VENEZUELA referendum

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

So I would find it very surprising that the US government and the CIA would have just stood by and let Chavez rise to power on the back of a military coup in 1992, when he threatened their cozy "trade" relations with Venezuela. The precedent is there, the US has never relented interfering in Latin America when a less then friendly government gets a sniff in power and it wasn't any different in 1992.

I think you’re having difficulty understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. That there are precedence of such behaviour by the US is not open to question, what is, however, is your assumption that the US are responsible for everything that takes place.

As such, you repeatedly state that the US was involved in crushing the 1992 coup; using as your only evidence these precedence’s and your ‘shock’ were it not so. So, on one hand we do have incidences where the US has had a direct or indirect hand in interference in the region, which have all been well documented at this stage, and on the other hand we have cases where we assume that the US has had a direct or indirect hand in interference because hearsay says they must be involved in everything that takes place in the region.

We call the first case reality and the second is called fantasy. I hope you can grasp that.

DadaKopf wrote:

No, sir. I'd be of the political economy school. And that's not just a school for lefties. It's everyone other than neoliberals and dinosaurs.

I may well be a dinosaur at this stage, but I think you were going well beyond the scope of economic analysis. Political and economic science are two distinct disciplines; I take it you came from the former?

shotamoose

The Corinthian wrote:

Political and economic science are two distinct disciplines;

Depends how you look at it - Adam Smith and the other pioneer 'economists' thought of themselves as writing 'political economy'. 'Economics' as a distinct subject only came into being at the end of the 19th century. Personally I think you lose a lot by artificially distinguishing them. Economic activity is soaked in politics, and vice versa.

A bit more back on topic, the Venezuelan National Electoral Council this morning
announced that Chavez won the referendum with 58% of the 94% of votes counted so far.

The opposition are obviously calling it all a big fraud, but electoral observers don't seem that bothered so far. No doubt this will rumble on, though ....

Lennoxschips

]We call the first case reality and the second is called fantasy. I hope you can grasp that.

No, it's my opinion vs your opinion - why can't you respect that? This is a politics board. First you said that I don't know what I'm talking about, then that I am "shovelling bull****" and now that I have no grasp on reality. I have no time to debate with somebody who speaks like this. I've made my point and will not continue to be slandered and insulted by a moderator.

ionapaul

Oil prices should come down a bit on the news.

Anyone ever seen Chavez's 'Hello, President' TV programme? Sounds interesting, we could do with an hour of 'Howya, Bertie' once a week

bobbyjoe

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129037,00.html


Foxnews just can't help themselves.

"CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez (search) survived a popular referendum to oust him"

Won not survived,
not popular enough though!!

mycroft

Every time I look at the site I feel the boundaries between actual fox news and the simpsons parody blur a little more........

DadaKopf

This is great. Another step in the right direction for Latin American democracy. The real test will begin in two years with the next general election, but the fact that independent observers say everything's A-OK, it should help calm things down over time. A lot will depend on how his team manages the economy, provides for the poor and placates the middle class, though.

Every time I look at the site I feel the boundaries between actual fox news and the simpsons parody blur a little more........

Totally. Although some of the BBC articles I've seen tend to be reservedly biased - especially calling him "Venezuelan 'populist' President, Hugo Chavez". The jury's still out on that.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

No, it's my opinion vs your opinion - why can't you respect that? This is a politics board. First you said that I don't know what I'm talking about, then that I am "shovelling bull****" and now that I have no grasp on reality. I have no time to debate with somebody who speaks like this. I've made my point and will not continue to be slandered and insulted by a moderator.

No it is not about a difference of opinions; it is about you putting forward your opinion as a fact. Saying “the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down” is not you giving your opinion, it’s you stating something as a fact - which it’s not, and you’ve singularly been unable to back up that statement with anything more than more opinion.

So yes, you’ve been shoveling bullshìt and attempting to peddle it as fact and now you’re just in a huff ‘cos someone pointed out that you were doing so.

Poor ‘lil diddums...

DadaKopf wrote:

Another step in the right direction for Latin American democracy.

Conceivably, having said that, the guy is not exactly a bastion of democracy either.

Totally. Although some of the BBC articles I've seen tend to be reservedly biased - especially calling him "Venezuelan 'populist' President, Hugo Chavez". The jury's still out on that.

I don’t know... he kind of reminds me of Marcus Caelius Rufus.

DadaKopf

Conceivably, having said that, the guy is not exactly a bastion of democracy either.

You're right. He's not. I'm genuinely concerned that he may concentrate power on himself over time. But I think he's smarter than that.

On one hand, it's premature to call him a populist and an authoritarian, on the other, it's unfortunate that he still relies on the military. He knows full what's at stake if the opposition takes over again, but it's most likely a step in the right direction because a step backwards could mean economic ruin for the country. Any indication of transparency and stability hopefully means economic growth plus poverty reduction.

We'll see.

shotamoose

Observers back Venezuela vote

Former US President Jimmy Carter has endorsed official results showing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez won Sunday's vote to remain in office.

Mr Carter said his team of observers had also concluded there was a "clear difference in favour" of Mr Chavez.

The head of the Organisation of American States, Cesar Gaviria, also said his monitors had not found "any element of fraud".

Some people will never be convinced:

A spokesman for the Democratic Co-ordinator opposition coalition, Henry Ramos Allup, said fraud and "gross manipulation" had taken place.

"We categorically reject the results," he said.

Yeah, real democratic ...

swiss

Originally posted by The Corinthian:


No it is not about a difference of opinions; it is about you putting forward your opinion as a fact

Which, incidentally is exactly what you are doing as well when you rather succinctly accuse Lennoxschips of shovelling bullshit. It is one thing to say that an opinion is unfounded and expound on your reasons as to why you think that is the case. It is quite another to adopt the singularly patronising stance which you have taken towards him and other posters.

Please desist.

The Corinthian

swiss wrote:

Which, incidentally is exactly what you are doing as well when you rather succinctly accuse Lennoxschips of shovelling bullshit. It is one thing to say that an opinion is unfounded and expound on your reasons as to why you think that is the case.

However the crucial difference was that I presented my opinion alongside a logical argument that went beyond the infantile “because I say so”. That tends to be the defining difference between argument and bullshìt.

It is quite another to adopt the singularly patronising stance which you have taken towards him and other posters.

If adopting a singularly patronising stance were against the charter half the posters here would be banned.

The social reasoning behind flaming is to discourage the more mindless of posters, or at least encourage them to look before they leap. If treated with kid gloves they will continue to pollute our bandwidth with sweeping statements, stupid questions better suited to Google or an FAQ and inane chatter. Flaming will at least encourage people to consider the etiquette of a forum before they decide to post, forcing them to at least check their facts and figures or to do some preliminary research.

Without flaming, the etiquette of a forum would be left to whatever ops, moderators or admins are governing said forum. Other than potentially overwhelming them, moderators are ideally secondary in defining the ethos of a forum to peer review.

Lennoxschips

the infantile “because I say so”.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the US has always backed the political elite in Venezuela, both financially and politically, and that it is therefore also plausible that they also backed them in 1992.

Once again, you don't have to agree with that argument, but there you go.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the US has always backed the political elite in Venezuela, both financially and politically, and that it is therefore also plausible that they also backed them in 1992.

Actually your original argument was "the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down". When challenged on this you decided that saying that you "personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all" was a valid argument to back up your initial statement of fact.

This essentially has remained your 'argument' throughout, which would be fine if you had presented your original statement as just an opinion, but you did not, you presented it as fact. This is why I accused you of shovelling bullshìt - because you were painting opinion as fact, and continued to do so without any shred of evidence.

Lennoxschips

When challenged on this you decided that saying that you "personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all" was a valid argument to back up your initial statement of fact.

If you look at the post you've selectively quoted that from you'll see that I made exactly the same argument then as I just made now.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

If you look at the post you've selectively quoted that from you'll see that I made exactly the same argument then as I just made now.

Even with that it remains nothing more than an opinion which you originally stated as a hard fact. It's very difficult for you to avoid that.

Lennoxschips

You'll find that during politicial debates people often state personal opinions as fact. Actually, I was once at a debate class and it was encouraged. During a dail or US presidential debate it would not be unheard of for a candidate to say, "Our economy is going down the drain," and then make his argument later when challenged.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

You'll find that during politicial debates people often state personal opinions as fact.

Stating opinions as fact is an intellectual fraud. I can be a man’s opinion that blacks are all stupid, but that does not make it true.

Most notably, your subsequent defense of your opinion was little more than an opinion in itself. That the US has had involvement in Venezuelan politics in the past does not logically imply that they did have involvement in Venezuelan politics, vis-a-vi the 1992 coup attempt (as you stated). You may be shocked that they may not, but that again is simply your opinion.

So we are left with the intellectual deception of stating an opinion as fact, then (when challenged) defending that ‘fact’ with the evidence of more opinion.

Actually, I was once at a debate class and it was encouraged.

I’d ask for my money back. State anything as fact as long as you can prove it, but not if it is simply based upon opinion - as ultimately it was in this case.

Otherwise, should you state opinion as fact in debate and you become fair game to your opponents. Of course if they don’t challenge you or your opinion is not simply an opinion and can back it up, then you’ll get the points for it - if they do, you’re dead. That’s how it works in competition debating, on the college, national and international level.

During a dail or US presidential debate it would not be unheard of for a candidate to say, "Our economy is going down the drain," and then make his argument later when challenged.

Don’t confuse public speaking with debating.

DadaKopf

Oh, pipe down you two!

It's silly to fight over this. Everyone knows you can't separate facts from values.

PSYCHE!!

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Everyone knows you can't separate facts from values.

:rolleyes:

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

:rolleyes:

Hmm he gives us a lecture on competition debating and his response to Dadakopf's post is what, a smiley. Excellent.

How many points would that earn in a debate then?

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Hmm he gives us a lecture on competition debating and his response to Dadakopf's post is what, a smiley. Excellent.

How many points would that earn in a debate then?

Oh look he’s following me around - No riots taking place today then? :rolleyes:

gandalf

OK heres a warning and its a final one to both of you. Any more crap from either of you and you will be banned. I may extend it beyond a week at my whim as well.

ressem

Back to daveirl's original comment, regarding little evidence of CIA involvement. Probably right, I've never seen anything substantial. But suggestions of "Bay of Pigs" type operations are supported by evidence that anti-Chavez paramilitary groups are training in Florida.


http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1620
refers to a wall street journal article.

"On January 29, 2003, The U.S. daily, the Wall Street Journal, published an editorial revealing the existence of terrorist training camps in Florida. Rodolfo Frómeta, a Cuban, and former Army Captain Luis Eduardo García, a Venezuelan, are named in the article as the leaders of the paramilitary coalition formed by the "F-4 Commandos" and "The Venezuelan Patriotic Junta." García, a former captain, was one of the leaders of the defeated coup against democratically elected president Hugo Chavez Frías in Venezuela in April 2002.
"

No, I haven't seen the original WSJ article, so can't guarantee authenticity.

In US senate testimony, giving credence to notions that there's US government support for a paramilitary takeover, if the immediate political support by the US for the previous attempt wasn't a strong hint.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2004/hrg040624p.html
Mark Weisbrot's testimony
"
What, then, are the major threats to democracy in Venezuela? The attention here has focused on the Venezuelan government. It is of course true, as Americans have long recognized, that any government can become repressive if its citizens are not vigilant. But Venezuelan democracy faces other challenges. Some are from Washington. Our government has funded, and continues to fund, organizations headed by people who were leaders of the military coup of April 2002. (See Appendix 2). These leaders have received, and some continue to receive, funds from the United States Congress through the National Endowment for Democracy. These are people who signed the actual coup decree of April 12, 2002, that overthrew the elected President and Vice President, and abolished the General Assembly, the Supreme Court and the constitution, and established a dictatorship.
"

And on a more personal note
http://www.globalexchange.org/tours/venezuela/2181.html
"
Florida governor Jeb Bush, the brother of President Bush Jr., is one of the most strident proponents of Chavez' overthrow. The governor has referred to Chavez as "a crazy guy," whose government "needs to be isolated in the international community." The governor believes that "The support Chavez receives from Castro and the support Castro receives from Chavez incite them. Isolating them would be potentially beneficial for the region, for Latin America.
"
Not very well supported by references though.

Motive? Presumably Venezuela going from primary exporter to US to 4th since Chavez took over + the discounted oil for doctors swap with Cuba.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/venez.html

That should be enough to get me banned for life from the US.

DadaKopf

Back to daveirl's original comment, regarding little evidence of CIA involvement. Probably right, I've never seen anything substantial. But suggestions of "Bay of Pigs" type operations are supported by evidence that anti-Chavez paramilitary groups are training in Florida.

Well, it depends what you mean by CIA involvement. If you mean black/covert operations and all that True Lies sort of stuff, evidence is naturally scarce. But any search for the National Endowment for Democracy will throw up all kinds of articles claiming the NED a front organization of the CIA. Basically, it's an organization designed to fund subterfuge and its presence in Venezuela isn't even concealed.