A discussion on Chavez etc

Orizio

Akrasia wrote:

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

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

Dirk Gently

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

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

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

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

Orizio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dirk Gently

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

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

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

Orizio

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

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

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

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

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

Fantastic.Your proof or argument?

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

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

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

Doesn't Chavez have his own TV show?

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

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

Dirk Gently

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t Chavez have his own TV. show?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are your unbiased links to this claim?

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

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

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

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

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

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

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

Akrasia

Orizio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parsley

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

meepins

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