Anti Chavez protests get

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.

arbeitsscheuer

bobbyjoe wrote: »

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.

Absolutely 100% concur.

Incidentally, Chavez was involved until quite recently in trying to mediate (at the Colombian gov's request, I might add) between the FARC paramilitaries and the Colombian government during ongoing hostage negotiations in Colombia. Then, seemingly for no reason whatsoever, the Colombian govt turfed him out of the negotiations and now the whole situation between the two countries is escalating; Venezuela have recalled their ambassador from Bogotá and both leaders, Chavez and Uribe, have made some pretty inflammatory remarks that will serve to just exacerbate matters.

Btw, polls reckon that Chavez is going to lose this referendum on adding indefinite re-election to the constitution, so he's not even going to become a dictator.

How many times must it be repeated?

YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR IF YOU ARE ELECTED BY YOUR PEOPLE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Another Sadam?! Cop on.

Kazu

YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR IF YOU ARE ELECTED BY YOUR PEOPLE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Another Sadam?! Cop on.

meh

meditraitor

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)

sovtek

Kazu wrote: »

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.

Are you aware of frequent incursions into Venezuala by Columbian (and CIA) backed right wing militias? If you worry about destabilizing something I think the above mentioned would be more worrying than Chavez. Lest we forget about the destabilizing Regan did in Latin America during his two terms or Henry "we can't let Chile go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people" Kissinger shortly before Allende was assassinated.

Sand

Sovtek wrote:

I haven't seen anyone in here do that.

Sovtek wrote:

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

Well, I guess I dont need to say much more do I?

bobbyjoe wrote:

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

Castro was given as an example of the lefts infatuation with dictators. Though admittedly its usually a long distance relationship. Sovtek has rather amusingly proven the point by dodging out of condemning Castros regime. With the ability to dodge out of condemning questionable regimes, surely a career as a White House press secretary cant be far off?

bobbyjoe wrote:

Can't blame him for getting tooled up.

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

Absolutely 100% concur.

Nope, he is a leftist after all. Have to keep the faith. As we all know leftists are all for developing countries using their income for massive military spending and against wasting it on silly liberal bleeding heart stuff like education or health.

Oh wait, that was the fascists wasnt it? Are lefties for the international arms trade now? Steady on guys, youre going to make me look like a tree hugging hippy if you keep this up:D

Akrasia

Kazu wrote: »

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.

Critics would say that wouldn't they. (the same critics who are paid by outside forces to foment internal dissent)
The militias that Chavez is setting up are tied with the democratically controlled Communal councils. The communal councils are controlled by local democracy. It is the opposite of what a dictator would set up.

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.

The U.S. have been giving aid to paramilitary groups in colombia for decades. The U.S. only funds right wing paramilitary groups. The Colombian state and the associated paramilitaries have been responsible for about 70,000 deaths over the last 2 decades and are deeply involved in anti union activities and are employed by U.S. corporations to keep the colombian population passive

Hugo Chávez looks like another Sadam

He looks nothing like Saddam. He doesn't have any facial hair.

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Nope, he is a leftist after all. Have to keep the faith. As we all know leftists are all for developing countries using their income for massive military spending and against wasting it on silly liberal bleeding heart stuff like education or health.

Chavez has provided 700,000 new university places and wants to ingrain the right to free university education in the Venezuelan constitution. He has also set up free medical clinics all around the country. These are not the actions of a fascist.

Perhaps if he wasn't facing such a real and imminent external threat, he wouldn't be spending so much money on defense.

The 'right' can't call him a dictator and plot coups and military action against him, and then cry foul when he spends money on national defence.

The money Chavez is spending on weapons is still only a tiny fraction of a percent of what the 'Democratic' United states spends on its military every year.

Sand

The money Chavez is spending on weapons is still only a tiny fraction of a percent of what the 'Democratic' United states spends on its military every year.

Pffft, save it for the converted - The money the US spends on its education and health system dwarfs what Chavez spends on his own. Is Bush now a socialist?

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Pffft, save it for the converted - The money the US spends on its education and health system dwarfs what Chavez spends on his own. Is Bush now a socialist?

No, Venezuela spends about 6% of it's national budget on Education, America spends less than 4%



As for Venezuelan defence spending being above average, compared with its latin american neighbours, they spend very little (and compared to america the spending is a pittance

Sand

Seriously Akrasia - pathetic - you switch from absolute terms to percentage terms as suits your argument. Let alone you ignore what I said and try to disprove something else. Like I said, save it for the converted.