A discussion on Chavez etc

zuma

Oh please!

The US despises Venezuela for many, many US focused reasons(oil supply!) and Hugo Chavez cares more about his people and far less about US presidents than many of his predecessors ever did!

lostexpectation

another world wrote:

It's quite different to what's going with the US planes coming through. Venezuela (under Chavez) does not have a bad record of human rights abuse (certainly not even close to that of the US') and the purpose of these helicopters are not to blow up innocents like in Iraq or Afghanistan - they are to ward of the very real threat of invasion/attack from the US - all countries have a right to defend themselves, and these defence systems have to get there somehow.

maybe but not (secretly) through Ireland!

you never know what those war machines are going to be used for in the future even by Chavez, and it doens't matter whether there is munitions on them or not.

Orizio

another world wrote:

It's quite different to what's going with the US planes coming through. Venezuela (under Chavez) does not have a bad record of human rights abuse (certainly not even close to that of the US') and the purpose of these helicopters are not to blow up innocents like in Iraq or Afghanistan - they are to ward of the very real threat of invasion/attack from the US - all countries have a right to defend themselves, and these defence systems have to get there somehow.

Umm Venezuela has a terrible human rights record under Chavez-a quick look through Amnesty and HRW shows this-not to mention worsening corruption and poverty.Or the destruction of the countries democratic instituions and a muder rate thats worse then war torn Colombia.

Chavez apparently cares so much about his people he is happy to give his peoples oil away for purely PR reasons and happy to buy thousands of AK47's and other military equipment with the majority of his people underneath the poverty line so he can defend his country against this ridicoulus US invasion he keeps ranting on about.Its incredible how many are duped by his populist and anti-Bush rantings and ignore how detrimental his reign has been to Venezuela.

And yes we should be against the transfer of Russian military equipment to an illiberal and semi authoritarian leader like Chavez.The Americas have enough militaristic leaders like Chavez-we shouldn't be helping this man to gain evern greater authority and power.

Orizio

SeanW wrote:

If they were shipping nukes to China or machettes to Zimbabwe or something like that I would agree there is a problem.

But I don't get what's wrong with this? Venezuela is a peaceful, democratic state that geniuinely requires this stuff for defense. What's the big deal?

Ahem.

Umm Venezuela has a terrible human rights record under Chavez-a quick look through Amnesty and HRW shows this-not to mention worsening corruption and poverty.Or the destruction of the countries democratic instituions and a muder rate thats worse then war torn Colombia.

Chavez apparently cares so much about his people he is happy to give his peoples oil away for purely PR reasons and happy to buy thousands of AK47's and other military equipment with the majority of his people underneath the poverty line so he can defend his country against this ridicoulus US invasion he keeps ranting on about.Its incredible how many are duped by his populist and anti-Bush rantings and ignore how detrimental his reign has been to Venezuela.

And yes we should be against the transfer of Russian military equipment to an illiberal and semi authoritarian leader like Chavez.The Americas have enough militaristic leaders like Chavez-we shouldn't be helping this man to gain evern greater authority and power.

Venezuela clearly doesn't requite this 'stuff' for defense.

mike65

Heres the bbc link to the back story

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has told a huge rally of supporters that he wants to buy more weapons to defend his country from invasion.

Speaking in the capital Caracas, Mr Chavez said 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles already on order from Russia were not enough.

Venezuela needed a million well-armed men and women, he said.

Mr Chavez also likened US President George W Bush to the German Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler.

Hmmmm.

Mike.

Orizio

mike65 wrote:

Heres the bbc link to the back story



Hmmmm.

Mike.

And you know the sad thing is not exactly that Chavez is either delusion or more then likely aware how much support and breathing space he gets at home and out foreign if he attacks Bush,the sad thing is that geniunely intelligent people are willing to ignore his failed socialist and populist seemingly because he is anti-Bush.

mike65

Charvez knows, like all good presidents and prime minsters that the best way to remain strong and in power is to talk up an external threat. Indeed its been the standard operating proceedure in Central and South America.

Mike.

Sand

And you know the sad thing is not exactly that Chavez is either delusion or more then likely aware how much support and breathing space he gets at home and out foreign if he attacks Bush,the sad thing is that geniunely intelligent people are willing to ignore his failed socialist and populist seemingly because he is anti-Bush.

Youre giving those people more credit than I would. Basic logic they operate under is:

US = teh evil! (Think F.A.G. from Team America for how well thought out their arguments are, and that was a parody)

Chavez = Not US
Therefore Chavez = Good.

Im close to tears of laughter and despair over long distance Chavistas. Theyll be the first to rant on about Cold War dictatorships, then theyll smoothly about turn and applaud the militarisation of Venezeulan politics - The guy is basically building a political miliatary force to cement his rule, crush dissent and complete the journey to charismatic dictatorship and supposed liberals positively drool over him. Orwell was a left winger, disagreed with the capitalist Britain he found himself in, but still was smart enough not to cheerlead for repressive regimes just because they disagreed with Britain. You could respect that, its hard to respect this short sighted, contradictory love of Chavez.

Charvez knows, like all good presidents and prime minsters that the best way to remain strong and in power is to talk up an external threat. Indeed its been the standard operating proceedure in Central and South America.

Mike.

Yup, the investment in the army now will pay dividends when Chavez becomes less populist. He must laugh at the irony - he first tried to become a dictator via the army, now hes trying to become dictator via the legislature - whats left of it anyway.

Dirk Gently

Put aside your political convictions for a moment. Forget about whether your right wing / left wing / socialist /capitalist / conservative / liberal.

Does anyone here have a problem with a democratic country following a socially responsible programme, endorsed by the people of that country?

Surely if it is the will of the people, democratic and peaceful, regardless of the politics of other countries, that country should be allowed to run its affairs what ever way it likes.
The problem with Venezuela is the Neo cons in Washington don’t like this left wing government in Venezuela. They want Chavez out of power and would be more than happy to have a dictator there in his place, friendly to American business interests. The U.S. has intervened in the internal politics of every South American country which has elected people to power who follow socially responsible policies which benefit the majority of people in those countries.
Remember Chile, just one example of a democratic left wing government overthrown by the U.S. and replaced with a rightwing dictator friendly to U.S. interests.

The history of the region points clearly to impending U.S. action against it. If the U.S. had a better record on promoting peace and democracy and respect for the sovereignty of South American nations, then Venezuela would not have to prepare itself. With the record of the U.S. in the region, only a fool would suggest that it is going to sit back and allow a left wing leader to promote anti-poverty, pro health and pro education polices.
What are they afraid off? Are they afraid Chavez's policies might work? Are they afraid other countries in the region might follow Venezuela’s example? Of course they are. The U.S. is afraid of the good example of redistributing wealth to benefit all society. If this policy doesn’t work, why doesn’t the U.S. just let Chavez get on with it and use his policy as an example of why socialist ideas don’t work? I think they’re determined to sabotage these policies and are willing to go to war for 'political reasons', to protect business interests, making sure that the threat of a good example never materialise.

With regards to;
“Chavez knows, like all good presidents and prime ministers that the best way to remain strong and in power is to talk up an external threat. Indeed it’s been the standard operating procedures in Central and South America.”
(I corrected the spelling mistakes for you)

Like you said, all good George Bush’s and Tony Blair’s use the pretence of an external threat to keep a grip on power and scare their voters into giving up their freedoms in return for more authoritarian powers for their governments. Do you seriously think that this is what Chavez is doing? Do you not even for a second consider that there is a very real threat to Venezuela from the U.S.? Why would Chavez need to talk up a threat to remain in power, he’s already the most popular leader in the region. Its just logic and common sense to prepare for an eventual attack from an aggressive Super power with the worlds most advanced military who have shown that they will attack first, without provocation and without U.N. support.

I fully support Venezuela’s right to self defence. If the U.S. doesn’t attack then the Russian helicopters won’t be used. Just because you don’t politically agree with a country’s policies doesn’t give you the right to attack that county and install your own political will on it.
Stand up to school yard bullies. Stand up to U.S. interference in democratic nations.

Just for the sake of keeping on the topic of the thread
I’m more than happy to see Shannon play a part in the Defence of Venezuela.

lostexpectation

clown bag wrote:

Put aside your political convictions for a moment. Forget about whether your right wing / left wing / socialist /capitalist / conservative / liberal.

the biggest threat to Venezuala is the rich business elite not the 'US'.

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote:

I fully support Venezuela’s right to self defence. If the U.S. doesn’t attack then the Russian helicopters may not be used.

Fixed it for you.

Latin America has a rather long tradition of the military being a little heavy-handed in the subjugation of its people. Just the way business is done.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Many thanks Manic Moran for fixing my post. Really appreciate it.
I hope the military hardware isn’t used. Just think without it Venezuela is leaving itself wide open for attack. Venezuela needs to have enough of a military deterrent to make any aggressive superpowers lurking in the region think twice about attacking it.

KerranJast

clown bag wrote:

I want the U.S. military to be banned from using Shannon because they are breaking international law and conquering Oil rich countries, killing innocent people in doing so.

The only country the US have invaded is Iraq. The occupation is recognised as legal by the UN (see UN SC Resolution 1483 (22 May 2003) and subsequent resolutions.)

Dirk Gently

KerranJast wrote:

The only country the US have invaded is Iraq. The occupation is recognised as legal by the UN (see UN SC Resolution 1483 (22 May 2003) and subsequent resolutions.)

Apologies on the length of this list, I also wish the list was shorter.
Feel free to do your own searches on American military interventions / CIA covert operations in foreign countries / American backed coups …. And so on.

I had to cut alot of the list as im only allowed to post 10,000 words and had nearly 20,000 in the list.
needless to say, America is a war nation and Chavez is justified in wanting to defend against what most politically aware people know will be an eventual military intervention by the U.S.

Start here and go from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945




CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

Charvez knows, like all good presidents and prime minsters that the best way to remain strong and in power is to talk up an external threat. Indeed its been the standard operating proceedure in Central and South America.

Mike.

um, Chavez doesn't need to talk up an external threat, there is an external threat. He was already the victim of a coup, we know that the CIA are co-ordinating with the Venezuelan opposition and there are senior U.S. political figures calling for Chavez' assasination.

And another thing. Chavez is arming his own people in militia formation. This is the last thing a despot would do. Despots like regular highly trained and indoctrinated standing armies who can be used to enforce their will. Having armed and trained militias in every town and village of Venezuela gives the population the tools to overthrow any dictator.

mike65

Pat Robertson shooting his mouth off does not constitute a serious threat, except to Robertsons credibity.

Mike.

Orizio

Two points,and I'm going to shorten this so the Chavez defenders on this thread may actually engage me in a debate-How can anyone defend Chavez and his reign when in his 8 year term he has increased corruption,has presided over a horrid hunan rights record,has destroyed the once powerful and independent democratic institutions of the country,the country now has a worse murder rate then Colombia and has a high poverty rate despite high oil barrel prices?

Chavez's reign has been marked by authoritarianism and incompetence and it really is impossible to come to a different conclusion when the facts are laid out so clearly.And this is coming from a liberal-not a neo-con or a republican.

Secondly,has anyone here got any proof that the US is about to invade?Other then the US stupidly recognizing the opposition government after the short lived coup(which is of course in no way proof that the US is about to invade)?

Please reply to this post-if I read another post babbling on about Chavez's socially responsible government and the threat of US invasion I might just have to top myself.

Orizio

He was already the victim of a coup,

Which had nothing with an a external threat.

we know that the CIA are co-ordinating with the Venezuelan opposition

In what way?Decent source please(thrash like Zmag will not suffice)

and there are senior U.S. political figures calling for Chavez' assasination

Who?

And another thing. Chavez is arming his own people in militia formation. This is the last thing a despot would do. Despots like regular highly trained and indoctrinated standing armies who can be used to enforce their will. Having armed and trained militias in every town and village of Venezuela gives the population the tools to overthrow any dictator.

:rolleyes: Yes I don't seee the problem with Chavez training his own personal militia either.Thats clearly not showing any despotic like tendencies at all.And obviously the more AK47's in the country,the safer the people are bound to be...

gandalf

Orizio wrote:

Two points,and I'm going to shorten this so the Chavez defenders on this thread may actually engage me in a debate-How can anyone defend Chavez and his reign when in his 8 year term he has increased corruption,has presided over a horrid hunan rights record,has destroyed the once powerful and independent democratic institutions of the country,the country now has a worse murder rate then Colombia and has a high poverty rate despite high oil barrel prices?

Chavez's reign has been marked by authoritarianism and incompetence and it really is impossible to come to a different conclusion when the facts are laid out so clearly.And this is coming from a liberal-not a neo-con or a republican.

Secondly,has anyone here got any proof that the US is about to invade?Other then the US stupidly recognizing the opposition government after the short lived coup(which is of course in no way proof that the US is about to invade)?

Please reply to this post-if I read another post babbling on about Chavez's socially responsible government and the threat of US invasion I might just have to top myself.

I assume you can provide proof in the form of links for all these assertions.

Sand

Put aside your political convictions for a moment. Forget about whether your right wing / left wing / socialist /capitalist / conservative / liberal.

Yes, please do. And then tell me why you support Chavez forming militias loyal to him, ranting about counter revolutionaries and foreign invasion (useful cover for dealing with political opposition), and buying up small arms which are far more useful in dealing with internal dissent than with preventing the US air force from levelling the entire country by remote control? Its blatantly obvious to anyone who *isnt* blinded by political convictions to see what Chavez is doing.

If Bertie formed a military wing for Fianna Fail tommorrow, started demonising Fine Gael as collaborators in a pending British invasion, and started buying up guns to arm his new militant supporters would you be dancing in the streets?

Either way, you wont see any serious protests about these arm movements because so called peace activists/anti war movement are only interested in US related wrongdoing. Id describe them as anti-american but its clearly impossible that viewing all american policy in the most negative light possible is taken as serious politics these days.

Its why they demonise Israel for having nukes to ward off their neighbours hatred, but applaud Iranian efforts to build their own nukes whilst they daily issue threats of genocide against Israel. Clearly a principled view.

lostexpectation

gandalf wrote:

I assume you can provide proof in the form of links for all these assertions.

go get "the revolution will not be televised" by this irish duo that was caught up in the coup it was fully backed by the US(you can get it on bittorrent), Chavez could turn into another dictator but hopefully the bounce from left and right in latin america is getting less extreme, (although thats just as bad it leaves us complacent consumers).

The helicopters are being bought for military use its called dual use they are military hardware.

THe US is at war with the world.

I find it funny that a thread seemingly designed to highlight a country other than the US using Shannon as a military stop over (albeit for the shipping of sold military equipment) descends into a Chavez debate.

I'm splitting all the off topic stuff into a new thread simply entitled Chavez.

lostexpectation

ah you split it at the wrong point, i can't get acess to the other thread anymore

Orizio

gandalf wrote:

I assume you can provide proof in the form of links for all these assertions.

Naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela(Corruption in Venezuela,Venezuela would be the one behind Zimbabwe and Afghanistan)
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/venezu9843.htm(Human Rights in Venezuela Part 1)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=6862&year=2005&view=mof(Human Rights in Venezuela Part 2)
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng(Human Rights in Venezuela Part 3)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a47cdeaa-c8ba-11da-b642-0000779e2340.html(Murder rate worse in Venezuela then war torn Colombia)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2bdd7ef0-c5c7-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html(Chávez diverts $20bn to fund favourite causes)

Now no doubt you'll be asking for proof from the various Chavez supporters here about the dangers of a US invasion and the supposed greatness of Hugo himself?

Orizio

go get "the revolution will not be televised" by this irish duo that was caught up in the coup it was fully backed by the US(you can get it on bittorrent), Chavez could turn into another dictator but hopefully the bounce from left and right in latin america is getting less extreme, (although thats just as bad it leaves us complacent consumers).

The helicopters are being bought for military use its called dual use they are military hardware.

You will have to do better then that.Real unbiased sources and proof.

THe US is at war with the world.

And a nice meaningless and deliberately disingenous slogan to finish it off.

lostexpectation

Orizio wrote:

You will have to do better then that.Real unbiased sources and proof.

fair enough provided valid sources onthe human rights situation in Venezuala which is dreadful, but check those same sources (except the FT) for what they say about the coup in 2001 ( and and rich business elites participation in such corruption.)

Dirk Gently

If I can be serious for a moment,
Are you telling me that there was no U.S. involvement in the coup in 2001, U.S. agencies are not funding the opposition in Venezuela, and the U.S. does not have a history of military intervention in Latin American against left leaning governments? The U.S. does not have a history of installing right wing governments and all too often right wing dictatorships in the region. The U.S. is infact a promoter of democracy in Latin America and does not interfere in the internal politics of these countries. The U.S. has never overthrown a democracy in Latin America and has never installed a dictator. The U.S. is not currently involved in a huge naval deployment near Venezuela and does not supply Colombia with weapons and fighter planes U.S. forces are not active in the boarder region between Colombia and Venezuela.

Sure Chavez is making all this up, right? There is no evidence that the U.S. military intervenes in Latin American countries and its all a big anti-U.S. conspiracy theory.


We can paste links up here till the cows come home, each accusing the other of having biased sources.....Yeah; financial times.com is a real unbiased source. I try to read all sources of information on a particular subject and then using logic and critical analysis come to a conclusion. Everything we read has a particular slant on it. Use your own judgement. Based on historical patterns and present day facts I conclude that more likely than not there will be either covertly (this is already happening) or overtly in the form of military strikes, an attack on Venezuela. This is the reason why I believe Venezuela needs to bulk up its military. I don’t think Chavez is mad or delusional to think a U.S. military intervention is on the way.

Do you not think the revolution will not be televised was an accurate documentary? A covert RTE plot to thwart the U.S. maybe :rolleyes:
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2003/1030/esbmediaawards.html
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2003/1119/chavez.html


CIA intervention in Venezuela? source - Former CIA operative http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/0331ciavenezuela.htm


In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4861320.stm


The art of destabilisation
http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia206.htm


The U.S. an the coup in Venezuela,
includes articles from The Guardian [UK]; Sydney Morning Herald;The Observer; by FAIR [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, NY] St. Petersburg Times,
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/US_Coup_Venezuela.html

I've tried to leave out links to sources like indymedia / venezeulanalysis /Venezuela information office / common dreams and so on. No doubt they you would deem them to be biased. What is an unbiased source of information anyway? Check out the official U.S. foreign policy on the Whitehouse website. Look for references to Venezuela and tell me that the U.S. has no military plans on that country.

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

Which had nothing with an a external threat.

Yes it did. The Coup was orchestrated by the U.S.

In what way?Decent source please(thrash like Zmag will not suffice)

What would you consider a decent source? What about the Observer in the U.K? http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Or how about the BBC? NewsNight had a report about how members of OPEC had warned Chavez about the CIA coup before it happened and there were American military agents in the compound where Chavez was held during the failed coup.

Who?

Well, former presidential candidate and head of the 'christian coalition' Pat Robertson. There have also been overt threats against chavez from high ranking members of the Republican party. He is routinely called a dictator and a despot and a threat to world peace despite the fact that he has won 8 internationally monitored elections and has volountarily submitted himself to recall elections on more than one occasion.

:rolleyes: Yes I don't seee the problem with Chavez training his own personal militia either.Thats clearly not showing any despotic like tendencies at all.And obviously the more AK47's in the country,the safer the people are bound to be...

What exactly is a 'personal militia'? You think Chavez is capable of personally commanding a million strong militia? Is he super human? Can you point to a single example of any dictator in history who organised their military in this way?

the_syco

Cruise missile versus helicopter.

Kalashnikov assault rifle versus tank.

=-=

Venezuela sounds more likely to kill its opponents, than to be able to kill the USA, tbh.

Akrasia

the_syco wrote:

Cruise missile versus helicopter.

Kalashnikov assault rifle versus tank.

=-=

Venezuela sounds more likely to kill its opponents, than to be able to kill the USA, tbh.

that is complete nonsense. Utter nonsense. Do you genuinely believe this?
Who are 'venezuela's opponents? Do you mean Chavez' opponents? Who are they? And surely arming his population also includes arming his potential opponents?
Chavez has a history of opposing military juntas
Chavez knows that he has no chance in a war against America or any other dominant military force if he tries to take them on toe to toe in open warfare, He would be stupid to try. The only other option is to prepare for a geurilla war based around autonomous militias who can take armed resistance to every village and town in the country. America cannot win this war, and Chavez knows this. He knows that their cruise missiles, while they might make an invasion successful, they are useless against a sustained resistance and America has no capability to support a hostile occupation.

Orizio

Yes it did. The Coup was orchestrated by the U.S.


What would you consider a decent source? What about the Observer in the U.K? http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Or how about the BBC? NewsNight had a report about how members of OPEC had warned Chavez about the CIA coup before it happened and there were American military agents in the compound where Chavez was held during the failed coup.

First of all,no I wouldn't consider the Guardian a proper source.Only last week it ran an article linking the US to terror attacks in Iran on the basis of the words of a hgh ranking Iranian politician.This article seems little different.Its only sources seem to be the OAS and Chavez's chief ideologue (who we shall ignore for obvious reasons).I cannot find a report from OAS on the coup(no doubt you will oblige me with that).The article does not use mulitple sources and is 4 years old.Nor do reports from the BBC or CNN around that time mention anything from the OAS,or are specific sources within the OAS quoted.Its vague to say the least,and can't be taken at its word.

The US was probably guilty of knowing about the coup and not telling Chavez,and of then recognizing the new government.And thats it.

Well, former presidential candidate and head of the 'christian coalition' Pat Robertson. There have also been overt threats against chavez from high ranking members of the Republican party. He is routinely called a dictator and a despot and a threat to world peace despite the fact that he has won 8 internationally monitored elections and has volountarily submitted himself to recall elections on more than one occasion.

Pat Robertson is a well known quack as you clearly know and does not speak for the Bush admin.Nor do I expect the Bush admin do be dimplomaticly welcoming to a man who regurly attacks the US,to a man who has shown his admiration for Castro and Saddam.He has also elimanated the once indpendent Venezuelan democratic institutions,by creating the Constiuent assembly filled with his own supporters,lenghtening his term period and even ruling by decree for a year.

What exactly is a 'personal militia'? You think Chavez is capable of personally commanding a million strong militia? Is he super human? Can you point to a single example of any dictator in history who organised their military in this way?

So Chavez has bought 1 million AK's while the majority of his country is below the poverty line why?

Now tell me,why would the US invade Venezuela?Would the GOP allow for such a thing after Iraq?Would the UN allow for such a thing?What right has the US to invade Venezuela?Are these US troops going to simply appear out of the blue?

I'm sorry but this is really deluded analysis.Its up there with that drunk who tried to tell me he saw Tupac and Elvis drinking bud outside of Youghal. :rolleyes:

People must have missed my links a few posts above.And no I see nothing wrong with the Financial Times.Any analysis to its bias would be interesting.No doubt HRW and Amnesty are making everything up as well. :rolleyes:

Orizio

Akrasia wrote:

that is complete nonsense. Utter nonsense. Do you genuinely believe this?
Who are 'venezuela's opponents? Do you mean Chavez' opponents? Who are they? And surely arming his population also includes arming his potential opponents?
Chavez has a history of opposing military juntas
Chavez knows that he has no chance in a war against America or any other dominant military force if he tries to take them on toe to toe in open warfare, He would be stupid to try. The only other option is to prepare for a geurilla war based around autonomous militias who can take armed resistance to every village and town in the country. America cannot win this war, and Chavez knows this. He knows that their cruise missiles, while they might make an invasion successful, they are useless against a sustained resistance and America has no capability to support a hostile occupation.

Oh dear god you don't actually think that do you? :rolleyes: What of Chavez
'citizen militias'?

Dirk Gently

As was already mentioned, trying to stand up to America toe to toe in a full scale war is just not achievable. Obviously they can blow the **** out of Venezuela with their war planes and missiles launched from their warships.

The point about arming the population is to make any land invasion which would follow a "shock and awe" type campaign very difficult. It’s a similar principal to the Americans right to bear arms in the U.S today which goes back to the founding of the United States. America understands that an armed population makes it more or less impossible for the United States ever to be invaded by a land army. Chavez is using the same process. Obviously in the U.S. this right to bear arms is a major problem as it has lead to a gun culture and with the power of the American military today the need for citizens to bear arms is not necessary for the protection of the nation. Venezuela does not have as powerful a military as the U.S. (because it doesn’t go to war with everyone) so it needs some kind of realistic deterrent to a land invasion. (Hence the American model, an armed population) I hope that this does not lead to a growing gun problem in Venezuela but with the right training on how to use the weapons and if the weapons are only used in the event of a land invasion then this is a sound defensive tactic. The longer America is bogged down conquering the oil rich Middle East, the longer Chavez has to prepare. As for your claims of why would America attack, and the U.N. would never allow it, please, how old are you. America is undermining the U.N. at every opportunity; they don’t need U.N. approval for anything. America does as it wills, in spite of international opinion or U.N. clearance.

I understand that ORIZIO does not believe that the U.S. wants to attack Venezuela and I know that I’m not going to be able to convince him. All I can say to him is study the history of Latin America and U.S. military interventions yourself using as many sources as you can in order to come to a conclusion. Pay particular attention to Chile in the 1970’s. Talk to people who YOU respect, historians / teachers / lecturers / aid agencies / human rights groups / amnesty international or whoever it is whose opinion will carry some weight with you. Ask these people about the relationship between the U.S. and Latin American countries. Try to look at both sides of an argument and not just conservative points of view. I think you will find that for Chavez not to prepare a defence in Venezuela would be very unwise and down right foolish.
By continuing to make noise about an eventual U.S. attack this makes it all the more difficult for the U.S. to quietly deal with Chavez out of the international spotlight.

p.s. to use one of your own links, use the pull down menu and switch the country from Venezeula to United States, heres what you get regarding human rights and the U.S. http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng A bit more reading involved in the U.S. human rights page.

Orizio

The point about arming the population is to make any land invasion which would follow a "shock and awe" type campaign very difficult. It’s a similar principal to the Americans right to bear arms in the U.S today which goes back to the founding of the United States. America understands that an armed population makes it more or less impossible for the United States ever to be invaded by a land army. Chavez is using the same process. Obviously in the U.S. this right to bear arms is a major problem as it has lead to a gun culture and with the power of the American military today the need for citizens to bear arms is not necessary for the protection of the nation. Venezuela does not have as powerful a military as the U.S. (because it doesn’t go to war with everyone) so it needs some kind of realistic deterrent to a land invasion. (Hence the American model, an armed population) I hope that this does not lead to a growing gun problem in Venezuela but with the right training on how to use the weapons and if the weapons are only used in the event of a land invasion then this is a sound defensive tactic. The longer America is bogged down conquering the oil rich Middle East, the longer Chavez has to prepare. As for your claims of why would America attack, and the U.N. would never allow it, please, how old are you. America is undermining the U.N. at every opportunity; they don’t need U.N. approval for anything. America does as it wills, in spite of international opinion or U.N. clearance.

Charming. :rolleyes: Why then did the US actually go to the UN before Iraq?

Lets get it straight-The US didn't go into Iraq for its oil and the US's foreign policy has changed since the Cold War.Telling me that the US trained contras and fixed elections(and yes I am well versed in the US's recent history with relation to Latin America)as if that proves the US organised the coup and is about to invade Venezuela is dinstinctly illogical.

But then if your willing to take the illiberal and militaristic Chavez at his word so naively then I have a feeling I'm just wasting my words.

p.s. to use one of your own links, use the pull down menu and switch the country from Venezeula to United States, heres what you get regarding human rights and the U.S. http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng A bit more reading involved in the U.S. human rights page.

Why?This thread has to do with Venezuela.Why not comment on the Human right problems?The economy?The corruption?The poverty?Or do these things not bother you as long as Chavez keeps ranting on about this ridicoulus US invasion and how evil Bush is?

In fact,I will bet with anybody here for any amount of money that within the near future,the US will not invade Venezuela.Now put your money where your mouth is.

Dirk Gently

I fear I would loose that bet regarding the "NEAR FUTURE” I think it is unlikely that the U.S. will commit major forces in as you say the near future considering its military is spread thinly across Afghanistan and Iraq and possibly Iran soon.
I do think however that any change in the Middle East which would free up enough U.S. forces would be very worrying for Venezuela. I put it to you that it is a medium to long term goal to commit military resources against Venezuela, purely because of the logistics of running multiple wars.

As you mentioned, Venezuela does have problems regarding corruption but how much of this was inherited by the previous government. Anti corruption measures are been taken and this takes time. As for media freedoms in Venezuela, I think the private media are a lot stronger in Venezuela at criticizing the government than in any other Latin American countries and even in the United States. Much of the private media constantly attacks the Chavez government on a daily basis. Not exactly what you would expect to see in a supposedly undemocratic country ruled by a supposedly authoritarian semi dictator. (Who happens to keep winning landslide election and referendums backed up by international observers)

One last thing, I don't take Chavez at his word, I look at the situation as a whole, the policies of his government and the policies and tactics of his opponents. If Chavez turned on his own people, sold out his people or behaved in an undemocratic manor then I would not support him.

Orizio

I fear I would loose that bet regarding the "NEAR FUTURE” I think it is unlikely that the U.S. will commit major forces in as you say the near future considering its military is spread thinly across Afghanistan and Iraq and possibly Iran soon.

So what your telling me is that your prophecising a US invasion,not in the next decade,but a few decades after that...:rolleyes:

I suppose the sitution might not have changed in the distant future?Bush would be gone,the US will become more isolationist after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan,the Democrats might get a run of a few wins?

Besides looking into your glasss ball,what have you actually got here?

I do think however that any change in the Middle East which would free up enough U.S. forces would be very worrying for Venezuela. I put it to you that it is a medium to long term goal to commit military resources against Venezuela, purely because of the logistics of running multiple wars.

Fantastic.Your proof or argument?

As you mentioned, Venezuela does have problems regarding corruption but how much of this was inherited by the previous government. Anti corruption measures are been taken and this takes time.

So I suppose 8 years deep we shouldn't expect Chavez to have improved the corruption situation,indeed the fact that its getting worse is what?Maybve a few more decades of incompetence and non action should do it.He might get above Zimbabwe then.:)

As for media freedoms in Venezuela, I think the private media are a lot stronger in Venezuela at criticizing the government than in any other Latin American countries and even in the United States. Much of the private media constantly attacks the Chavez government on a daily basis. Not exactly what you would expect to see in a supposedly undemocratic country ruled by a supposedly authoritarian semi dictator. (Who happens to keep winning landslide election and referendums backed up by international observers)

Doesn't Chavez have his own TV show?

One last thing, I don't take Chavez at his word, I look at the situation as a whole, the policies of his government and the policies and tactics of his opponents. If Chavez turned on his own people, sold out his people or behaved in an undemocratic manor then I would not support him.

And your opinion on the human rights situation,the poverty,the murder rate,the militarism,the elimination of democratic institutions?

Dirk Gently

I’m ‘prophesising’ some kind of military action by the U.S., whether it be small covert operations or a few years down the line a larger overt military operation.

Yes a few years down the line bush will be gone, but in fairness a lot of the same advisers on policy stay with whatever administration are in power down through the years. I would like to see the republicans out of power, at least the democrats are a bit more diplomatic, and not so gun hoe (although still not my best buddies in the world) There could be some hope of avoiding military action. A lot will depend on the actual citizens of the U.S. and their opposition or lack there of to a war with Venezuela.

Besides looking into my little looney lefty crystal ball what else do I have;

The text you highlighted regarding the Middle East and U.S. deployments was an opinion. Before you dismiss it ask yourself why governments have strategists advising them on potential dangers and how to avoid that danger before it actually happens. The strategist can advice a government on a course of action given the likely way a situation could develop. It is not fact because it hasn’t happened yet but is not something that can be ignored. It is my opinion based on past patterns and events and present day rhetoric from the U.S. that Venezuela is a target for regime change and if the U.S. can not do this through sabotage, propaganda or funding internal opposition they will eventually bring it about by force, the timing of which will depend on its military commitments else where.

Regarding corruption, every country has its problems, Ireland and the U.S. no different. Chavez took over weak state institutions and a corrupt police force and army too. This is a common situation in Latin America and is not unique to Venezuela. You have to look at the corruption in the context of the region. Chavez has taken many pro active steps to root out corruption including sacking many corrupt police / military officers. For an example of how hard this change can be look no further than the RUC / PSNI up north and the difficulties of rooting out the bad guys and preventing collusion and corruption. Or even the gardai here in the south. It’s not an overnight process, it takes time and Chavez is moving in the right direction with this. Remember if Chavez wasn’t in power their would still be corruption only you wouldn’t hear about it because Venezuela would be a good little free trade country and negative aspects of the country would not be highlighted once the dollars kept finding their way back to the good old USA.

Doesn’t Chavez have his own TV. show?

Indeed he does, he also does radio phone ins where the people can call up and tell him problems in their areas. Venezuela has one state TV. station on which Chavez has his show. Not sure of the exact number of private T.V. stations in Venezuela, 8 I think. (feel free to correct me if you want to score some points) The private TV. stations rarely put across Chavez’s point of view and in general take every opportunity to promote the opposition and demonise Chavez. Like the time they said he had a sexual fascination with Castro. Anyway I’m sure you will agree that in a democracy it is very dangerous to have a media which only puts one point of view across, hence the Chavez show on the only state T.V station. That’s one station which Chavez gets air time on and 8 which his opponents have air time on, and yet he enjoys great popularity among his voters. Just think how often you seen George W on T.V. or how often you see the P.R. team in the white house explain away a war on sky news. Do you complain that George gets too much air time. Were you calling for Sadams side of the story to be aired on sky news. A head to head debate maybe? Chavez gets a lot less air time than the leaders of the so called Free (trade) world. His weekly address on state T.V. (as opposed to daily addresses from U.S. government people on U.S. T.V.) is an opportunity he must make use of if he is to get out his message.

Also the coup in Venezuela in 2001 is often referred to as the media coup, hence the name of the documentary ‘the revolution will not be televised’. This is because the private TV. stations in the country which oppose Chavez showed misleading views and biased coverage of the events surrounding the few days in which he was ousted and then reinstalled. (this is not my opinion, it is fact according to international observers and generally people with a working brain)They claimed Chavez supporters were firing on opposition marchers when in fact the Chavez supporters were been fired upon by snipers. They interviewed the new dictator on T.V. and when Chavez supporters and loyal military units re took the palace cartoons and pretty woman were shown on the private T.V. stations. The private T.V. stations continued to insist that the new dictator was in power to the nation despite the fact the Chavez government was infact in charge and it was not until the Chavez government got on air on the state T.V. station that pictures of the Chavez supporters on the streets and the Chavez government in office were shown to the nation. While this was all going on Chavez himself was a guest of your U.S. friends been held captive on an island.

Anyway the point of all this is that Venezuela has some of the most anti government T.V. broadcasters in the world and to complain about Chavez having a T.V. slot on the state T.V. station is ridiculous. How else does he get his message across. George bush gets more air time on the private T.V. stations than Chavez. In an effort to counter U.S. influence in the region Venezuela along with its neighbours have launched a regional T.V. station to counteract the dominance of American broadcasters over news coverage in Latin American countries. Just imagine living here in Ireland and getting our news and information with, say for arguments sake a Russian slant on it. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it, but in Latin America a lot of news has a U.S. slant on it.
The only threat to democracy and fairness in reporting is from the anti-Chavez stranglehold over media outlets.

My dear Mr. Orizio, you don’t strike me as someone who is concerned with the plight of the worlds poor, but perhaps you will find the answers on financial times.com
Seen as you brought it up I will humour you.

There are many poor people in Venezuela: NO ****ING **** SHERLOCK.

THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF CHAVEZ’S BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION, TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF THE POOR BY REDISRUBTING THE WEALTH OF THE NATION AND INVESTING IT IN HEALTH EDUCATION AND HOUSING.

Believe it or not most of Latin America does consist of poor people, does have human rights issues, high kidnap and murder rates and weak democratic institutions.
These are exactly the problems which Chavez wants to correct and are why he was elected on an Anti-poverty platform. To improve the lives of the poor he has invested heavily in education, dramatically improving the literacy rates in the country and providing free education to those who could not afford it in the pre- Chavez days. He trades oil with Cuba in return for Cuban doctors to set up in Venezuela providing free health care to the people who previously had no health care. Similar trade deals are also operating with other countries in the region, trading oil for skilled workers and materials to build homes for people who were left to live in shanty towns by the previous U.S. friendly government. Workers who had not been paid in months and sometimes years are encouraged to set up democratic workers co-ops to run their factories themselves and by-pass exploiting bosses. If only we had something like that here for all the people who are denied their workers rights and minimum wage. Much more needs to be done and every day things are improving.

I don’t think it looks well on you Mr. Orizio to bring up the very problems that exist in Venezuela which Mr. Chavez himself was elected to correct. All the problems you indicated are problems which existed in Venezuela before Chavez came to power and which since coming to power has been working hard to resolve with great success and with the support of the vast majority of his people.
I don’t know if you have noticed (I have) but there is a huge political shift to the left in Latin America recently. Countries all over Latin America are following the Chavez example and governments are been elected on Anti-poverty and anti-corruption platforms very similar to Chavez’s ideas. If he’s so bad why are other countries breaking away from U.S. economic policies and turning instead to economic policies which redistribute wealth equally among the nation and not into the hands of private companies.

If as you claim, you do indeed care about issues such as human rights, poverty, the murder rate, the militarism, the elimination of democratic institutions (all of which describe the good old U.S. of A) and you don’t just care about these issues when using them for political point scoring, then my dear Mr. Orizio, welcome to the revolution.
It’s good to meet a fellow Chavez supporter.
Your comrade always,
Clown bag.

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

The US was probably guilty of knowing about the coup and not telling Chavez,and of then recognizing the new government.And thats it.

'Probably' according to your own unsubstantiated opinion. Did you see the Documentary 'Inside the coup' That is first hand primary evidence. You can claim it's biased all you like, but you haven't provided any alternative source to support your belief that the U.S. did not support the Coup.
All the primary evidence points towards U.S. involvement. It's not as if the U.S. would be acting out of character, they have a long long history of clandestine operations in South and Central America.

Pat Robertson is a well known quack as you clearly know and does not speak for the Bush admin.

Pat Robertson is an extremely powerful political figure in the U.S. He is the owner of a private club of over 1 million payed up members who idolise him and the things he says. He is a Media Mogul who's TV show is watched in over 17 million American households and who's Website has hundreds of millions of hits. But if you think Robertson is just an irrelevant quack, what about Donald Rumsfeld, who has compared Chavez to Hitler (way before Chavez ever returned the compliment to Bush) You don't think a statement like this from the secretary of Defence of the United States is a reason for Chavez to be nervous about America's intentions?

Nor do I expect the Bush admin do be dimplomaticly welcoming to a man who regurly attacks the US

Chavez never attacked America. He has said some strong things about the Bush Administration (was he supposed to sing their praises after the Coup attempt and their attempts to undermine his presidency).

.He has also elimanated the once indpendent Venezuelan democratic institutions,by creating the Constiuent assembly filled with his own supporters,lenghtening his term period and even ruling by decree for a year.

Where are your unbiased links to this claim?

So Chavez has bought 1 million AK's while the majority of his country is below the poverty line why?

for defence. You think he bought them so he could take over the world? or for a private collection?
America spends trillions on defence when there are millions of homeless people sleeping on U.S. streets.

Now tell me,why would the US invade Venezuela?Would the GOP allow for such a thing after Iraq?Would the UN allow for such a thing?What right has the US to invade Venezuela?Are these US troops going to simply appear out of the blue?

The U.S. might not invade america, but they probably will fund and train proxy forces to destabilise the country and try to force Civil war. this is what they normally do.
They do this for several reasons. The main reason is the threat of a good example If Chavez is successful in defeating the IMF and the World Bank and in instituting socialist reforms, then this can spread socialism throughout South America when people realise that there is an alternative to neoliberal economics. This is already happening by the way.

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

Oh dear god you don't actually think that do you? :rolleyes: What of Chavez
'citizen militias'?

Um, that's what i was talking about. Dictators don't have 'citizen militias' they have standing armies. If you're going to go around acting like a despot, you need regular, regimented, disiplined army. You need strong chains of command and you need a motive of fear. It's about giving the citizens the means to defend themselves from a powerful threat, whether it's from outside, or from a despotic regime.

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

Charming. :rolleyes: Why then did the US actually go to the UN before Iraq?

Because they wanted to build a coalition. It's quite simple.
They were never asking for permission, they were always going to go to war no matter what the U.N. said.

Lets get it straight-The US didn't go into Iraq for its oil

The U.S. certainly didn't go into Iraq for the WMD or to spread democracy. What do you think they are there for? It's either lies or incompetence, and if it's either, then there is no reason to trust America to act properly towards Venezuela

and the US's foreign policy has changed since the Cold War.Telling me that the US trained contras and fixed elections(and yes I am well versed in the US's recent history with relation to Latin America)as if that proves the US organised the coup and is about to invade Venezuela is dinstinctly illogical.

You're not that well versed in U.S. foreign policy if you think the Contras are the latest example of U.S. interference. Panama was invaded in 1989 and Haiti has been suffering from U.S. military intervention since 1994.

Parsley

Making claims like the US didn't invade Iraq for oil after the opening 'let's get it straight' is utterly dangerous, it suggests that that view is somehow ridiculous. They invaded no doubt for several reasons- but oil was way up there. I don't see them 'liberating' Egypt, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Libya, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc from their regimes; but they either have no resources or those resources are firmly under American control.

meepins

Just amazed at the level of Orizio's delusion...
Fair play to clownbag, couldn't have said it better myself.