

As far as my knowledge, the only time we get involved in Ven. is when Hugo the Troll drags us into it.

As far as my knowledge, the only time we get involved in Ven. is when Hugo the Troll drags us into it.

I beg to differ. You get involved, many times, wether you're dragged into or not.

I beg to differ. You get involved, many times, wether you're dragged into or not.

Seconded

I beg to differ. You get involved, many times, wether you're dragged into or not.

Examples?


Things like oil price negotiations dont count.

Examples?


Things like oil price negotiations dont count.

Iraq, is one of those examples. And quite a recent one. Vietnam is another example. Afghanistan is another example.

Examples?


Things like oil price negotiations dont count.

You mean venezuela?

This was the latest in a long series:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

It's hard to say. Official figures are one thing, but sadly we know that official, final figures, (provided by the INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas) are supposedly lower to the ones presented by the police organisms here. I guess some of the crimes get lost when totalizing figures?

The problem is, while I do recognize that the official figures presented by the goverment are between moderate and heavily biased to make appear the problem better than it is, the figures presented by other organisms are also biased to make the problem worse. So I can't really present you with an unbiased source. Sorry about that, but I am being completely honest.

We do have a situation regarding crime, although. A serious one. I have been mugged 7 times in my life, one including an attempt of rape, for instance, and now I carry a gun with me most of the time. I don't live in a shady neighbourhood, although. Most people I know have been assaulted, mugged, robbed or something worse at least once. I worked for a social program in a barrio giving music classes to kids, and over there, at least five persons are killed weekly by gunfire. In just one neighbourhood! ONE barrio!

I don't have a totalized figure, but in my day to day experience, yes, it is a heavy, heavy problem.

Iraq, is one of those examples. And quite a recent one. Vietnam is another example. Afghanistan is another example.

You miss the part were this was about Venezuela?

You miss the part were this was about Venezuela?

You asked me to offer examples of what I stated: the US getting dragged into conflicts where they're not called into. So, I complied.

You mean venezuela?

This was the latest in a long series:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

So, according to an arm of The Guardian? Not buying it.


If it turns out Bush did try and push a coup through, Ill be one of the first calling for his head, and Ill add it to my list of things that make him the worst US president ever. But this one, Im not buying until all the facts are in.

You asked me to offer examples of what I stated: the US getting dragged into conflicts where they're not called into. So, I complied.

As far as my knowledge, the only time we get involved in Ven. is when Hugo the Troll drags us into it.


You clearly missed te bolded in the post you originially quoted.

Im not an idiot. I dont know if you trying to paint me as such is intentional or not, but either way its unappreciated.

If it turns out Bush did try and push a coup through, Ill be one of the first calling for his head, and Ill add it to my list of things that make him the worst US president ever. But this one, Im not buying until all the facts are in.

It's well documented with good proof that they did attempt a coup, it's not particularly new news or anything.

It's well documented with good proof that they did attempt a coup, it's not particularly new news or anything.

Recently? I havent heard anything concrete about anything recent (last 8 years).

It wouldnt shock me, but Ill ive heard is accusations and counter accusations. Both from people whom I disdain and are habitual liars.

You clearly missed te bolded in the post you originially quoted.

Im not an idiot. I dont know if you trying to paint me as such is intentional or not, but either way its unappreciated.

Now you're missreading or reading what you want. I didn't implied in any way, fashion or the like that you're an idiot. I know you're not, or at least that's the impression I get from your posts. This diatribe is also unappreciated. But you didn't quite read or comprehend my post in answer to that post of yours.

Go back and read it. Then check your post about me offering examples. I offered them. That's all. And I know this thread is about Venezuela.

Go back and read it. Then check your post about me offering examples. I offered them. That's all. And I know this thread is about Venezuela.

Me: The US, to my knowledge, does not intefere with Venezuala unless Hugo drags us into it.

You: Uh-huh they do.

Me: Examples?

You: Iraq!


Iraq is not Venezuala. I am well aware we interfere were we arent wanted all the time. But this specific conversation has beena bout Venezuala from the start. There has clearly been a miscommunication somewhere. I asked for examples of the US interfering in Venezuala, at least as much as Hugo says we do. In return, I got a list of examples involving conflicts on the other side of the globe.

Recently? I havent heard anything concrete about anything recent (last 8 years).

It wouldnt shock me, but Ill ive heard is accusations and counter accusations. Both from people whom I disdain and are habitual liars.

I'll try to find some sources.

I'll try to find some sources.

Meh dont bother. Im inclinded to believe you, because it would be very in character with this administration.

Me: The US, to my knowledge, does not intefere with Venezuala unless Hugo drags us into it.

You: Uh-huh they do.

Me: Examples?

You: Iraq!


Iraq is not Venezuala. I am well aware we interfere were we arent wanted all the time. But this specific conversation has beena bout Venezuala from the start.

That's not, at all, what I posted. I posted that the US interferes where it's not needed. I wasn´t referring to Venezuela at all. I know you haven't interefered in that country, Hugo Chávez hasn't let you.

And I gave you other examples besides Iraq. These you would've seen if you had actually read my post, not read what you wanted to read and understand what you wanted to understand.

That's not, at all, what I posted. I posted that the US interferes where it's not needed. I wasn´t referring to Venezuela at all. I know you haven't interefered in that country, Hugo Chávez hasn't let you.

And I gave you other examples besides Iraq. These you would've seen if you had actually read my post, not read what you wanted to read and understand what you wanted to understand.

Ok, sure you gave examples of the US intefering were we arent wanted, but I had, from the start, been making a statement specifically pertaining to Venezuala. Your examples were irrelevent to this conversation, and continue to be so.


Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc have NOTHING to do with Venezuala and Hugo Chavez's assertions that the big mean US is always interfering with is government.

Meh dont bother. Im inclinded to believe you, because it would be very in character with this administration.

Actually, I'm finding it difficult to find any good sources for this, perhaps there isn't much evidence for it after all.

As far as my knowledge, the only time we get involved in Ven. is when Hugo the Troll drags us into it.


I beg to differ. You get involved, many times, wether you're dragged into or not.



Examples?


Things like oil price negotiations dont count.

Iraq, is one of those examples. And quite a recent one. Vietnam is another example. Afghanistan is another example.



So, while you are 100% correct love, your post was still out of left field and didnt really pertain to what I was talking about.


Hence me "wtf?"

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc have NOTHING to do with Venezuala and Hugo Chavez's assertions that the big mean US is always interfering with is government.

Your post in no way showed that that was your assertion.
''As far as my knowledge, the only time we get involved in Ven. is when Hugo the Troll drags us into it.''

This seems to be a case of missinterpretation and in now way will it help the thread.

Actually, I'm finding it difficult to find any good sources for this, perhaps there isn't much evidence for it after all.

As I said, theyre both habitual liars and obnoxious, miserable human beings.


To attempt a coup would be in character for Bush.

To lie about or exaggerate the US's role in the coup would be perfectly in character for Hugo the RL Troll.

But Im inclinded to, in this case, side with Chavez.

Your post in no way showed that that was your assertion.
''As far as my knowledge, the only time we get involved in Ven. is when Hugo the Troll drags us into it.''

Except for, you know, me specifically mentioning "Ven.".

Perhaps my abreviation of Venezuala has caused the confusion.


This seems to be a case of missinterpretation and in now way will it help the thread.


Meh.

Except for, you know, me specifically mentioning "Ven.".

Perhaps my abreviation of Venezuala has caused the confusion.

No, it did not cause any confusion. I knew what you were referring to.


Meh.

Meh indeed.

It's "Venezuela", I know you people spell it "Venezuala", but it isn't written nor pronounced that way.

Yes, the US has been meddling in the affairs of Venezuela in the past. However, not to the extent Chávez says.

To a point, both arguments in this case would be valid.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
That is a remarkably dishonest article. It's got one or two sentences refering to "sources" and "officials" to actually support the message it's trying to get across. Everything else is irrelevant, but obviously designed to get people to think "these guys are bad, hence they must have done this".

Not saying the US wasn't involved, but that article is just plain terrible.

I don't feel like beating the dead horse of your mathematically inaccurate sexual fantasies anymore. Do you have anything on the Venezulea elections?

that was the whole point of the conversation. Hopefully it will lead to civil war which will lead to more women running over here.

And if not hopefully the US can set something up like that.

That is a remarkably dishonest article. It's got one or two sentences refering to "sources" and "officials" to actually support the message it's trying to get across. Everything else is irrelevant, but obviously designed to get people to think "these guys are bad, hence they must have done this".

Not saying the US wasn't involved, but that article is just plain terrible.

Once you sift through the bias, it does provide some salient facts: many of the main actors in the failed Venezuela coup of 2002 met with White House officilas just prior to the coup. And it was these same officials who were quick to accept the legitimacy of the coup government. Circumstantial evidence at best for implicating the US in the coup, but it a striking coincidence.

Look lets bring back united fruit. And maybe create a United oil under the same idea and let them take control of what ever latin American country they want.

Look lets bring back united fruit. And maybe create a United oil under the same idea and let them take control of what ever latin American country they want.

Do you have anything useful to add?

Do you have anything useful to add?

that American corporations could Run Venezuela better that's pretty much an accepted fact isn't it.

Circumstantial evidence at best for implicating the US in the coup, but it a striking coincidence.

Exactly. It would be pretty incompetent administration to leave substantial breadcrumbs that ties them to the coup.

With 17 governors and a nice number of mayors elected, the allies and supporters of the president Hugo Chávez feel that they still remain in power, and that have a good base to maintain their policies.

80% of mayors, and around 57% of national vote. So yes, it's a clear majority for support of Chávez policies.

Yet, 5 of the main and more populated 7 states are now in control of the opposition, including largely the capital city of Caracas, and the economic powerhouses of Zulia and Carabobo, in what is a new surge of the political movement opposed to the central goverment.

Chávez won the *city* of Caracas but lost the *region* of Carcas (metropolitan area). That's the main drawback for Chávez, yes. And quite problematic because it's the metropolitan police the opposition used in Arpil 2002 for the military coup... so let's hope they won't try that again.

Before these elections, Chávez supporters held 21 states.

Not true. Several of them were elected as Chávez supporters, but betrayed Chávez (and the voters who voted for Chávez supporters, not for opponents). Chávez had real supporters only in 15 regions before the vote, and he has 17 now.

This would mean that both sides will be forced to discuss and cooperate, or would it mean the situation will degenerate in a deadlock similar to the regional versus central contest we saw this year in Bolivia?

There is no real deadlock in Bolivia. There is a very strong majority supporting Evo Morales, and an opposition using every means, including violence and murder, to try to stop him. But the referendum in the new Constitution will be held, and very likely be a strong victory of Evo Morales.

Chávez said before the elections that he won't give resources to the states controlled by the opposition. Will he fulfill that promise, or was just another political strategy? He even declared that he would send the tanks out in the street should he lose in the Carabobo state. He lost, will he truly send the armed forces out or was just another empty threat?

This is just FUD.

that American corporations could Run Venezuela better that's pretty much an accepted fact isn't it.

I guess that means you don't have anything useful to add.

Exactly. It would be pretty incompetent administration to leave substantial breadcrumbs that ties them to the coup.

Well, we are talking about the Bush administration which has been characterised by short-sighted foreign policy followed up by just enough handling to avoid liability. This seems to follow the pattern.

Is it me or Chávez doesn't take well to defeat. I hope he understand that his country is sending him a clear message to step down. I hope things don't escalate so much that the military is indeed sent to the streets. I hope Chávez was bluffing when he threatened to put tanks on the streets. :(

57% of people voting for PSUV candidates, and it's a message for him to step down ? Wtf ?

Exactly. It would be pretty incompetent administration to leave substantial breadcrumbs that ties them to the coup.And of course, US administrations are never incompetent. :p

I think he lost many, incidentally due to his inability to surround himself with acceptable cronies, but instead choosing babboons as his lieutenants. More than due to his actions, he lost supporters due to the inept ruling of many of his subordinates.

I agree that Chávez made some mistakes in chosing "lieutenants". But that's quite hard when you have to do everything from scratch against a so violent and reckless opposition.

Anyway, Chávez is out in 2012, unless he wants to try ANOTHER constitutional reform to extend his term and his ability to get reelected. I don't find another one of those succesful, given the results of last sunday, and what happened the last time he tried.

Well, Chávez was clear that he won't propose a new one. But in Venezuela, unlike in most of the world, and thanks to Chávez, the PEOPLE can propose a reform. And I do think Chávez supporters will propose one. As for the result... Well, Chávez had 57% of national votes. So he has still strong support. For the constitutional reform of last year, he lost with a very very thin margin, and with a high abstention rate. So a new referendum could very easily be a victory of Chávez. There was also quite a lot of contested changes in the constitutional reform of 2007, not just the reelection one. So a limited reform, with some parts removed, could more easily win than the full one.

A lot will also depend on the world economical crisis, how much it will affect oil prices on the long term, and how good Chávez' policies are in fighting the crisis. On the theorical side, the crisis shows that neoliberalism is so unstable that it's pure suicide to pursue it, and should reinforce PSUV. But the fall of oil price will slow the reforms and reducing of poverty in Venezuela, and may have a negative effect on PSUV. It came too soon, before the "Siembra Petrolera" plan gave its full effect.

Hitler was democratically elected.

No.

Hitler received 30% of the votes, not a majority. He only reached power because the "democratic" right wanted to use Hitler against the communist. But the people of germany *never* elected Hitler. Unlike Chávez who was elected and reelected many times, with strong majority (63% on latest election).

only after failing to take it by force

You should remember the context: Chávez revolted against the government only because the government sent the army to violently repress a popular protest, killing 3000 people in the "Caracazo". Not just because he wanted power... As Bolivar said, and as Chávez loves to quote, "curse upon the soldier who turns his weapons against his own people".

yeah was just reading the wiki. apparently college students are one of the groups opposing the revolution.

Not really. They are the most vocal of the opposition. But during the 2007 referendum for example (the one Chávez lost by a very thin margin), there were more people in pro-Chávez student demonstrations than in anti-Chávez ones. The students in the opposition are just more active, violent, and shown by the media.

Indeed, college students are one of the groups more opposed to his rule. That means than in the next ten years we will see a significant decrease of his popularity and his voting base, as the new voters will be more opposed to him. It seems that youngs don't like him, so far.

As I said in my previous post, that's false. Many many students support Chávez - especially all those who couldn't have been students without him. They are less vocal and less shown by the media, but AFAICS they are the majority of students.

We do have a situation regarding crime, although. A serious one. I have been mugged 7 times in my life, one including an attempt of rape, for instance, and now I carry a gun with me most of the time. I don't live in a shady neighbourhood, although. Most people I know have been assaulted, mugged, robbed or something worse at least once. I worked for a social program in a barrio giving music classes to kids, and over there, at least five persons are killed weekly by gunfire. In just one neighbourhood! ONE barrio!

I don't have a totalized figure, but in my day to day experience, yes, it is a heavy, heavy problem.

Yes, I agree with that. And that Chávez didn't do enough on this issue. Well, he started very good things, about reinsertion (Vuelvan Carcas, Negra Hipolita, ...), and there is this national police plan that is slowly starting to take effect. But he waited too long to attack the problem, and while he's right to focus on long term issues (reducing poverty and reinsertion), it doesn't help those who are attacked *now*.

That's probably the reason of Chávez defeat in the metropolitan Caracas. Much more than disagreement with his economical/social policy.

57% of people voting for PSUV candidates, and it's a message for him to step down ? Wtf ?

Indeed it is. He lost the areas with the most population and with the major production centers. That, right there, is a message. So, don't WTF me dear.

And who's opinion on Venezuela am I going to take as the true one? Yours, a Parisian, or Aelosia's, A venezuelan who lives there, has lived there, and can tell me what's really going on? Hm?

It's "Venezuela", I know you people spell it "Venezuala", but it isn't written nor pronounced that way.

Yes, the US has been meddling in the affairs of Venezuela in the past. However, not to the extent Chávez says.

Well, direct support to a coup attempt, massive funding of opposition parties (I remind you than in USA a political party is forbidden to receive money from abroad), and direct threats (reactivation of the 4th fleet, ridiculous linking of Chávez with terrorists, ...), that's quite a lot.

I also don't get calling it a revolution as long as he has. okay you've been elected change some stuff. Its been how many years and he calls it revolution. it would be like Obama running on the platform of change for his reelection campaign in 2012.

Indeed it is. He lost the areas with the most population and with the major production centers. That, right there, is a message. So, don't WTF me dear.

He won 57% of the popular vote. So 57% of the population support him. That's a clear message, it is "go on !"

And who's opinion on Venezuela am I going to take as the true one? Yours, a Parisian, or Aelosia's, A venezuelan who lives there, has lived there, and can tell me what's really going on? Hm?

Being there may help, but that doesn't make you right. For once, you'll find venezuelian on both side (57% on Chávez side ;) ). I know many people who live in Venezuela, both venezuelian and french. And anyway, when you are interested in a topic and do a lot of research on it (as I do with Chávez) you usually end up with a much deeper understanding than just "being there".

I also don't get calling it a revolution as long as he has. okay you've been elected change some stuff. Its been how many years and he calls it revolution. it would be like Obama running on the platform of change for his reelection campaign in 2012.

Well, that's Chávez for you. At least he's stepping down on 2012. I just hope he doesn't evolve into a monster before then.

I also don't get calling it a revolution as long as he has. okay you've been elected change some stuff. Its been how many years and he calls it revolution. it would be like Obama running on the platform of change for his reelection campaign in 2012.

A revolution is a process of changing the core structure of the society. Chávez is doing that. But is not doing it like in 1917 where you change everything in one blow - it doesn't work. He's doing it progressively, taking his time, listening to people, doing it WITH people. But that's still a revolution. Because the goal is to radically change the structure of the society.

He won 57% of the popular vote. So 57% of the population support him. That's a clear message, it is "go on !"

57% of a nation with such a large population is basically nothing.

Being there may help, but that doesn't make you right. For once, you'll find venezuelian on both side (57% on Chávez side ;) ). I know many people who live in Venezuela, both venezuelian and french. And anyway, when you are interested in a topic and do a lot of research on it (as I do with Chávez) you usually end up with a much deeper understanding than just "being there".

Since you do so much research on Venezuela and since you have a deep understanding of Chávez, it would serve you to know, very well, how to spell the gintilicium too. It's Venezuelan, sans "i".;)

A revolution is a process of changing the core structure of the society. Chávez is doing that. But is not doing it like in 1917 where you change everything in one blow - it doesn't work. He's doing it progressively, taking his time, listening to people, doing it WITH people. But that's still a revolution. Because the goal is to radically change the structure of the society.

Maybe its just a translation issue but in English a revolution is defined as
a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

Well, that's Chávez for you. At least he's stepping down on 2012. I just hope he doesn't evolve into a monster before then.

My concern is that he wont step down. he will just declare his service is still needed for the revolution and the US is plotting to kill his successor.

My concern is that he wont step down. he will just declare his service is still needed for the revolution and the US is plotting to kill his successor.

The law in Venezuela states he has to step down in 2012. I really hope he steps down.

57% of a nation with such a large population is basically nothing.

That's a much larger victory than almost all government in the "west" (USA or Europe). So yes, it's a very clear message for him to go on, or it means that all governments everywhere in the world (except maybe Ecuador and Bolivia, is 70% and 67% good enough for you ?) should just stop ?

Since you do so much research on Venezuela and since you have a deep understanding of Chávez, it would serve you to know, very well, how to spell the gintilicium too. It's Venezuelan, sans "i".;)

I know how to spell it in french ;) sorry for the english mistake.

My concern is that he wont step down. he will just declare his service is still needed for the revolution and the US is plotting to kill his successor.

He'll step down if the law says he has to. What I hope (and what he probably hopes) is that the people ask for a new referendum and that he wins it. But that's the people to decide. If they don't, Chávez will step down as president.

Which doesn't mean he'll step down from politics, if the PSUV wins the election in 2012 he'll probably be part of the government. If the PSUV lose the election, Chávez will stay as an opponent.

That's a much larger victory than almost all government in the "west" (USA or Europe). So yes, it's a very clear message for him to go on, or it means that all governments everywhere in the world (except maybe Ecuador and Bolivia, is 70% and 67% good enough for you ?) should just stop ?

To me it is.

I know how to spell it in french ;) sorry for the english mistake.

Il n'ya pas de problém, garçon.:wink:

Maybe its just a translation issue but in English a revolution is defined as
a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

Here the definitions in my english dictionnary (gcide) :


6. A total or radical change; as, a revolution in one's
circumstances or way of living.

7. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization,
or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or
renunciation of one government, and the substitution of
another, by the governed.


And from another (WordNet) :


revolution
n 1: a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and
behaving; "the industrial revolution was also a cultural
revolution"
2: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed

Being there may help, but that doesn't make you right. For once, you'll find venezuelian on both side (57% on Chávez side ;) ). I know many people who live in Venezuela, both venezuelian and french. And anyway, when you are interested in a topic and do a lot of research on it (as I do with Chávez) you usually end up with a much deeper understanding than just "being there".

Of course, that would assume that I am not interested in the topic, which I find quite off the mark, and that I haven't done a lot of research on it, although I do work making said research everyday. Of course, although that gives me every advantage possible, I bow in front of your deeper, extremely biased, ideologically oriented, understanding.

Of course, that would assume that I am not interested in the topic, which I find quite off the mark, and that I haven't done a lot of research on it, although I do work making said research everyday. Of course, although that gives me every advantage possible, I bow in front of your deeper, extremely biased, ideologically oriented, understanding.

Es que molas, tía, molas!!!:hail:

Of course, that would assume that I am not interested in the topic, which I find quite off the mark, and that I haven't done a lot of research on it, although I do work making said research everyday. Of course, although that gives me every advantage possible, I bow in front of your deeper, extremely biased, ideologically oriented, understanding.Now, now. Kilobugya's eyes are capable of seeing the truth, whereas you've been teargassed by the Venezuelan government, and hence your view can't be trusted. =P

Actually, proximity and interest may influence the amount of knowledge each debator has, but that does not mean that the person with more proximity and/or knowledge will be correct. Aelosia probably knows more, but that does not mean she is definitely correct. It just means she has more at her disposal to show that she is correct.

Of course, that would assume that I am not interested in the topic, which I find quite off the mark, and that I haven't done a lot of research on it, although I do work making said research everyday. Of course, although that gives me every advantage possible, I bow in front of your deeper, extremely biased, ideologically oriented, understanding.

That's not what I said. I said that being there is in no way an important fact when saying if you're right or wrong.

As for being ideologically oriented, the mere fact you imply you are not show you are not sincere, everyone is, neutrality and objectivity doesn't exist in politics. I don't hide being a radical leftist, and giving my analysis as one. There is nothing wrong in having an ideology, there is a lot of wrong in claiming to not have one when you, as anyone else, has one.

Now, now. Kilobugya's eyes are capable of seeing the truth, whereas you've been teargassed by the Venezuelan government, and hence your view can't be trusted. =P

I would more say brainwashed by the private media ;) But that's not even what I claim - I don't claim to know what is in Aelosia's head.

Sometimes she says very ridiculous comments like there was no coup in 2002 which makes her appear to be a hard-core supporter of the opposition saying lies just to support her cause (as so many Chávez opponents do, both here and there), but most of the time she is much more rational (even if I disagree with her), and anyway I don't really know her, so I won't make any judgement on her as a person.

Chávez won the *city* of Caracas but lost the *region* of Carcas (metropolitan area). That's the main drawback for Chávez, yes. And quite problematic because it's the metropolitan police the opposition used in Arpil 2002 for the military coup... so let's hope they won't try that again.

For instance, here we have a mistake in your deep understanding of the situation. In the Metropolitan Area, Chávez's candidates only won in the Libertador municipality, with Jorge Rodríguez. In the other municipalities that make Caracas, including the Metropolitan Mayor, the opposition won. Check again the division of power in the capital area.

Regarding the Metropolitan police, another lack of knowledge. The Metropolitan Police is now under direct control from the Ministerio para el Poder Popular del Interior y Justicia. (Ministry of Interior and Justice), so its dependant on the executive power, in other words, of Hugo Chávez.

Not true. Several of them were elected as Chávez supporters, but betrayed Chávez (and the voters who voted for Chávez supporters, not for opponents). Chávez had real supporters only in 15 regions before the vote, and he has 17 now.

Sorry, but true. I already said that Chávez's dissidency was the biggest loser in the elections. None of the dissidents managed to hold their regions. Not getting your point.

There is no real deadlock in Bolivia. There is a very strong majority supporting Evo Morales, and an opposition using every means, including violence and murder, to try to stop him. But the referendum in the new Constitution will be held, and very likely be a strong victory of Evo Morales.

There is a deadlock. Sorry, I'm not even entering this discussion. Morales holds wide national support, while his opposers hold strong regional support. Without said support, Morales would have had his way easily. That's a deadlock.

This is just FUD.

Please show me some light about the meaning of FUD.

Please show me some light about the meaning of FUD.

Female Urinary Device?

Fouled Up Disinformation, probably.

Sometimes she says very ridiculous comments like there was no coup in 2002 which makes her appear to be a hard-core supporter of the opposition saying lies just to support her cause (as so many Chávez opponents do, both here and there), but most of the time she is much more rational (even if I disagree with her), and anyway I don't really know her, so I won't make any judgement on her as a person.

The day you and the international Eva Golinger reports shed some light about the role of Lucas Rincón in said coup, we will discuss again about what happened during those days. So far, you haven't addressed that point, until then, I have nothing to say.

That the supreme commander of the armed forces said in national television that the president has resigned, without being true, could be considered as part of a military coup, indeed. However, the fact that after all that happened afterwards he was rewarded being selected as the president's right hand as Minister of Interior holds no sense. If that wasn't a void of power, then I'm lost about it.

You should remember the context: Chávez revolted against the government only because the government sent the army to violently repress a popular protest, killing 3000 people in the "Caracazo". Not just because he wanted power... As Bolivar said, and as Chávez loves to quote, "curse upon the soldier who turns his weapons against his own people".

Caracazo: 1989

Chávez's attempt of a coup: 1992

3 years later? That's a lot of time to meditate about what happened in 1989. Of course, he didn't want power. He has been forced to be the president of Venezuela for almost 10 years.

Chávez already recognized that he was plotting to overthrow the goverment since he was a cadet in the military academy. That was way long before 1989.

Not really. They are the most vocal of the opposition. But during the 2007 referendum for example (the one Chávez lost by a very thin margin), there were more people in pro-Chávez student demonstrations than in anti-Chávez ones. The students in the opposition are just more active, violent, and shown by the media.

Of course, you lack proof about this. You weren't in any of those protests or demonstrations. I was there, from both sides.

As I said in my previous post, that's false. Many many students support Chávez - especially all those who couldn't have been students without him. They are less vocal and less shown by the media, but AFAICS they are the majority of students.

No, that's false. Many students support Chávez, but as far as know, the groups of students linked to the opposition have won each and every university election. Almost 90 per cent of the Student's Federations are hold by groups opposed to the goverment, with the clear exception of the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela, created and directly controlled by Cháveza, of course. If that is not a proof, then I don't know what it is.

Well, direct support to a coup attempt, massive funding of opposition parties (I remind you than in USA a political party is forbidden to receive money from abroad), and direct threats (reactivation of the 4th fleet, ridiculous linking of Chávez with terrorists, ...), that's quite a lot.

Well, direct support for a coup attempt...Let's review it. I think there was indirect support, and many US officials were involved in deposing Chávez AND putting one of their puppets, Carmona, in power. Direct support as in sending weapons, men, no, not really.

The reactivation of the 4th fleet isn't a direct threat, it is an indirect threat at best. It wasn't reactivated with the express purpose of "dealing with Venezuela".

Linking Chávez with terrorists...Well, then again, the link between Chávez and the colombian guerrilla of FARC wasn't established by the US. It was established by Chávez when he called the guerrilleros his "brothers in arms", who were in an "fair struggle against the colombian oppressors". Of course, the US goverment managed to use that for their own purposes and derail the situation even more, but it's not like they pulled that out of their butts.

that American corporations could Run Venezuela better that's pretty much an accepted fact isn't it.

Aaand, I am not touching this point even with a long pole.

Chill out, will ya, I was in the verge of flaming you when I read this. Get out of our country, we don't need you to run it. It is NOT an accepted fact, and this is on the edge of trolling.

Regarding the Metropolitan police, another lack of knowledge. The Metropolitan Police is now under direct control from the Ministerio para el Poder Popular del Interior y Justicia. (Ministry of Interior and Justice), so its dependant on the executive power, in other words, of Hugo Chávez.

You are right that I was not fully aware of that change - the police reform is something I didn't totally follow, because I care much more about the economical, social and international aspects than about the police. Sorry for this mistake.

Sorry, but true. I already said that Chávez's dissidency was the biggest loser in the elections. None of the dissidents managed to hold their regions. Not getting your point.

My point is that Chávez didn't control 21 of the regions before the elections. He controlled 15.

There is a deadlock. Sorry, I'm not even entering this discussion. Morales holds wide national support, while his opposers hold strong regional support. Without said support, Morales would have had his way easily. That's a deadlock.

A deadlock means it's *locked*. Which is not true since a date was planned for a referendum on the Constitution, and since most of Morales social policies are being implemented right now. Even the ones the opposition fight so strongly, like using the gas money for the "renta dignidad". The opposition is slowing things and making a lot of troubles, but they can't stop Morales, who is going forward and implementing his policies. And the Constitution will be voted, exactly as Morales wanted. So it's not a deadlock - merely a slowing of the process.

Please show me some light about the meaning of FUD.

Fear, Uncertainity, Doubt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

If that wasn't a void of power, then I'm lost about it.

I'm sorry, but when the military besiege the presidential palace, threaten to bomb it, take captive the president and bring him to a military base not letting him communicate with the exterior, say he resigned while he didn't, and back a self-proclaimed "president" who suspends the Constitution, dissolve the Assembly and all constitutional powers, that's exactly what is called a "military coup". It's not a "void of power", which would have been if Chávez was "lost" (no one knowing where he was for example).

Caracazo: 1989

Chávez's attempt of a coup: 1992

3 years later? That's a lot of time to meditate about what happened in 1989.

Do you think you can organize such a thing in a few weeks ? In addition, Chávez and his friends had to wait until they got troops under their command to realize their plan. You can't do an insurrection alone.

Chávez already recognized that he was plotting to overthrow the goverment since he was a cadet in the military academy. That was way long before 1989.

Yes, the MBR200 was founded before, a bit before Bloviar's 200 anniversary, when they swore Bolivar's oath once again ("I swear before you, and I swear before the God of my fathers, that I will not allow my arm to relax, nor my soul to rest, until I have broken the chains that oppress us...") - which is still at the core of Chávez action today (not allowing his arms or soul to rest until the chains that oppress Venezuelan are broken). But that was not a very detailed plan of overthrowing the government by force, it was more an activist/debate/thinking group at start. The "coup" plan was really started, actively planned, after the Carazo repression, and because of it.

My point is that Chávez didn't control 21 of the regions before the elections. He controlled 15.

Let me rephrase, perhaps this is my fault for not being entirely clear. Chávez got 21 governors elected last time. This time, he got 17. 4 of the governors decided during their last term to make themselves dissidents from the main goverment's policies, and lost badly. Most of them against candidates from the mainstream of the PSUV.

A deadlock means it's *locked*. Which is not true since a date was planned for a referendum on the Constitution, and since most of Morales social policies are being implemented right now. Even the ones the opposition fight so strongly, like using the gas money for the "renta dignidad". The opposition is slowing things and making a lot of troubles, but they can't stop Morales, who is going forward and implementing his policies. And the Constitution will be voted, exactly as Morales wanted. So it's not a deadlock - merely a slowing of the process.

Good thing the deadlock was solved, it was a deadlock, although. It shows a great democrat posture from Morales when he decided to start a dialogue. I don't really agree with many of the opposition's postures, specially in the case of Pando. They however managed to get some concessions from Morales.

I'm sorry, but when the military besiege the presidential palace, threaten to bomb it, take captive the president and bring him to a military base not letting him communicate with the exterior, say he resigned while he didn't, and back a self-proclaimed "president" who suspends the Constitution, dissolve the Assembly and all constitutional powers, that's exactly what is called a "military coup". It's not a "void of power", which would have been if Chávez was "lost" (no one knowing where he was for example).

Still not addressing my point. Why the leader of said military, who said that he resigned when he didn't, got the post of Minister of Interior afterwards by Chávez? He, Lucas Rincón, artificially created a void of power that was taken as an opportunity by shady parties to attempt a constitutional coup, (because yes, the Carmona's decree was a coup attempt because it dissolved power), and yet he seemed to enjoy the trust of the regime afterwards?

Aaand, I am not touching this point even with a long pole.

Chill out, will ya, I was in the verge of flaming you when I read this. Get out of our country, we don't need you to run it. It is NOT an accepted fact, and this is on the edge of trolling.

calm down. its satire. unless you think i always want a civil war in your country just to get girls.

Do you think you can organize such a thing in a few weeks ? In addition, Chávez and his friends had to wait until they got troops under their command to realize their plan. You can't do an insurrection alone.

He failed to express his disagreement for three years? Instead he went to the shadows to plot to overthrow the entire regime for 3 years, with the same group he has been plotting with for more than 10 years? Said regime, the one of Carlos Andrés Pérez, was overthrown legally, by the use of the constitution and the state institutions, peacefully. I think he used the Caracazo as an excuse. When he was captured after the 1992 attempt, he didn't state he did that because of the Caracazo, he said that after becoming president. He said during and right after the coup attempt that he did what he did to overthrow a economic corrupted regime and to install a revolution. I was sitting right there at the TV.

Yes, the MBR200 was founded before, a bit before Bolivar's 200 anniversary, when they swore Bolivar's oath once again ("I swear before you, and I swear before the God of my fathers, that I will not allow my arm to relax, nor my soul to rest, until I have broken the chains that oppress us...") - which is still at the core of Chávez action today (not allowing his arms or soul to rest until the chains that oppress Venezuelan are broken). But that was not a very detailed plan of overthrowing the government by force, it was more an activist/debate/thinking group at start. The "coup" plan was really started, actively planned, after the Caracazo repression, and because of it.

Yes, oaths, secret societies, plotting, coups. Nice attempt, that was violent and failed, in the face of legal, institutional attempts that didn't shed blood, and that were successful. Indeed, now said secret societies and plotters are in the goverment, and aren't treating their opposers in a better way than they were treated back then when they were opposers.

Of course, you seem to trust Chávez's words in the matter, while I trust more in the words of others present during those happenings. As they are contradictory, and neither of us have further evidence than those witnesses, who were the protagonists of what happened, we won't reach an agreement soon.

Regarding the 2002 coup, there is very little evidence that it was encouraged by the US. It is true that the plotters met with American officials, but they insist that they told them that they would not support a coup. Other evidence basically amounts to what Chavez asserts himself (hardly reliable), and some dodgy alleged governmental documents presented by Gollinger. Official reviews have found no evidence.

Look, there's a lot of back-and-forth about Chavez, but it might be meet to consider this:

Gringoes (that'd be Yanks, aka the USA) aren't popular in most of south and Central America, and a quick glance at history shows why-(you could also cheat and read Smedley Butler.)

Chavez is a smart politician. Is he Authoritarian? Maybe. Is he a Dictator? Maybe.

Dictator is as Dictator DOES. Rhetoric is just Rhetoric. Chavez says bad things about th U.S., and it resonates-he's got a built-in scapegoat, and a lot of THAT is the fault of the U.S.A.'s past history in the region, combined with a regional culture that seems to spawn authoritarian regimes led by "Strong Men"-a situation that simply plays well with ninety plus percent of the human race, if history is any indicator.

So...will Chavez commit seriously to misbehaviours like sending the tanks in? Maybe. does his history in office support such a move?

Not really. He's a firebrand politician, and more than half of his countrymen like that and will vote for it-the tanks roll when the regimes are WEAK, not when they enjoy broad popular support.

Gringoes (that'd be Yanks, aka the USA) aren't popular in most of south and Central America, and a quick glance at history shows why-(you could also cheat and read Smedley Butler.)

Indeed, not popular at all, and for many reasons. Not just goverment policies, that are enough reasons by themselves, specially the meddling they have made in so many countries, but because when american visitors tend to appear down here, a vast amount of them, because I know not all of them are like that, behave like they own the country they are visiting, or like we are a lot of brown savages that live only to serve when their Lords decide to give us the present of their presence.

Chavez is a smart politician. Is he Authoritarian? Maybe. Is he a Dictator? Maybe.

Smart. Check. And very capable, demagogue or not.
Authoritarian. Check. His way or the highway.
Dictator. No. He was democratically elected several times. He is a democratic president.

Dictator is as Dictator DOES. Rhetoric is just Rhetoric. Chavez says bad things about th U.S., and it resonates-he's got a built-in scapegoat, and a lot of THAT is the fault of the U.S.A.'s past history in the region, combined with a regional culture that seems to spawn authoritarian regimes led by "Strong Men"-a situation that simply plays well with ninety plus percent of the human race, if history is any indicator.

Past AND present history. I expect a change from january onwards.

[QUOTE=Sudova;14250096]So...will Chavez commit seriously to misbehaviours like sending the tanks in? Maybe. does his history in office support such a move? [QUOTE]

Nah, he already recognized his partial defeats. He won't send the tanks out, too late for it.

Regarding the 2002 coup, there is very little evidence that it was encouraged by the US. It is true that the plotters met with American officials, but they insist that they told them that they would not support a coup.

That's why USA and Aznar Spain were the only two countries in the world to instantly recognize Carmona authority ? That's a very nice way of "not supporting a coup"...

Other evidence basically amounts to what Chavez asserts himself (hardly reliable), and some dodgy alleged governmental documents presented by Gollinger. Official reviews have found no evidence.

Gollinger documents, such as the massive USA funding of organizations implied in the coup, both before and after it, and as the knowledge USA authority had of plans of the coup before it (which didn't prevent them from giving those funds) are more than enough. If you know someone is plotting a coup and give him money, you're accomplice of the coup, at least.

And the internal document saying "everything is ready but they won't do a coup without US support", just a few days before the coup, combined with the instant recognition of Carmona by the USA is clear: the plotters were indeed waiting for the green light from USA, and they gave it.

Chavez says bad things about th U.S., and it resonates-he's got a built-in scapegoat,

Well, if you look more carefully, you'll see that Chávez was quite friendly with Clinton administration. The opposition with the USA started when USA invaded Afghanistan, and Chávez opposed it. The USA were really, really upset when Chávez made his (very wise, IMHO) public speech in which he showed the bodies of Afghan children killed by US Air Force saying "9/11 was horrible and unacceptable, but this as horrible and unacceptable ! You can't fight terror with terror !"

But Chávez real opposition to USA started after USA tried to have him removed by force, and later on participated in an economical sabotage. And the latest clash was about USA supporting the murderers of Pando in Bolivia. That's when he said "Yankee de mierda", because he was fed up on them spreading death and chaos around the world, especially in Latin America, and in the "little sister" Bolivia.

And as soon as Obama was elected, Chávez proposed to him to renew relations and cooperation with USA.

That's definitely not a scapegoat, but a normal opposition against a country which doesn't respect anything, and tries to kill you and your friends.

Good thing the deadlock was solved, it was a deadlock, although.

Well, coming from a computer science background, I can't agree with "deadlock was solved", a deadlock cannot be solved in computer science (or it's not a deadlock). But I understand your point ;)

It shows a great democrat posture from Morales when he decided to start a dialogue. I don't really agree with many of the opposition's postures, specially in the case of Pando. They however managed to get some concessions from Morales.

I agree it was very wise from Morales to answer with dialog. But hopefully, he didn't give any concessions to the really fundamental point - doing it would have been betraying the 67% who voted for the continuation of the changes.

Still not addressing my point. Why the leader of said military, who said that he resigned when he didn't, got the post of Minister of Interior afterwards by Chávez? He, Lucas Rincón, artificially created a void of power that was taken as an opportunity by shady parties to attempt a constitutional coup, (because yes, the Carmona's decree was a coup attempt because it dissolved power), and yet he seemed to enjoy the trust of the regime afterwards?

You can't judge if it was a coup or not by how the victim of the coup accepted to compose with the culprits after the attempt failed.

There are many possible reasons for this, and none of us can know for sure what Chávez and Rincón told to teach other in private after the events. What we can say is that Rincón gave Chávez some pretty good reasons about his behavior. Probably part of it was that he genuinely believed Chávez resigned, since Rincón was not in Miraflores during the events, AFAIK. The coup doesn't have to be organized by the highest ranking general to be a coup. This coup was organized by *part* of the army, not the army as a whole. That the highest ranking general trusted his subofficiers when they said "Chávez resigned" doesn't make any less a coup the fact that those subofficiers took Chávez captive by force and lied about it.

The other point is that Chávez, after the coup, tried to cool the situation down (and that was very wise from him, even if he did it a bit too much IMHO). He gave an open hand to the opposition, he forgave most of what happened. He wanted to avoid more violence. Forgiving to Rincón enough to promote him at a ministry, but while removing him from the head of the army, was a very smart way for him to both cool the situation down and show he's not pursuing vengeance AND ensuring the head of the army will not be so eager to repeat "Chávez resigned" the next time.

There can be many other reasons, but I think the "cooling situation down" has a lot to do with this nomination.

And then Chávez was thanked of this cooling down and forgiveness by one month of economical sabotage and more death threats... but that's another story.