Anti Chavez protests get

Sand

Odd news from Venezeula. Apparently in the Chavez socialist paradise some hippy student wasters were out protesting against Chavez! Can you imagine, the nerve. Luckily the cops gave them a good kicking - take that hippies!

Just in case they didnt get the message, some concerned patriots on bikes followed them back from another protest , burned their bus and shot at them. I see the foresight of Chavez in purchasing and distributing small arms to his party grassroots is paying off nicely. Im sure all reasonable people will agree that those grungy student slackers should be getting haircuts and a job and not bothering Chavez as he embarks on his glorious plan to remove term limits so he can serve as President forever and ever.

silverharp

from Bloomberg

Venezuela's annual inflation fell to 15.9 percent last month, from 17.2 percent in July. The figure remains the highest in Latin America, posing one of Chavez's largest challenges. He has sought to tame the rising rate by boosting reserve requirements, tightening price controls and ordering three zeros slashed from the currency in January 2008.



why would anyone be protesting, he is doing such a bang up job

jonny72

The sad thing is, if the US backed a coup and helped install/prop-up some hideous dictator you wouldn't hear a peep out of the right.

Personally I think Chavez is on a slippery slope. Although I'd give it a while before I start comparing him to Putin/Musharraf.

mike65

I have no issues with dictators shooting students, in fact its to be encouraged.

Mike.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote: »

Just in case they didnt get the message, some concerned patriots on bikes followed them back from another protest , burned their bus and shot at them. .

bbc wrote:

Photographers for the Associated Press news agency saw at least four masked gunmen firing handguns at the crowd, as terrified students fled.

Globovision television, which is openly critical of the government, showed images of hooded men throwing objects into university classes and other people, apparently students, running away.

Given the tactics used more than a couple of times in that country by the opposition I will reserve judgement on who was actually riding around on motorbikes firing on the students until I read more about the incident.

Nice one sand, yet another fair, balanced and unbiased post from you on the subject of Chavez.

sand wrote:

Chavez as he embarks on his glorious plan to remove term limits so he can serve as President forever and ever.

unless of course people vote for someone else, like here and the UK for example.

purple'n'gold

I think that the only reason he is still in power is because the US is too preoccupied elsewhere. When they get the time, and get around to it, the CIA will sort him out. And let me please pre-empt the lefties and pc brigade; I AM NOT cheerleading for the US. Just stating a fact of life.

RedPlanet

Some nutcase takes a pot shot at protesters and it's Chavez's fault is it?

Chavez cannot end term limits, only the people can do that democratically in national referenda.
Just a tad different than a dictatorship.

lostexpectation

it was just as likely to antichavvez people shooting at anti-chavez people, there precedent for it you know sand.

need to find some coverage of it

mike65

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7084262.stm

Mike.

sovtek

mike65 wrote: »

I have no issues with dictators shooting students, in fact its to be encouraged.

Mike.

Who's a dictator?

mike65

I'm speaking in general terms. Chavez is a dictator in waiting. I fully expect some sort of crisis to be engineered by him at some point and he'll declare a national emergency and suspend elections. Don't ask me when but it will happen.

Mike

SkepticOne

It's turning into another sham democracy like Zimbabwe.

Sand

Given the tactics used more than a couple of times in that country by the opposition I will reserve judgement on who was actually riding around on motorbikes firing on the students until I read more about the incident.

Nice one sand, yet another fair, balanced and unbiased post from you on the subject of Chavez.

Why be so grumpy? I agree with you that a good kicking is all those students deserve for their cheek. Every time a riot cop lands a baton on a hippys face, an angel gets its wings.

Some nutcase takes a pot shot at protesters and it's Chavez's fault is it?

Nah, hes a leftist. It cant be his fault that he arms his supporters and his supporters shoot students who he claims are attempting to destabilise the country.

Now if he was a center-right politician, beating students and shooting at them might lead to claims of police state brutality and political intimidation against activists. Indymedia might get outraged. Phew, close thing that.

unless of course people vote for someone else

Have you ever heard of a demagogue?

President Chavez is also proposing to bypass legal controls on the executive during a state of emergency, bring in a maximum six-hour working day, and cut the voting age from 18 to 16.

Bread and circuses tends to maker you popular, but its usually a cover for establishing a dictatorship. Especially when youre taking great chunks out of the constitution and institutions supposed to act as a check on unlimited power. But hey, why pay attention to history right? This time everything will work out just fine.

Removing term limits is bad for the general practise of liberal democracy. Presidents that rule without term limits tend to live in places where political dissent is....discouraged, and yes, they do tend to win every election - one way or the other. Chavez characterises political dissenters as traitors, spies and enemies of the state - this is not a good sign to me. Hes also quite petty and vindictive - some Spanish pop star was banned from using a state owned stadium for his concerts because he expressed views that were not supportive of Chavez. The State should not be a tool of Chavez to punish those who disagree with him. Again, this is not a good sign that its wise to pass unlimited power to Chavez.

And lets face it - why does Chavez need to remove the term limit? Surely his policies are extremely popular? Surely, with his focus on grassroots democracy he has cultivated a whole cadre of capable, committed political "fellow travellers" who can carry on his reforms and program?

Or is it really just the Chavez show? Is he that determined to not relinquish personal power?

Oh and by the way - bypass the legal controls on the executive [i.e. Chavez] during a state of emergency? That sounds encouraging doesnt it?

RedPlanet

Well i don't know but it looks to me that the students, whom are married to the opposition, are trying to derail democracy from taking it's course.
If the people of Venezuela so desire to remove presidental term limits, (and of course only they can do that via referenda); then the will of people of Venezuela should be done. After all, they are following the democratic and legal route to do so.
For outsiders to agrue limiting the democratic entitlements of Venezuela is abhorrent. Particularly since Venezuela does not try to impose it's doctrines on others

Dirk Gently

Most disappointing sand, you usually dress your posts up a bit but such an obvious troll prevents the usual half hearted replies and counters this time round. (well I'm sure some will take the bait and keep you amused)

moe_sizlak

jonny72 wrote: »

The sad thing is, if the US backed a coup and helped install/prop-up some hideous dictator you wouldn't hear a peep out of the right.

Personally I think Chavez is on a slippery slope. Although I'd give it a while before I start comparing him to Putin/Musharraf.

yeah like the time they helped over throw the democratically elected salavadore allande and replaced him with the murderous pinochet

Sand

Most disappointing sand, you usually dress your posts up a bit but such an obvious troll prevents the usual half hearted replies and counters this time round. (well I'm sure some will take the bait and keep you amused)

Dont worry clown, the concept of hippy irish student types supporting pig fascist cops beating down hippy venezeulan students keeps a permament grin on my face. I chuckle as I type this. Theres no low leftists wont descend to in the defence of Chavez:)

Anyway, its the news - no troll involved. Discuss, or dont discuss. Personally I find it an interesting topic to discuss the nature of democracy - tyranny of the majority vs protection of the minority.

Well i don't know but it looks to me that the students, whom are married to the opposition, are trying to derail democracy from taking it's course.

Depends on your definition of democracy. If your defintion of democracy is that 95% of the population can vote to send the other 5% to death camps to be gassed, then yes Chavez is a paragon of democracy.

If your definition is that there should be controls on the power of the executive, no matter how popular, then no....Chavez is not democratic. But hey, Chavez is a leftist. And weve already established, leftist leaders can do no wrong. Am I right?

But I guess youve never heard of a demagogue. Well, at least it will be all fresh and new to you.

jonny72

Sand wrote: »

Dont worry clown, the concept of hippy irish student types supporting pig fascist cops beating down hippy venezeulan students keeps a permament grin on my face. I chuckle as I type this. Theres no low leftists wont descend to in the defence of Chavez:)

Anyway, its the news - no troll involved. Discuss, or dont discuss. Personally I find it an interesting topic to discuss the nature of democracy - tyranny of the majority vs protection of the minority.



Depends on your definition of democracy. If your defintion of democracy is that 95% of the population can vote to send the other 5% to death camps to be gassed, then yes Chavez is a paragon of democracy.

If your definition is that there should be controls on the power of the executive, no matter how popular, then no....Chavez is not democratic. But hey, Chavez is a leftist. And weve already established, leftist leaders can do no wrong. Am I right?

But I guess youve never heard of a demagogue. Well, at least it will be all fresh and new to you.

I am quite anti-Bush administration and anti-right wing, I've said my share of biased bad things about them, but let's be honest here, these are amongst the most hate filled cynical bitter statements I've read on boards in a loong long time. I'm not attacking the poster, I'm just saying.. wow.

mike65

I wonder how long getting paid for 8 hours a day while working 6 will last? I presume Chavez thinks he can get away with this defiance of economic gravity by using up oil revenues.

Guardian piece (they are lefties but I read the site everyday:) )

Under a new draft constitution debated in congress this week everyone will have more time for recreation and relaxation. Everyone, that is, except Mr Chavez.

As part of the same package of changes presidential term limits will be abolished, allowing Mr Chavez, who seldom seems to sleep or take time off, to continue his hyperactivity for some time to come.

Critics say the two proposals are directly related: the six-hour proposal is a populist sweetener to ease the constitution's passage in a December referendum which will give the president the right to stand for continuous re-election. They have also criticised a proposal to suspend due process in "emergencies", allowing citizens to be detained without charge.

Mike.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

Dont worry clown, the concept of hippy irish student types supporting pig fascist cops beating down hippy venezeulan students keeps a permament grin on my face. I chuckle as I type this. Theres no low leftists wont descend to in the defence of Chavez:)

Anyway, its the news - no troll involved. Discuss, or dont discuss. Personally I find it an interesting topic to discuss the nature of democracy - tyranny of the majority vs protection of the minority.



Depends on your definition of democracy. If your defintion of democracy is that 95% of the population can vote to send the other 5% to death camps to be gassed, then yes Chavez is a paragon of democracy.

If your definition is that there should be controls on the power of the executive, no matter how popular, then no....Chavez is not democratic. But hey, Chavez is a leftist. And weve already established, leftist leaders can do no wrong. Am I right?

I disagree Sand. They can and often have done wrong. of course so can right-wing leaders. still, that doesn't excuse either as i'm sure you'll agree.

clown bag

clown bag wrote: »

Most disappointing sand, you usually dress your posts up a bit but such an obvious troll prevents the usual half hearted replies and counters this time round. (well I'm sure some will take the bait and keep you amused)

It might be a good idea for you to read the charter of this board regarding troll accusations.

Others on this thread - please deal with the post and not the poster-otherwise there will be slaps.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

And lets face it - why does Chavez need to remove the term limit? Surely his policies are extremely popular? Surely, with his focus on grassroots democracy he has cultivated a whole cadre of capable, committed political "fellow travellers" who can carry on his reforms and program?

Or is it really just the Chavez show? Is he that determined to not relinquish personal power?

A venezuelan friend of mine is of the opinion that the country requires a "strong-man" type of leader. And so they have chosen one.
Personally if i were in that country and a citizen, i would argue against removing presidential term limits. While having a benlovent leader like Chavez is great but what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, and the country gets terrorised by right-wing, christian wackos that try to frighten the citizenry into giving up it's freedoms like in America?
That would be disaster.
However because i am not Venezuelan and do not live there i can only respect their right to make democratic decisions for themselves, and also respect their right to make mistakes.

Everything else you complain about Sands: small arms, media, state of emergency(do you think he might just be following suit according to international norms like you know: USA, Pakistan, etc etc), powers of detention; are fairly innocous and entirely dwarfed when compared to say... military coups that overthrow democratically elected governments that are supported entirely by a superpower country, suspension of the constitution and mass arrests of opposition and gagging the media all the while holding onto NUKES, in a tinderbox part of the world.

By the way, what definition of democracy do you subscribe to Sands? You appear to question the legitamacy of majority rule. Upon googling "define: democracy" i get this:

define: democracy
- the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
- a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
- majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hobbes

I have you on ignore if your wondering the reason as to why I haven't responded.

Post is a bit trollish. I would of preferred a bit more meat then sarcasm, but can't get everything can we.

So lets get it straight. Gunmen fire at anti-Chavez protesters and somehow you have magically linked this to Chavez. How exactly?

From what I understand is Chavez has put some of the questionable stuff forward for a referendum. Student protests are to stop the referendum? Should not the country be allowed vote on what they want? They are certainly free to protest.

As for your other post. Anti-riot police sent in to stop violent protests. Certainly one of the pictures I've seen there was stuff thrown at the police.

I am still not understanding what point you are trying to get across exactly? Are riot police supposed to just stand there while being attacked?

If you are trying to imply that Chavez is being intentionally heavy handed or authorized the shooting then please put up some proof to that fact rather then innuendo.

FYI

It looks as though it was one of two things:

a) Pro-Chavez gunmen firing to ward off anti-Chavez students (who by all accounts seem to have instigated the incident by sieging a pro-Chavez meeting)

or

b) Anti-Chavez gunmen firing on pro-Chavez students

But neither account lay the blame at Chavez's feet.

"The violence between anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez students reached a climax on November 7, when a group of opposition students returning to the UCV from a rally surrounded the School of Social Work, a traditionally left wing division, and held a siege of the building where 123 pro-Chávez students and staff had been making posters and planning their activities for the “Yes” campaign. In the opposition-controlled media, the events were falsely reported as a case of masked gunmen who opened fire on peaceful opposition student protesters."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=14258

"Unedited footage from Avila TV showed a mob of predominantly male opposition students, some wearing balaclavas and tear gas masks, surrounding the School of Social Work, (where around 123 pro-Chavez students and administrative staff were hiding), throwing rocks, chairs and other objects, smashing windows and attempting to burn down the building."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2814

"Even news agencies now are reporting that Bolivarian armed men arrived at the UCV after the opposition students had sieged 150 people inside the building of the School of Social Work to help those sieged gain safe passage out:

Later, armed men riding motorcycles arrived, scaring off students and standing at the doorway - one of them firing a handgun in the air - as people fled the building. (The Guardian)

What Hands Off Venezuela eyewitness report is that, faced with the inaction of the University authorities, hundreds of students, University workers and people from nearby neighbourhoods finally went into the University to help the people at the School of Social Work escape from the violent mob of opposition students. Some of them were carrying guns, which was only normal considering the extremely violent nature of the situation."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2818

Dirk Gently

I seen those reports too but I don't think the OP is too concerned with what actually happened. Looks like upon returning from their protest a group of students from the anti Chavez camp decided to trash another university which is know for supporting Chavez. A couple of hundred people were trapped inside by the anti Chavez crowd and contrary to what the OP says the police actually sat back and didn't disrupt the anti Chavez mod as they are not allowed enter university campus grounds without university permission. It was a couple of hours before that permission was given by the university as they feared for their lives at that stage as petrol bombs were throw inside and fires started.

Local people came from surrounding neighbourhoods to try rescue the besieged students and teachers from the anti Chavez mob.

Of the videos I've seen it is clearly an anti Chavez mod attacking a local school and if anything the police didn't react quickly enough. Probably afraid to react for fear of the reports being spun into an attack by them on protesters.

Funny how these things always happen around the time an election or vote is going to take place. You would nearly think the opposition were trying to subvert the democratic process. Obviously that’s not the case though, Chavez is teh evil.

Sand

Jonny72

I am quite anti-Bush administration and anti-right wing, I've said my share of biased bad things about them, but let's be honest here, these are amongst the most hate filled cynical bitter statements I've read on boards in a loong long time. I'm not attacking the poster, I'm just saying.. wow.

Well, youve only been around for seven months so its probably not a huge sample size. Give me time, Im sure I can surpass it.

RedPlanet

A venezuelan friend of mine is of the opinion that the country requires a "strong-man" type of leader. And so they have chosen one.

Okay, so the Chavez idealogy has transformed from putting power in the hands of grassroots political representation to "strong man" leadership from the top. This fits with his actions alright.

Is the penny dropping yet?

Redplanet

By the way, what definition of democracy do you subscribe to Sands? You appear to question the legitamacy of majority rule.

Governance in the interests of ALL, with the consent of the majority.

I questioned your own definition before - you dont seem to place any value on checks against populism so I assume if 90 people voted to gas the other 10 youd be democratically bound by the wishes of the majority?

Or does democracy require checks and balances to protect the rights of all, even that of the minority? Think carefully.


Nacho Libre

I disagree Sand. They can and often have done wrong. of course so can right-wing leaders. still, that doesn't excuse either as i'm sure you'll agree.

Yep, agreed. What I find constantly amusing is that people on the center right - such as myself - are often invited to condemn dictators like Musharref and his errosion of Pakistani democracy. I assume people delude themselves that I mirror their own views, in supporting attacks on democracy if its carried out by some leader they believe I would agree with. Usually whatever point they were hoping to make flops when I do condemn such errosion of democracy.

I then invite them to condemn attacks on democracy carried out by some leftist leadership - usually Chavez - and either its ignored, or the poster attempts to claim that Venezeulans didnt need democracy anyway. See the Zmag comments below for an example...

Like I've said before, I found my sig when reading George Orwell and his condemnation of the lefts infatuation with anti-democractic forces. I have yet to find anything more fitting or relevant to many of the discussions here.

Hobbes

I have you on ignore if your wondering the reason as to why I haven't responded.

I hadnt noticed to be honest. And let me know how the ignore button works out for you.

FYI

It looks as though it was one of two things:

Hey there - Ill take some time out and deal with the points raised.

Firstly, your sources are....biased. Yes, that would be the word im looking for.

Lets look at Z Net - its "a community of people dedicated to social change", basically radical left wing/anti -capitalist politics which is what remained when communism died. These people are the bedrock of Chavez's international support. Theyre living the dream through the lives of others so their risk is fairly low. It wont be them who ends up in a dictatorship.

Their bias allows them to try and smear a former Chavez ally - he claims that the constitutional changes will concentrate too much power in the hands of Chavez. Z Mag announce that in reality this ally is concerned with changes to military structures. No evidence is cited for this, but in a flash Z Mags target audience feel they can safely ignore his troubling claims.

Zmag then goes on to smear the protestors - yes, they might be university students with which Z Mags target audience would feel some common identity with. But Z Mag announces, again with no evidence cited, that these are rich, posh students. And again, Z Mags target audience feel they can safely ignore their troubling claims about democracy being eroded.

Z Mag then goes on to evaluate these claims of democracy being erroded in Venezeula. It doesnt even bother to deny they are, it just pretends that Venezeula is a special case where people dont need rights or checks on government. This is basically the typical defence of the philosopher-king dream/cults of personality that live somewhere in the heart of leftist idealogies.

Basically - get a source thats not so deeply besotted with the figure its commenting on. Ive been accused of being cynical, but Im not entirely surprised when leftist commentators claim everything is fine and dandy in whatever leftist state theyre currently in love with. Theyve been doing it since the Russian revolution at the very least. They never, ever learn.

Secondly, the coverage of the shooting and violence on the campus on Veneezeulan analysis site [which seems to be cut from the same cloth idealogically as Z Net, which it recomends on its homepage along with a host other far left sites] doesnt really contradict the BBC story in the points it covers.

The BBC reported an anti-Chavez protest returned to the university from a peaceful protest. A gang of men entered the campus, burnt their bus and apparently shot at them. Pro-Chavez supporters [which the BBC IIRC identified as the gunmen] were surrounded and sieged in a building, they were later evacuated by Civil defence types.

The VA site plays down the reports of the bus getting burnt and anti-Chavez students getting shot at. Their reporting revolves around the siege of the Chavez supporter [who may or may not have included the gunmen]. This siege was apparently carried out by students who had just returned from a *peaceful* protest. This lowers my belief that the same students would then randomly decided to siege pro-chavez supporters for no real reason. The report claims not to know why the violence started. It sheepishly admits armed men may have been on the campus burning buses at some point...but hey, they had it coming - right?

FYI again

Hands Off Venezuela eyewitness

Jesus christ...well my "Down with Chavez" eyewitnesses say Chavez himself was there driving tanks as they ran down poor innocent students.

And FYI, one more time

faced with the inaction of the University authorities, hundreds of students, University workers and people from nearby neighbourhoods finally went into the University to help the people at the School of Social Work escape from the violent mob of opposition students. Some of them were carrying guns, which was only normal considering the extremely violent nature of the situation."

So they didnt call the cops? Why? Would the same source agree that it was only normal for students to carry guns considering their idealogical enemies are carrying guns as well? I can see this ending quite well, but Chavez has planned ahead by ensuring his idealogical grassroots are heavily armed.

Reads like spin and damage control by another site desperately besotted with their subject matter. But who knows, I wasnt there, perhaps theyre right. But if they are right, then surely you can find an objective source that isnt more a social networking site for radical leftist types than an actual honest to goodness media organisation with editorial standards?

I lied, its FYI again

But neither account lay the blame at Chavez's feet.

His decision to arm his idealogical powerbase put guns in Venezeulan politics, on a rather large scale. The Irish have stuggled for generations to take the gun out of Irish politics, are militant political groups really a good idea for a polarised society like Venezeula?

Clown bag

Of the videos I've seen it is clearly an anti Chavez mod attacking a local school and if anything the police didn't react quickly enough. Probably afraid to react for fear of the reports being spun into an attack by them on protesters.

Yep, thats probably the most likely account....We all know how concerned Chavez is with his PR and his relationship with the CIA counter revolutionary state destabilising spies ....woops, sorry the honourable opposition.

In other news, Chavez met his match in the King of Spain, Juan Carlos. Chavez was in fine ranting form denouncing a Spanish PM, Aznar as a fascist and sub-human and whatever else namecalling and silliness marks Chavez out as a statesman to his supporters.

Juan Carlos took his turn to speak and took the line that the Aznar was a democratically elected representitive of the Spanish people and should be respected as such [Ironically this is the line Chavez supporters try to defend Chavez with]. Of course Chavez couldnt contain himself from speaking over Juan Carlos, repeatedly, until the King told him what was a long time coming "Why dont you shut up?", which left Chavez speechless for about 3 seconds before he went back on a rant.

I understand Chavez has risen above the dispute, displaying his greatness and humility by announcing he will review all political, social and economic ties with Spain unless he gets an apology. The Spanish response could be summarised as - go and perform an indecent act upon yourself with something sharp. Chavez has as yet never offered an apology for his rants and diplomatic misdemeanors.

Meanwhile, the Irish Times [ that bastion of fascism ] carried a fairly predictable story during the week regarding food shortages in Venezeula shops, caused by the price controls Chavez introduced which [as any 1st year economics student will tell you] basically made it unprofitable to produce certain foodstuffs in the required amounts. Thank christ for capitalism eh?

Dirk Gently

sand wrote:

biased

yeah because you put every effort into fair and balanced posting and not simply biased ranting with added innuendo and projection.

There are plenty of things wrong about venezuela and chavez but silly rants obviously thrown out there to get a reaction does nothing to fuel a genuine debate on the subject. You question biased sources yet if you read your OP it is clearly just a biased rant. Your links don't match your own personal spin.

bobbyjoe

Chavez must be a terrible dictator. All those referendums and elections someone should tell him dictators don't do that.

lostexpectation

well they do sorta, look at musharraff, and syria and saudi and zimbabwe, lots of 90% results though, although, sometimes dictators are for whatever reason genuienly popular or sometimes there forcing it...

lostexpectation

so did the spainish PM at the time know about and back the fascist coup

Sand

Clown bag wrote:

yeah because you put every effort into fair and balanced posting and not simply biased ranting with added innuendo and projection.

Im not the BBC news, Im a poster on an internet discussion board with an opinion. Of course I am biased in favour of my views. Whose views should I be biased in favour of? Yours? Dont confuse people with an opinion with a source of objectively reported news, or vice versa.

Clown bag wrote:

There are plenty of things wrong about venezuela and chavez but silly rants obviously thrown out there to get a reaction does nothing to fuel a genuine debate on the subject. You question biased sources yet if you read your OP it is clearly just a biased rant. Your links don't match your own personal spin.

Okay, so you cant counter any points raised then? Biased as I am I managed to go through the posts above and take them on the points raised - where points where raised that is.

And at the end of the day, myself and Zmag agree that democracy in Venezeula is being erroded. Z mag and their idealogical ilk just dont believe that Venezeulans deserve the same political and legal freedoms we have. I however disagree.

bobbyjoe wrote:

All those referendums and elections someone should tell him dictators don't do that.

Christ, all dictators hold elections. They just make sure they win them, one way or the other.

Oh and I have never denied Chavez is a populist. Christ, Id vote for him if he was promising me a maximum 6 hour working day. History has shown time and again that populists are dangerous to the political freedoms of all - they use populist rhetoric to demolish checks on their power, and then secure their own.

Redplanet and his buddies are already talking about strong man rule being neccessary in Venezeula. This is a far cry from the grassroots democracy that was promised wasnt it?

But never mind. The guys in Zmag live in the US and Europe - worse come to worse, itll only be Venezeulans living in a dictatorship. And we already know they didnt need democratic freedoms we take for granted anyway. By then Zmag and company will have moved on to cheerleading for the next far away demagogue that presses all the right buttons.

bobbyjoe

lostexpectation wrote: »

well they do sorta, look at musharraff, and syria and saudi and zimbabwe, lots of 90% results though, although, sometimes dictators are for whatever reason genuienly popular or sometimes there forcing it...

Elections in Venezuela are monitored by international bodies. More so than other countries we consider Democratic. America for example.

mike65

A humourous sidebar

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,2213139,00.html

Mike.

FYI

Hugo Chavez flies in - to confront more lies
But is there a danger Chavez will play into the hands of his critics, and become dictatorial after all?


This week the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez touched down in London, to a blaze of slander and lies about his record so far. He will be dubbed “a military dictator”, a “caudillo”, a “murderer” and worse. Ah well – at least on this trip Elizabeth Windsor is unlikely to tell him to “shut up”, as the Spanish King snapped at him during a summit in Chile last week.

So before the misrepresentations begin, let’s establish some facts. Before Chavez was elected President in 1998, the country’s oil wealth was used exclusively to enrich a tiny white-skinned elite. The forgotten, darker-skinned majority were left to fester in barrios made of mud and rusting tin in the high hills that ring Venezuela’s cities. They could only peer down at a marble-white world they would never enter, except as cleaners and skivvies.

continued...

http://www.johannhari.com/index.php

moe_sizlak

fox news foam at the mouth when disucssing chavez , once fox news hates someone , i know there pretty ok

liamdubh

If only there was some way they could get rid of Chavez. Like in an election or something. That would be something.

Chavez is not a dictator, he is certainly not perfect, but he is democratically elected. This sort of stuff happens every day of the week from London to Lhasa. But when Venezuela is mentioned it means Chavez is a dictator. Pathetic level of discourse here.

Kaiser_Sma

I hate this bizzare polar protection chavez seems to get, just because hes associated with socialism. A tyrant by any other name is still a tyrant. Yet another small print with the far left package:
If you like environmentalism, humanitarianism etc. etc. you must also approve of select dictators. Why? because they are our dictators godamn it!

Both left and right wings are equally selective in their preception of the world. It's proposturous that these polar definitions even have any value at all.

nacho libre

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

I hate this bizzare polar protection chavez seems to get, just because hes associated with socialism. A tyrant by any other name is still a tyrant. Yet another small print with the far left package:
If you like environmentalism, humanitarianism etc. etc. you must also approve of select dictators. Why? because they are our dictators godamn it!

Both left and right wings are equally selective in their preception of the world. It's proposturous that these polar definitions even have any value at all.

I completely disgree. if you support humanitarianism you should not approve of dictatorship whether it's from a left or right wing leader. I can never understand people who criticise right-wing dictatorships but will defend tyrants because they are left-wing. Stalin stand outs in particular. How anyone can defend him is mind boggling.

bobbyjoe

nacho libre wrote: »

I completely disgree. if you support humanitarianism you should not approve of dictatorship whether it's from a left or right wing leader. I can never understand people who criticise right-wing dictatorships but will defend tyrants because they are left-wing. Stalin stand outs in particular. How anyone can defend him is mind boggling.

I've never heard anyone defend Stalin.
Chavez is not a dictator so the point is mute.

nacho libre

bobbyjoe wrote: »

I've never heard anyone defend Stalin.
Chavez is not a dictator so the point is mute.

I've seen enough people defend and excuse Stalin on various internet forums and in print.
I never said Chavez is a dictator or suggested that he is. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some people on the left, who on the one hand will condemn right-wing tyrants, yet will defend dictators when the dictator's views mirror their own.

sovtek

nacho libre wrote: »

I've seen enough people defend and excuse Stalin on various internet forums and in print.
I never said Chavez is a dictator or suggested that he is. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some people on the left, who on the one hand will condemn right-wing tyrants, yet will defend dictators when the dictator's views mirror their own.

I haven't seen anyone in here do that.

John R

nacho libre wrote: »

I've seen enough people defend and excuse Stalin on various internet forums and in print.
I never said Chavez is a dictator or suggested that he is. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some people on the left, who on the one hand will condemn right-wing tyrants, yet will defend dictators when the dictator's views mirror their own.

Your arguement might seem slightly less hollow if you could actually manage to give a name to these popular left-wing dictators.

The Corinthian

John R wrote: »

Your arguement might seem slightly less hollow if you could actually manage to give a name to these popular left-wing dictators.

Castro.

sovtek wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone in here do that.

Then I assume you'd have no problem condemning Castro or his regime?

Akrasia

There was another student protest recently, much bigger than the last one and more than 50,000 turned out to support chavez.

Regarding the violence at the previous protest, If its true then it is to be condenmed, but given the amount of propaganda out there against chavez i don't know whether to believe that it happened the way it is claimed.

What we didn't hear about was the incident where 7 anti chavez students held more than 120 pro chavez students captive for several hours, threatened to lynch them and tried to set fire to the building,

This issue is highly charged, and there is an enormous amount of spin and propaganda in an orchestrated campaign against chavez.

One of the reforms in the december election will be a clause that enshrines free university education in the venezuelan constitution. Chavez is highly popular amongst students having created more than 700,000 more third level education places since 2003.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote: »

Castro.

Then I assume you'd have no problem condemning Castro or his regime?

I don't have a problem condemning any regime where it's warranted and with consideration to the context of the situation.

sovtek

sovtek wrote: »

I don't have a problem condemning any regime where it's warranted and with consideration to the context of the situation.

LoL-You should be (Bertie) a politician with an answer worded like that one

sovtek

Tristrame wrote: »

LoL-You should be (Bertie) a politician with an answer worded like that one

I would think that would be the base of any realistic analysis of a political situation. You can't honestly call that spin.

The Corinthian

LOL. That sounds like something Bertie would say too.

bobbyjoe

Tristrame wrote: »

LoL-You should be (Bertie) a politician with an answer worded like that one

Makes perfect sense. Why would you have to condemn Castro to make the point that Chavez is not a dictator?

Kazu

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Annual military budget: $1.67 billion (2005 estimate)

What they’re spending on: AKs. Venezuela’s international arms purchases jumped from an estimated $71 million between 2002 and 2004 to more than $4 billion between 2005 and 2007, expenditures not counted in the official budget numbers. Venezuela purchased 100,000 Kalashnikovs from Russia last year, along with 24 fighter jets and 35 helicopters. And a new Kalashnikov factory in Aragua state, capable of producing as many as 30,000 automatic rifles a year, is scheduled to be completed by 2010.

What to watch: The militias. Although President Hugo Chávez has not increased the country’s overall active troop strength, he has founded two public militia groups in addition to the country’s regular National Reserve: the Francisco de Miranda Front (FFM) in 2003 and the Territorial Guard in 2005. As of mid-2006, the FFM had around 10,000 members and the National Reserve and Territorial Guard together were around 2 million strong. Combined, this “people’s army” is officially meant to defend against such unlikely events as an attempted invasion by the United States, which Chávez claims is imminent. Critics say the groups are being used to suppress internal dissent, however.

Why it matters: It could destabilize neighboring countries. Chávez isn’t just arming people in his own country; he’s also giving aid and arms to “revolutionary” groups in Colombia. Analysts worry that weapons from Venezuela will make their way over the border to leftist FARC rebels in that country. Chávez also has close ties to Evo Morales. In May 2006, the Bolivian president agreed to construct as many as 24 new military bases in Bolivia with Venezuelan assistance—despite objections from Chile, Paraguay, and Peru.

Hugo Chávez looks like another Sadam

bobbyjoe

Can't blame him for getting tooled up. There is a very aggresive nation to the north of him which invades oil rich countries. It also was involved in kidnapping him, installing a fascist gov and senior members of the Republican party have called for his assasination. Chavez should be worried.