Chavez Until 2031 ?

Pazaz 21

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that he will ask the people if they want him to remain in power for the next 25 years if the opposition bycotts the elections that are to be held in December.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060507/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_referendum;_ylt=Aou8EwuIbDXFGM8dNTG.AsRvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-

He just seems to be getting more totalitarian and authoritarian by the day !! I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it dosen't look good !

What do people think he is up to, because if it ain't the obvious (creating a totalitarian and authoritarian state with him as dictator/leader) then what the hell is he doing ? I know he may think he is the best man for the job, thus wanting to stay in power, but going about it this way is a bit on the dodgy side !

mike65

Looks dodgy on the face of it, in fact it looks classicly Latin American!

Not a surprise to find that Chavez and the Bolivian president are getting pally and comparing notes as the latter seizes control of the gas and oil industry.

Mike.

Sand

Sorry, is this supposed to be shocking? Its been blatantly obvious for a long time that hes been preparing the ground for this. Why do you think he has invested so much time and energy in gutting the institutions of state and building a party militia?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Sorry, is this supposed to be shocking? Its been blatantly obvious for a long time that hes been preparing the ground for this.

You mean like the bit where he put the whole terms and restrictions in to begin with?

At least it is going to referendum and it is based on the fact that the opposition are refusing to run against him. Would be intresting to see the outcome.

Personally I think its too much posturing of trying to remove him which is pushing him in this direction. Probably finds it hard to believe he can find someone to run the country the same way.

Either that or intentionally trying to rile the opposition so they will actually run.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Sorry, is this supposed to be shocking? Its been blatantly obvious for a long time that hes been preparing the ground for this. Why do you think he has invested so much time and energy in gutting the institutions of state and building a party militia?

you are right Sand, its just like Paisley in the 1960s

Dirk Gently

The situation in Venezuela at the moment is one where the opposition is refusing to take part in the general election later this year. All opinion polls both inside Venezuela and outside Venezuela carried out by anti-Chavez supporters show the likely hood of beating Chavez in the general election is very slim so they are boycotting the elections in an attempt to discredit democracy in Venezuela.

To call Venezuela undemocratic is so wide of the mark it’s frankly shocking that people still attempt to do it. Chavez was elected and re elected 3 times in landslide national elections verified by international observers and disputed by no one. Contrary to becoming more undemocratic and authoritarian he has delegated power to local people with them making the decisions that affect their communities and not the state.
See here

The opposition is refusing to take part in the democratic process under pressure from the United States who has been active in discouraging opposition leaders from running. If they want Chavez out of power why can't they just run for the presidency in the December elections? Everyone knows Chavez will win that election easily and the people of Venezuela consider Venezuelan democracy the strongest in the Americas.

Chavez has won so many elections and referendums, including the one where the opposition signed enough signatures to force an election to remove him from power. He has shown that he is more than willing to participate in elections, winning all of them fairly with huge majorities. The problem is the opposition knows they can’t remove him democratically, as the people of Venezuela always support Chavez, so they are attempting to undermine democracy by not taking part in the elections.

Chavez for 25 more years? I really hope so. This will only happen as long as the people want him in power. As he has already shown he will contest elections at anytime the opposition call for one. For the sake of the people of Latin America I really hope they get the chance to reap the rewards of his alternative vision to right wing free market economics which have kept the people of Latin America in poverty for so long. Chavez is building alliances with other countries in the region, including Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil and together I hope they can show the world that there is a free and democratic alternative to rampant capitalism.

Parsley

Pazaz 21 wrote:

He just seems to be getting more totalitarian and authoritarian by the day !! I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it dosen't look good !

What do people think he is up to, because if it ain't the obvious (creating a totalitarian and authoritarian state with him as dictator/leader) then what the hell is he doing ? I know he may think he is the best man for the job, thus wanting to stay in power, but going about it this way is a bit on the dodgy side !

Where'd you pull this more totalitarian by the day bull out of? This is the only totalitarian thing i've heard about him except for mindless rants by bush and blair and even then it looks like a stunt to get the opposition to participate in democracy- assuming this is even true.

In any case, Chavez is considerably more democratic than Bush or Blair- he won several elections and his people rescued him from a US supported coup in 2002. Meanwhile, Blair got the votes of less than one-fifth of the registered voters, while bush won by a few thousand votes in one of the most blatantly undemocratic democracies in the world.

Viscosity

clown bag wrote:

The situation in Venezuela at the moment is one where the opposition is refusing to take part in the general election later this year. All opinion polls both inside Venezuela and outside Venezuela carried out by anti-Chavez supporters show the likely hood of beating Chavez in the general election is very slim so they are boycotting the elections in an attempt to discredit democracy in Venezuela.

To call Venezuela undemocratic is so wide of the mark it’s frankly shocking that people still attempt to do it. Chavez was elected and re elected 3 times in landslide national elections verified by international observers and disputed by no one. Contrary to becoming more undemocratic and authoritarian he has delegated power to local people with them making the decisions that affect their communities and not the state.
See here

The opposition is refusing to take part in the democratic process under pressure from the United States who has been active in discouraging opposition leaders from running. If they want Chavez out of power why can't they just run for the presidency in the December elections? Everyone knows Chavez will win that election easily and the people of Venezuela consider Venezuelan democracy the strongest in the Americas.

Chavez has won so many elections and referendums, including the one where the opposition signed enough signatures to force an election to remove him from power. He has shown that he is more than willing to participate in elections, winning all of them fairly with huge majorities. The problem is the opposition knows they can’t remove him democratically, as the people of Venezuela always support Chavez, so they are attempting to undermine democracy by not taking part in the elections.

Chavez for 25 more years? I really hope so. This will only happen as long as the people want him in power. As he has already shown he will contest elections at anytime the opposition call for one. For the sake of the people of Latin America I really hope they get the chance to reap the rewards of his alternative vision to right wing free market economics which have kept the people of Latin America in poverty for so long. Chavez is building alliances with other countries in the region, including Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil and together I hope they can show the world that there is a free and democratic alternative to rampant capitalism.

Haven't they tried that ? In case you hadn't noticed its failed miserably every time.

Chavez is up against Mugabe in the race to see who becomes the Idi Amin for the 21st century. The only thing giving him any level of influence are the oil reserves without which, Venezuela would be a basketcase.

His policies seem to be primarily aimed at eradicating the middle and upper classes. While someone with your belief in collective misery might see this as beneficial, they run the businesses, provide the jobs and drive consumer demand; Without them their economy will end up falling on its face, its a well worn track for alternatives to capitalism.

Adam Smith rules, OK!

w66w66

from what I gather, he's seeking in indefinite re-election, meaning he can stand for re-election again and again. The USA had indefinite re-election up until 1951, so I'd hardly call it undemocratic.

Is their a cap on how many elections you can stand for prime minister in Ireland and Britain?

Akrasia

Viscosity wrote:

Haven't they tried that ? In case you hadn't noticed its failed miserably every time.

You say that as if there is only one possible way humans can order their society, and of course, it has to be our way

Adam Smith rules, OK!

He did indeed, and even adam smith admitted that the Invisible Hand of capitalism would lead to gross injustices and that some aspects of human life are too important to be left up to free markets.

Akrasia

w66w66 wrote:

from what I gather, he's seeking in indefinite re-election, meaning he can stand for re-election again and again. The USA had indefinite re-election up until 1951, so I'd hardly call it undemocratic.

Is their a cap on how many elections you can stand for prime minister in Ireland and Britain?

nope, so obviously, we're undemocratic totalitarian regimes.

democrates

Akrasia wrote:

You say that as if there is only one possible way humans can order their society, and of course, it has to be our way

Precisely. And extra congratulations for not resorting to oversimplifying terminology. It's not black and white, either capitalism or communism, the key is the distribution of wealth and thereby much freedom of choice.

Akrasia wrote:

He did indeed, and even adam smith admitted that the Invisible Hand of capitalism would lead to gross injustices and that some aspects of human life are too important to be left up to free markets.

A key fact so carefully ignored by so called libertarians who endlessly talk about freedom and rights, of the few.

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Chavez is up against Mugabe in the race to see who becomes the Idi Amin for the 21st century.

This has to be the best tripe I have heard so far.

Please try to back up your rants with facts. Better yet go read up on Idi Amin/Mugabe and please list out the comparisons with Chavez. kthxbye.

Viscosity

Admittedly Amin is out on his own but what all three seem to have in common is a desire to send the middle and upper classes into exile. With Amin it was mainly because they were of Lebonese origin, the white farmers of Zimbabwe and a similar situation appears to be progressing in Venezuela.

Parsley

Viscosity wrote:

Admittedly Amin is out on his own but what all three seem to have in common is a desire to send the middle and upper classes into exile.

Since when has chavez being trying to exile his middle class exactly?

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Admittedly Amin is out on his own but what all three seem to have in common is a desire to send the middle and upper classes into exile.

Thats the best you can do? False of course, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Heres some information for you, if you find something to back up your claim please post it.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=VEN
http://www.ine.gov.ve/indicadoressociales/idh.pdf

The introduction of a 25 year presidential term is not amenable with a healthy representative democracy.

ISAW

Viscosity wrote:

Haven't they tried that ? [i.e. an alternative to Rampant Capatalism] In case you hadn't noticed its failed miserably every time.

No it hasn't! The Vatican state for example is not a rampant capitalist state. Nor is it a democracy!

Chavez is up against Mugabe in the race to see who becomes the Idi Amin for the 21st century.

this is a very stupid comment! Where is there any evidence to back up the suggestion that chaves has an army of thugs which are wiping out the population?

The only thing giving him any level of influence are the oil reserves without which, Venezuela would be a basketcase.

A worthless point. If the Us had no oil gas uranium, other resources, military, and international investments then they would also have no large influence on the world? Do you really think that it is only the US system of government that makes them such a big influence?

His policies seem to be primarily aimed at eradicating the middle and upper classes.

And you evidence for this is? do you think that the rich or corporations should not pay tax and that only the poor should pay it?

While someone with your belief in collective misery might see this as beneficial, they run the businesses, provide the jobs and drive consumer demand; Without them their economy will end up falling on its face, its a well worn track for alternatives to capitalism.

Please explain your "collective misery" economy? Would this be similar to the US in 1929 or the dust bowl? How about the rationing in post war England? there was no rationing in Ireland.

Adam Smith rules, OK!

Do you really think everything Smith wrote is correct? You sound like a Marxist.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

The introduction of a 25 year presidential term is not amenable with a healthy representative democracy.

Indeed, although he hasn't done that yet. He is putting it up to vote to the people and only if the opposition refuses to run against him beforehand.

Akrasia

plus, it is unclear whether he means it's a 25 year term per election, or if he just wants to remove the limit on how many terms an individual president can hold.

But even if it was a 25 year term, there are constitutional methods by which recall elections can be held, and chavez has already demonstrated that he is willing to submit himself to as many votes as are necessary in order to maintain confidence in his leadership.

Contrast that with America and Ireland, where there is no way of recalling a government until a fixed term is up

Hogmeister B

Akrasia wrote:

Contrast that with America and Ireland, where there is no way of recalling a government until a fixed term is up

Ie America and Ireland aren't democracies at all. You get to choose your dictator from a list of two and can't decide what he then does for the next several years. Democracy is rule by the people; this farcical system is just rule by people.

Just because we're not police states doesn't mean we're democracies!

Good old Hugo and Evo, it's about time oil and gas money was used to help dirt poor people rather than boost the already obscene profits of Shell, BP et al.
Let's hope Nigeria, Iraq, South Africa, the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc realise that and start to deal with their poverty, which is severe.

Hogmeister B

Hogmeister B wrote:

Ie America and Ireland aren't democracies at all. You get to choose your dictator from a list of two and can't decide what he then does for the next several years. Democracy is rule by the people; this farcical system is just rule by people.

Just because we're not police states doesn't mean we're democracies!

Good old Hugo and Evo, it's about time oil and gas money was used to help dirt poor people rather than boost the already obscene profits of Shell, BP et al.
Let's hope Nigeria, Iraq, South Africa, the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc realise that and start to deal with their poverty, which is severe.

There are many different types of "democracy". Direct Democracy & Western liberal representative democracy are obviously not the same. Rule by the people is imho not sufficient for a form of government to be the best. In many other important criteria for a good form of government such as protection of minorities & individuals and the quality of policy. I think the value most people see in democracy is an instrumental not an intrinsic one. Democracy, ultimately is valued for what it brings not what it is. Western liberal representative democracy is superior to athenian style direct democracy in that it brings more of what people desire from a form of government.

Viscosity

Hobbes, love the links. The HDI analysis on Venezuela and and more information from the Chavez government is a waste of a paste. And besides I'm sure all the countrys social problems will be cured by ensuring that the horse on the national flag is moving to the left.

Venezuelan middle class flees Chávez rule of hate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wvenez05.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/05/ixworld.html

My favourite piece was the account of Marcial Rivera who is moving to Colombia in search of stability.

And while searching for the article required I also found this.
'Sandalistas' flock for first-hand view of the Chavez revolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/26/wchav26.xml



Lads don't get me wrong. Ensuring the fair distribution of wealth from countrys natural resources is something no-one can argue against. The only trouble is that once the oil and gas are gone (or more likely less valuable), the economy will have nothing to rely on. As with most oil rich countries, they could be better off if they hadn't got the oil and gas in the first place.

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Hobbes, love the links. The HDI analysis on Venezuela and and more information from the Chavez government is a waste of a paste.

Strange because the anti-chavez sites actually cite those two sites as reliable information. Please explain in detail why it is a waste of paste? Are you saying they are false? What proof to you have to back up those accusations?

And your links to "Sophie Arie" stories. :rolleyes: Try finding another reporter reporting the incident that isn't a direct link to her story. Good luck with that.

You might also find a running theme to her stories, which are somewhat lacking in facts and spun up.

Lads don't get me wrong. Ensuring the fair distribution of wealth from countrys natural resources is something no-one can argue against. The only trouble is that once the oil and gas are gone (or more likely less valuable), the economy will have nothing to rely on. As with most oil rich countries, they could be better off if they hadn't got the oil and gas in the first place.

Which if you bothered to read the links instead of dismissing them you would find that Chavez is implemented a large number of programs to ensure that when the Oil does run dry the country isn't fuk'ed like it would of been 5-6 years ago.

Viscosity

Hobbes wrote:

Strange because the anti-chavez sites actually cite those two sites as reliable information. Please explain in detail why it is a waste of paste? Are you saying they are false? What proof to you have to back up those accusations?

And your links to "Sophie Arie" stories. :rolleyes: Try finding another reporter reporting the incident that isn't a direct link to her story. Good luck with that.

You might also find a running theme to her stories, which are somewhat lacking in facts and spun up.



Which if you bothered to read the links instead of dismissing them you would find that Chavez is implemented a large number of programs to ensure that when the Oil does run dry the country isn't fuk'ed like it would of been 5-6 years ago.

Hobbes, if throwing up a link to a bunch of statistics is meant to prove something, you should at least direct out attention to what you think it proves. I only questioned the INE Venezuela material, what anti-chavez sites feel about it is their own business.

You're entitled to question the Telegraph but its hard to find pieces on Venezuela that aren't from polarised Anti/pro Chavez outlets, not that you'd be interested. I suppose you can wait until the Venezuelan media provides you with more information. Don't hold your breath.

As for your assertion that Chavez has somehow masterminded a soft-landing for an economy becoming increasingly dependent on the price of oil and gas, don't be so naive. A certain Mary Harney has (allegedly) implemented a large number of programs to improve the health service but not everyone is dumb enough to believe that these will be a success.

Your political views don't really bother me, whats disturbing is that you can't see any faults with an authoritarian militarist.

Viscosity

250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Hobbes, if throwing up a link to a bunch of statistics is meant to prove something, you should at least direct out attention to what you think it proves.

Actually it was to help you prove something. Read the forum charter. You make accusations your meant to back them up.

You're entitled to question the Telegraph but its hard to find pieces on Venezuela that aren't from polarised Anti/pro Chavez outlets, not that you'd be interested.

You don't know me very well. I read pro/anti sites. Generally if there is a story posted I try to find as many variations of it. If you get one story from one reporter repeated many times and no other details then it seriously brings the report into question.

Like I said, please feel free to post links to prove your point.

As for your assertion that Chavez has somehow masterminded a soft-landing for an economy becoming increasingly dependent on the price of oil and gas, don't be so naive.

There is already a huge 10 page thread on Chavez in this forum that goes into more detail with sources, links etc. You can go on and on but all your doing is spouting air without sources to back it up.

His countries programs are detailed in that thread afair.

Your political views don't really bother me, whats disturbing is that you can't see any faults with an authoritarian militarist.

If he was authoritarian then why bother with a referendum? There is no signs to show he is militarist. He has started up a militia, replaced weapons for the military because they were so old. The amount spent so far it tiny in comparison to countries that claim not to be militant.

When you have something a bit more concrete feel free to let us know.

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

Yawn. Really that is the best you can do? Only get your point across with innuendo?

Here let me try.

Bush.
http://www.voccoquan.com/images/mugabe%20bush.JPG

Blair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39880000/jpg/_39880489_blair1997pa300.jpg

Chirac
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38851000/jpg/_38851755_chirac_mugabe_afp203body.jpg


Or how about something a bit more recent, Jack Straw.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40118000/jpg/_40118568_handshake203.jpg

He also showed up at the Popes funeral to pay his respects. My god! The vatican is going the way of Mugabe. :rolleyes:

Please come up with something better.

Viscosity

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the loss of its middle class can only be confirmed by anecdotal evidence. The real proof will arise when their economy is in the gutter.

When you mention previous forums,

Hobbes wrote:

Hitler also suspended any further elections (something which Chavez has not).

Now seeing as Chavez is considering suspending elections for 25 years....that would make you appear a tad confused, since you are currently defending the previously indefensible. The fact that its going to a referendum doesn't justify anyone holding power for what probably will be the rest of his life.

As for the pictures, I don't think you can classify either Bush or Blair as supporters of Mugabe and Big Phil isn't exactly a power broker. The fact that Mugabe has doorsteped Jack Straw and Prince Charles was met with widespread condemnation despite the fact that it was on Mugabes initiation. The picture of Mugabe and Chavez is a little different, don't you think ?

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Now seeing as Chavez is considering suspending elections for 25 years....that would make you appear a tad confused,

And when exactly did I make that post? At what time? I mean come on is that the best you can do? misquote me on an much older post and claim that it is related to this one? (over 6 months old tbif).

Also where has he said he is suspending elections for the next 25 years? In fact your completly incorrect.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1723
No, such a referendum would not be about "whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years." A referendum would be about whether Chavez would be permitted to run every six years and --in the event that he were to continue winning elections-- serve multiple presidential terms

Further rummaging this appears to be the case. (Feel free to dismiss the link, but should give you a jump start to find the actual facts).

Here let me even dig a link from the basition of all that is right wing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194519,00.html
Chavez, giving a speech in the central state of Lara, said he would ask the nation "if I can or cannot continue presenting my name" in subsequent elections.

The picture of Mugabe and Chavez is a little different, don't you think ?

No its not. Context is everything, especially in relation to still shots. Because it is very easy to get a shot of someone and then play it totally out of context. A good example is Jack Straw shaking hands with Mugabe. In that instance Jack Straw had no clue who he was, yet the press had a field day with that picture in much the same way you are trying to with the current picture.

Do you know why Chavez is congratulating Mugabe in that picture? I do and it has nothing to do with agreeing with how Mugabe runs his country or wanting to be like Mugabe. I'll leave it to you to find out why.

[edit]

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the loss of its middle class can only be confirmed by anecdotal evidence.

Not really. If there was a huge influx of people to other countries it would be recorded. Certainly the previous statistics links seem to show this is not the case, unless this middle class are all illegally entering the other countries?

ISAW

Viscosity wrote:

250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg



What does that prove?

And what about Mobutu?
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Company/kabila1.htm

American Mineral Fields (AMFI), a consortium based originally in Hope, Ark.--yes, Bill Clinton's hometown--is a big player in exploiting Congo's mineral wealth. In 1997, just a month before Mobutu fell, it signed contracts with the Kabila-Rwanda-Uganda alliance forces for almost a billion dollars investment in copper, cobalt and zinc mines and processing plants in Kolwezi and Kipushi.

http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/interventions.html

The background to the war lies in the forty-year rule of Africa’s most infamous tyrant, General Mobutu. Appointed by American and Belgian agents to bloc the existing, democratically-elected President, Patrice Lumumba, Mobutu presided over decades of corruption. Oppositionists were murdered, while Mobutu acquired a huge fortune. Palaces were built for the ruling family, while every week Mobutu insisted on flying out his own personal hair stylist from Manhattan.

As Mobutu's regime began to fall apart, a number of bordering countries began to take an interest in the vast potential wealth of the Congo. Zimbabwe, Angola, Rwanda and Uganda all sent troops to support various local proxies. The most significant intervention was the one pushed by Rwanda and Uganda.

With their backing, a former leftist guerilla Laurent Kabila was able to capture state power. Kabila briefly enjoyed popular support, and appointed a number of prominent democrats to positions of authority. Within months, however, his insurrection tapered out - to be replaced by a more familiar style of family and ethnic privilege. Kabila then turned on his own former supporters, including the Rwandan armies, sparking in this way a second wave of fighting, which continues.

The war in the Congo is usually presented in the west as a uniquely barbarous and African affair. Yet all through the past period, different blocs of Western interests have sought to prosper from the fighting. Such public quoted companies as American Mineral Fields, Anglo-American, Georges Forrest International and Rio Tinto all have interests in the Congo. France provided mercenaries for Mobutu, while America endorsed Kabila’s war

ISAW

Viscosity wrote:

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the loss of its middle class can only be confirmed by anecdotal evidence. The real proof will arise when their economy is in the gutter.

Here are some actual stats rather than ancedote

[quote = http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_11_01.htm]
A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.
[/quote]

Now seeing as Chavez is considering suspending elections for 25 years....

really? You seem to be fond of supplying references. where does Chaves say that he is going to suspend elections for 25 years?

...The picture of Mugabe and Chavez is a little different, don't you think ?

yes he is not condeming Mogabe

Mind you rumsfeld wasnt condeming Saddam in his picture. He was shaking Saddams hand! You may also see pictures of Regan and Mother Theresa with Marcos. do you also condemn them? Bob geldof and Bono also met african dictators. How about condeming them? Oh wait. They support business dont thay? Have you another reason?

Parsley

Well how interesting. The initial premise of the thread, ie that Chavez seeks an election for a 25 year term, has been shown to be without any basis in truth.

The bias against Chavez among the media and people like Blair- who made an astonishingly ignorant and silly attack on our Hugo in parliament recently- is frankly depressing.

Street Byte

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life. He tried it before via direct coup and failed, this time he will suceed via popular democratic vote made possible by huge promises.

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

Hugo Chavez is on course to ruin his country as every African prototype before him has done. And reading this therad - apparently with the blessing of many here.

You may edit your posts now if you wish, because when the blood starts flowing (as it will) I will be quoting people.

Dirk Gently

Street Byte wrote:

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life. He tried it before via direct coup and failed, this time he will suceed via popular democratic vote made possible by huge promises.

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

He is not installing himself for life. see the real story HERE

At no stage did he say that there would be no more elections.The democratic process will continue with regular elections held as usual. Don't fall for the spin put on this by the opposition in venezeula who wont take part in the democratic process.
Its amazing how mis-quotes become fact in this modern world.

ISAW

Street Byte wrote:

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life. He tried it before via direct coup and failed,

REally? When was this? I think you may be mixing up your facts. Actually Chavez was overthrown by a US backed coup by the military.

this time he will suceed via popular democratic vote made possible by huge promises.

and if you are wrong in this or in the above you will say so will you?

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

and your evidence for this is?

Hugo Chavez is on course to ruin his country as every African prototype before him has done.

would that include the UK supported Amin in angola or the Us backed Mobutu?

And reading this therad - apparently with the blessing of many here.

If the people elect him then I accept that. Bush was actually appointed by a court. He did not get the majority of votes. But I accept he is the Us president. However he is supported by a small number of people.

You may edit your posts now if you wish, because when the blood starts flowing (as it will) I will be quoting people.

Come on! The Us has been involved in over 50 military incurtions (closer to 100 actually) outside of WWI and WWII. dont lecture peopl;e on blood.

Akrasia

Street Byte wrote:

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life.

according to whatever right wing blog or news source you subscribe to? In the real world, that is dishonest propaganda. (and contrary to all the concrete evidence) Chavez has legitimately won every election that he has challenged and those elections have been monitored internationally. He looks set to legitimately win the next election, and so comprehensively that the opposition are already looking for ways to discredit him instead of fighting to be elected themselves

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

complete speculation based on zero evidence or fact

Hugo Chavez is on course to ruin his country as every African prototype before him has done. And reading this therad - apparently with the blessing of many here.

Venezuela is actually in south america, not Africa. you might want to know the most elementary facts before you go spouting off about things you clearly have no knowledge of.

You may edit your posts now if you wish, because when the blood starts flowing (as it will) I will be quoting people.

do whatever you want, but nobody will be quoting you, because your uninformed right wing opinion is too mundane and uninteresting for anyone to ever bother remembering in order to quote in the future.

johnthesavage

The absurd portrayal by the corporate media of Chavez as some sort of comic-book bad guy is hardly surprising. Some of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world are now forced to pay taxes on the profits they make in Venezula, costing hundreds of millions per year.
Before Chavez came to power, foreign oil companies paid royalties of just 1% to the Venezuelan state. Chavez raised this to 16%, further increases are planned. This is the real reason for the attempt to convince people that Chavez is a dangerous despot (the Wall Street Journal describes Chavez as a "tyrant" who presided over "the collapse of democracy"), and also the reason for the failed US-backed coup of 2002.

bobbyjoe

Hugo Chavez - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Great docementary about Chavez and the coup.
Really demonstrates the power of the media.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqnDUN5AWBw&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3CRDEi2NYQ&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0kUay8hUtg&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppPtMEBQV8M&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcNZoWeq3Jc&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MXeJGQOkaI
Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lf6vKJH3X8
Part 8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNohsr6N5N4

ISAW

Hogmeister B wrote:

Ie America and Ireland aren't democracies at all. You get to choose your dictator from a list of two and can't decide what he then does for the next several years. Democracy is rule by the people; this farcical system is just rule by people.

An ignorant comment. According tio the Irish constitution there is a division of powers. the government is only 16 ministers. The Oireachtas legislates. The courts cant involve themselves in policy making and vice versa. There are also other bodies Unions, Social partners, The GAA etc. So the idea that anyone could dictate the law is ignorant of the facts. Furthermore the Irish (and the US) constitution makes NO reference to political parties. So there is no constitution insistance on a taoiseach from one of two parties. But even if there was it sill wouldnt be a dictatorship if you had a choice.

Just because we're not police states doesn't mean we're democracies!

Just because you deny the antecedent of affirm the consequent and use double negatives I assume you also lack knowledge of grammar and logic.

Good old Hugo and Evo, it's about time oil and gas money was used to help dirt poor people rather than boost the already obscene profits of Shell, BP et al.
Let's hope Nigeria, Iraq, South Africa, the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc realise that and start to deal with their poverty, which is severe.

Iraq really wasnt as poor as it neighbours under the dictator Saddam. Indeed in the 1970 he produced proportionately more PhD's than the US. Dictators can make a people wealthy. Hitler did it Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar. But this in itself does not justify dictatorship.

Sand

REally? When was this? I think you may be mixing up your facts. Actually Chavez was overthrown by a US backed coup by the military.

Oh, I got this link from a "reputable", "unbiased" (i.e. so far left they think Chavez is a right wing reactionary) source called the World Socialist Web site.

Chavez, a former paratrooper who rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, staged an abortive coup attempt in 1992 against the government of Carlos Andres Perez and was jailed for his efforts. Six years later, he was elected president as head of the Patriotic Pole, an electoral front comprised of his own Fifth Republic Movement and various parties of the petty-bourgeois nationalist left.

Your post displays complete ignorance of Chavez.

and if you are wrong in this or in the above you will say so will you?

Will you? Or will you go "Oh okay, so he led a military coup once. Whatever. Facts?!?! I never needed them to make up my mind before" and then return to dogma about the great man, el Presidente Chavez ?

Ive kinda given up on debating with people about Chavez. There are people who are truly, truly blind as to what he is doing. The same sort of people have applauded the installation of dictatorships down through history, all the way back to Republican Rome. Hobbes said it best,

"Well the best way to set up a dictatorship is to do it in inches instead of straight at once."

But those communist hippies from the World Socialist Website above said it longest (and with a lot of rhetoric)

Many left-wing nationalists in Venezuela, and in Latin America generally, have hailed the ascendancy of Chavez as a revolutionary development. Eager leftist journalists from Buenos Aires, Mexico City and elsewhere have breathlessly reported their pilgrimages to Miraflores, the presidential palace in Caracas, for personal interviews with the paratrooper president.

These people represent a sociopolitical layer which is incapable of either forgetting or learning anything. The same tendencies hailed the "anti-imperialist" credentials of the likes of Gen. J.J. Torres in Bolivia, the "humanist revolution" of Velasco Alvarado in Peru, Panamanian General Omar Torrijos's "revolution for the dispossessed" and the "revolutionary nationalist" orientation of General Rodriguez Lara in Ecuador. Like Chavez, many of these military rulers adopted radical reformist rhetoric and evinced a friendly attitude toward Cuba.

In each case, however, these figures merely paved the way for more reactionary regimes, often military dictatorships, which quickly took away whatever meager reforms had been implemented and waged a merciless assault on the political rights and social conditions of the working masses of these countries. The support of petty-bourgeois leftists for the "revolutionary" officers served only to disorient the working class and leave it politically disarmed as the general staffs in these countries dispensed with nationalist-reformist pretenses and turned sharply to the right.

When I read some hippy tirade and go "true that", its not exactly a reflexive agreement.

bobbyjoe

How is he a dictator if he keeps wining elections?

Sand

How is he a dictator if he keeps wining elections?

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

Perhaps but continueing to run them does.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote:

Oh, I got this link from a "reputable", "unbiased" (i.e. so far left they think Chavez is a right wing reactionary) source called the World Socialist Web site.


Ive kinda given up on debating with people about Chavez. There are people who are truly, truly blind as to what he is doing. The same sort of people have applauded the installation of dictatorships down through history, all the way back to Republican Rome.

Congrats on finding a 7 year old article which was more a prediction on what that particular organization thought Chavez might get up. The article has been proved wrong in the 7 years since it was written with the most elections in any state in the past few years.

Seriously sand, if you oppose the installation of dictatorships down through the years then you must oppose U.S. foreign policy. I too grow tired with these Chavez debates as some people are so blind they cannot see the reality of the situation from all the negative propaganda spurted out by the dictator installers down through the years in the U.S. government.
What will convince you that Chavez is not a dictator? How many elections do you want him to hold? Why would he set up councils all over Venezuela giving local people elected from their own communities’ power to make decisions at a local level day to day if he was hell bent on centralising power within his own party and creating a dictatorship?

What would convince you that he is a democratic leader, infact more so than democracy here in Ireland were we rely on a few cabinet ministers to make decisions for us everyday and get to change them once in 5 years? The recent example of the media reporting that he was canceling elections and installing himself for life are typical of the propaganda and disinformation which is churned out against him. He is always referred to as a strong man, a quasi dictator, a threat to democracy and even Hitler. If these baseless accusations are thrown around enough people tend to accept them as fact. Who is throwing around these accusations and what is their agenda?

You can only judge Venezuelan democracy on the facts we have today and not what you imagine might happen in the future. Yes you can argue that events today signal a likely future direction, but the signals look good to me from the Chavez side as he constantly promotes the democratic process and it is the opposition who signals that they will not take part in democracy in an attempt to dis credit Chavez by saying he never ran against a rival for election. How can you run against a rival if they won’t take part despite Chavez been desperate for elections to take place? Also all previous elections were observed by international organizations and verified landslide victories to Chavez. Attempts to discredit these elections by the U.S. media have met with condemnation by Fairness and accuracy in reporting (F.A.I.R) who have slated reports of unfair elections in Venezuela as poor, inaccurate and biased reporting. (In other words lies and propaganda)

I've a pain in me arse with these chavez threads. Hopefully I will learn to resist replying to posters who just argue against chavez for the sake of it dispite no evidence that he is the next hitler. There is just no convicing these neo cons

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Oh, I got this link from a "reputable", "unbiased" (i.e. so far left they think Chavez is a right wing reactionary) source called the World Socialist Web site.

Your post displays complete ignorance of Chavez.

No. It displays possible partial ignorance. I accept that cahves was involved in a coup over 16 years ago. he was later pardoned and released from prison. I thought you referred to the recent coup which was supported by the Us authorities. I was wrong about that and I accept I was wrong given they you accept the US backed a more recent coup against Chaves who was by then democratically elected.

Will you? Or will you go "Oh okay, so he led a military coup once. Whatever.

Would that be like Saddam leading a coup and the Us backing him and shaking his hand?
Or Marcos?
Or Pinochet?
Or who was the gut in Panama? (until the US decided they had to orgainse another takeover)

Facts?!?! I never needed them to make up my mind before" and then return to dogma about the great man, el Presidente Chavez ?

for the record I am not a socialist. Nor am I a supporter of anyone who dictates to people what they believe is good for them. Let the people decide what they want I say. I am also prepared to accept when I am unclear or when I jump the gun and I suspect that others are ignorant of the situation. I accept the historical record in that Chaves was involved in an abortive coup over 16 years ago. I thought you referred to the coup in 2004 or thereabouts which was backed by the US. I was wrong in thinking that. I now accept you referred to 1993 or therabouts.

Ive kinda given up on debating with people about Chavez.

No you havent. You continue it in the next sentence. You have provided a reference from a socialist website and little other facts. I accept the historical record but you provide little in fact but a lot in opinion.

There are people who are truly, truly blind as to what he is doing. The same sort of people have applauded the installation of dictatorships down through history, all the way back to Republican Rome. Hobbes said it best,

You have no admiration for Julius Caesar then? Or Augustus? that by the way was called "imperial" Rome. republican Rome didnt have dictators did they?

"Well the best way to set up a dictatorship is to do it in inches instead of straight at once."

How many inches did the Patriot Act achieve?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

Riighhtt.. Thats why the independant monitors (some of them from the US) said that the elections/referendums were completly fair. Compare that with the Bush/Kerry election where they reported it as "Mostly fair".

All I can see from your argument is that if people don't vote in the people you want then its not democratic.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Hobbes said it best,

"Well the best way to set up a dictatorship is to do it in inches instead of straight at once."

I'm touched people keep quouting me from different threads to try and show that I am talking about a completly different topic.

We don't have the same deal in Venezuela. For starters it is not the same Democratic system as the US. Secondly Chavezs posturing is to try and force the opposition to actually run. At the moment the opposition are trying to get the elections look like they are illegal by not entering them yet at the same time are going on as if they are the majority.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

When a dictator wins elections it is usually because they are rigged, or at the very beginning of their term (wherafter they usually announce that no more elections will be held)
Chavez has won many internationally monitored elections and he looks set to win the next one with a huge margin (so big that the opposition are afraid to even run and instead are trying to discredit him in other ways)

ISAW

Or who was the guy in Panama? (until the US decided they had to orgainse another takeover)

Noriega wasn't it?

for the record I am not a socialist. Nor am I a supporter of anyone who dictates to people what they believe is good for them. Let the people decide what they want I say.

Actually I dont believfe 100 per cent in this either. I believe if people are left to determine what is correct for themselves then one can end up with dictators. We need to inform our concience. that means someone form outside of ourselves hasto inform it. thus there are people like the Pope The Dali Lama etc. who do tell people what is good for them.


No you havent. You continue it in the next sentence. You have provided a reference from a socialist website and little other facts. I accept the historical record but you provide little in fact but a lot in opinion.

You have no admiration for Julius Caesar then? Or Augustus? that by the way was called "imperial" Rome. republican Rome didnt have dictators did they?

To be fair and historically and gramatically correct (if orthographically wanting) the later republic just before the Imperium did have dictators Sulla, Crassus Pompey etc. Isnt the Pope a dictator? What is your definition of a dictator or a doctatorship Sand? You seem fond of stating what your opinion is. so what is your definition? then we will see if you don't accept dictatorships. Or is it only because the current US regime oppose chaves? You make the general point about police states and dictatorships being wrong but Ill bet when shown the historical issues and links with militarism you will go all fuzzy on both your definition of and commitment to so called "principles". I will bet any appeal to and any idea of an overarching natural and universal law (something Bush frequently does and oddly something I also subscribe to but I dont apply it selectively with double standards) will be shown up as only applying when it suits you in particualr cases and ignored in other cases.

So care to supply a definition? If not then dont preach about how you believe Chaves is doing something wrong. You fail to supply references to where the ultimate source of definition for this wrong resides. you also fail to support your allegation a transcript of the interview between glick and O reilly being incorrect. you claim it is wrong but you fail to show one word from the interview which is not in the transcript. the transcript in addition shows what O reilly stated about the interview months later where he claimed Bush was accused of being involved in 9/11. You have not produced anything to show this is wrong or that O reilly did not say what is attributed to him in the transcript.

you are. Long on opinion. short on evidence. you have much to learn.

Sand

No. It displays possible partial ignorance.

No, its complete and utter ignorance of Chavez. You didnt even know some of the basic facts of his "political" career and the history of Venezeula itself - a history of leading military revolutions isnt a minor detail when discussing the same mans subversion of the same state.

I was wrong in thinking that. I now accept you referred to 1993 or therabouts.

I didnt refer to the coup, I just noticed your attack on another poster for noting Chavez led a coup previously and highlighted your poor/non-existent grasp of the facts. I also successfully predicted that being made aware of the facts wouldnt alter your opinion of Chavez an iota. Why would it? That would imply your opinion was factually based in the first place.

No you havent. You continue it in the next sentence.

Well, couldnt resist highlighting the ignorance that underpins the support for Chavez abroad. His fanclub literally wilfully refuse to recognise reality. Posters here will demonise the functioning democratic societies as dictatorships, but will laud Chavez gutting of liberal democracy. I quoted Orwell in my sig because Im constantly struck with how the same themes still echo today...

You have no admiration for Julius Caesar then? Or Augustus? that by the way was called "imperial" Rome. republican Rome didnt have dictators did they?

Actually it was called republican rome - Caesar was murdered by Senators defending the republic, not hoping to establish it. Sulla had ruled as a dictator before but he was not a reformer, and seemed content to murder/terrorise his opponents, but did a lot to build the institutions that would prevent the rise of another Sulla (Caesar?) like figure - after Sullas death these "locks" were removed in the name of "people power"...You should buy a history book and read up on it, amazing how those very same dictators posed as champions of the common man, the restorers of an idealised Rome, were hailed as heroes - then they gutted the Senate, the institutions of state that resisted their will, and centralised authority under them until declaring themselves Imperator was but a formality.

As for admiration - I respect Caesar was a good general and a good political operator. It doesnt make him admirable though, nor the rise of dictators as a good thing.

All I can see from your argument is that if people don't vote in the people you want then its not democratic.

What you need to recognise Hobbes is that there is more to democracy than votes. Seeing as were on a history tour, the Athenians used to vote to exile people they didnt like. If you were voted out then you were forced onto the road or youd be killed - Is that democracy, even though a majority would vote for it?

Of course not - real, liberal democracy depends on fair, neutral institutions and systems being developed that ensure the state continues to serve and represent *all* the voters, not just the voters in the majority. Without these checks on pure democracy, it devolves into mob rule and voting as civil war - the losers are unwilling to accept the result of elections because they know the winners will not represent them or respect their views in the slightest. This is exactly what were seeing in Venezeula as Chavez guts the institutions of state and undermines the fabric of that countries democracy. You simply would not accept this in Ireland, and yet you cheer for it in Venezeula.

We don't have the same deal in Venezuela. For starters it is not the same Democratic system as the US.

Correct, the US is a functioning liberal democracy. Venezeula....isnt. Now do you feel Chavez's "reforms" are moving Venezeula closer to becoming a functioning liberal democracy, or further away?

When a dictator wins elections it is usually because they are rigged, or at the very beginning of their term (wherafter they usually announce that no more elections will be held)

Sorry, do you think dictatorships come with flat-pack assembly instructions and are thrown up in a few weeks? As Hobbes said dictatorships are built step by step - dictators these days dont even stop elections, even in places like Zimbabwe they run them. Dictatorships are built step by step. Chavez is doing so in destroying state institutions, attacking and marginalising opposition political figures, arming a party militia, whipping up nationalism with rants about foreign threats and now removing limits on his term. Where do you think thats leading to?

Or who was the guy in Panama? (until the US decided they had to orgainse another takeover)


Noriega wasn't it?

ISAW, why are you (at 14:15) quoting and responding to your own post that you made at 01:34? There are two explanations I can think of. One might be considered personal abuse, and the other would draw the wrath of the mods if I were to make accusations of it on the thread...Youll forgive me if I hestitate in responding to the post in detail until I know who Im actually talking to.

you are. Long on opinion. short on evidence. you have much to learn.

Ironically put ISAW.