Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

From www.jameswolcott.com and RawStory...

HAVANA, Cuba (AP) -- Saying that U.S. citizens are oppressed by their own government, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised Friday that he would not visit the United States again until Americans 'liberate' their nation.

Chavez, in Havana for trade talks, told an international gathering of activists here that before an earlier trip to Cuba, a U.S. State Department undersecretary he did not identify warned him not to go because he would no longer be received in Washington.

He said he went ahead with that trip anyway, and later traveled to the United States to visit U.S. President George W. Bush, who he said greeted him with a Coca-Cola in his hand.

"I have not returned, nor do I think about returning again, until the people of the United States liberate that nation," said Chavez, saying that Americans are 'oppressed' by their government and U.S. media.

Time to rise up, folks!
:lol

 

[tetsuoxb]

I hope you arent seriously agreeing with an avowed socialist.

 

[Drozmight]

Socialism sucks! God damn roads... schools...

 

[Mad Hatter]

"Was the reeeeeeevoluuuuuuuutttiooon wooorrrth the pain?!!"

 

[Socreges]

I hope you arent seriously agreeing with an avowed socialist.

Well, he's not exactly wrong, though language like "liberate" and "oppression" is, of course, too extreme.

 

[Ill Saint]

I hope you arent seriously agreeing with an avowed socialist.

Yeah, seriously... those guys will rape your women, burn your cities, and force you into eternal slavery.

 

[scorcho]

I hope you arent seriously agreeing with an avowed socialist.

what's wrong with an avowed socialist exactly? or are we going back to the communism-scare tacitcs of the previous generations.

 

[skip]

yep. we need to be liberated.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200503240637

The new version of article 148 of the criminal code makes insulting the president punishable by six to 30 months in prison. Article 149 says that, if another state representative is insulted, the punishment is a half to two thirds of that in 148, depending on the rank of the person insulted.

The new article 297A stipulates that the dissemination of inaccurate news by means of print media, radio, telephone or e-mail with the aim of "causing panic" is punishable by two to five years in prison.

Article 444 on defamation says any individual making comments that could "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" is subject to a sentence of one to three years in prison and a fine. Until now, the criminal code provided for no more than 18 months in prison for this kind of offence. If the offence is committed in a public manner, the prison sentence can be as much as four years and the fine can be doubled. The article refers explicitly to press reports.

Article 446 on the protection of honour has the same provisions. An insult, which previously was punishable by a maximum of eight days in prison, can now result in a sentence of six months to a year in prison. The penalty is one to two years in prison if the offence is committed by means of the press.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Yeah, seriously... those guys will rape your women, burn your cities, and force you into eternal slavery.

I always thought capitilism had more to do with forcing people into slavery than soci...oh, ok

*slinks out of thread*

 

[scorcho]

yep. we need to be liberated.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200503240637

hey, it's not as if he had to endure a military coup that was encouraged, if not aided, by the US government. oh, wait...

 

[tetsuoxb]

because socialism is very rarely present without totalitarianism.

Hugo Chavez has done more to harm Venezuela than Bush has done to harm the US. However, I doubt there are many Venezuelans on this board to testify to this.

He has imprisoned political prisoners, ordered (with plausible denability) the violent breakup of large scale anti-chavez protests, and tightened government control over the lives of venezuelans.

He survived the referrendum against him because he continues to draw strong support from the poor, mostly because he has enacted a policy where rural poor are allowed to confiscate land from large farms for their own use.

Basicallly, Chavez is engaged in a policy of redistribution of wealth. This is bad.

 

[nitewulf]

I hope you arent seriously agreeing with an avowed socialist.

heh. puts on "not to be taken seriously" list. the excessive japan love thing does make sense now.

 

[tetsuoxb]

hey, it's not as if he had to endure a military coup that was encouraged, if not aided, by the US government. oh, wait...

You know very little about Venezuelan politics, and it is made evident in that statement.

It wasnt a military coup that caused Chavez to resign, it was a 6 week oil workers strike (due to Chavez placing cronies on the board of the state owned but independent oil company), followed by a broaded general strike. The military stepped in after the resignation, but the primary pushing forces were the labor and business leaders.

 

[Guileless]

Chavez also made bizarre comments about Bush trying to assasinate him. I guess that's what the people down there like to hear. He's now best friends with Castro and directly copying his strongman style.

People risk their lives on rickety rafts to leave Cuba and come here. So who really needs the liberating there Hugo?

 

[tetsuoxb]

heh. puts on "not to be taken seriously" list. the excessive japan love thing does make sense now.

Haha. The Japan love thing comes from the fact that one of the Japanese students beaten in the Chinese riots is a good friend of mines' bestfriend. I was talking with my friend the other day, and it was a lot worse than the media portrayed.

However, the current topic is the asshat that is Hugo Chavez and his socialist/totalitarian regime.

 

[scorcho]

Basicallly, Chavez is engaged in a policy of redistribution of wealth. This is bad.

you lost me on this sentence, which is a shame because an argument based solely on his infringements of poltical freedom does carry at least some weight. again, a lot of this should be read in context of the military coup that temporarily desposed him that might or might not have been sponsored by the US. this isn't a totalitarian regime, he was and is democratically elected, and so far as i know none of the election results have been in dispute save for an attempted recall.

refering to the statement quoted above, wealth redistribution is not bad, and making a blanket statement like that without any substantive arguments reads as a capitalist talking point. there is no such concept as a perfect democracy. as such, there is no definite answer as to the amount of social servies a government should or should not provide. arguing that the free-market should provide everything (which i'm assuming is what you believe) is just as wrong as suggesting that the state should provide the same. there exists a middle ground, and wealth redistribution to some degree is essential in that in promoting true equality and standards of living.

 

[tetsuoxb]

I just noticed that I had three Ls in basically. Damn I should not wake up before noon.

I am a proud capitalist.

Wealth redistribution, on the scale that Chavez is partaking in, is absolutely bad. He is not taking future wealth of citizens and redistributing (also bad, but not as bad), nor is he redistributing oil money or other state resources (fine with me). Hugo Chavez is depriving people of property. He is redistributing previously owned property, primarily in a bid to shore up his support.

Basically, everyone but the poor that are reaping benefits from his policies hates Chavez to his bones.

 

[scorcho]

You know very little about Venezuelan politics, and it is made evident in that statement.

It wasnt a military coup that caused Chavez to resign, it was a 6 week oil workers strike (due to Chavez placing cronies on the board of the state owned but independent oil company), followed by a broaded general strike. The military stepped in after the resignation, but the primary pushing forces were the labor and business leaders.

i'll admit it's a superficial understanding, but my understanding differs from yours.

Latin American Weekly Report
November 30, 2004 Tuesday

It has emerged that, contrary to its claims at the time, the US government did know that a plot to oust Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was under way in April 2002, and that events leading up to the coup were not as portrayed by Washington. It has also been revealed that the US later, with Spain's assistance, sought to press Latin American governments to recognise the government installed by that coup.

The first revelation is the result of Freedom of Information requests filed by Eva Golinger, a pro-Chavez lawyer based in the US. She unearthed a top-secret Senior Executive Security Brief produced by the CIA on 6 April 2002 - six days before the coup - which showed fairly detailed knowledge of the plot and ventured, accurately, that it was likely to take place that very month.

The very day of the coup, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer claimed that 'action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis', that action being that 'the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations.' The declassified CIA document noted, 'To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month.'

Immediately after the coup, at a White House briefing a senior US official stated categorically that there had been no foreknowledge of the coup. The CIA report says, 'Dissident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chavez, possibly as early as this month.'

This document, classified one notch below the Presidential Daily Briefs and circulated to the US government's top 200-or-so officials, does not corroborate claims by the Chavez government that the US government participated actively in the plot. Indeed, it notes that 'repeated warnings that the US will not support any extraconstitutional moves' might have deterred some of the civilian plotters.

The CIA document
Top Secret - Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing
Saturday, 6 April 2002

Conditions ripening for coup attempt

Dissident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chavez, possibly as early as this month, [section deleted]. The level of detail in the reported plans - [section deleted] targets Chavez and 10 other senior officers for arrest - lends credence to this information, but military and civilian contacts note that neither group appears ready to lead a successful coup and may bungle the attempt by moving too quickly.

Civilian groups opposed to Chavez's policies, including the Catholic Church, business groups, and labor, are backing away from efforts to involve them in the plotting, probably to avoid being tainted by an extraconstitutional move and fear that a failed attempt could strengthen Chavez's hand, [section deleted].

Prospects for a successful coup at this point are limited. The plotters still lack the political cover to stage a coup. Chavez's core support base among poor Venezuelans remains intact, and repeated warnings that the US will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chavez probably have given pause to the plotters.

Chavez is monitoring opponents inside and outside the military [section deleted].

To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned oil company PDVSA. White-collar workers began striking on Thursday at facilities in 11 of 23 states as part of an escalating protest against Chavez's efforts to politicize PDVSA.

Protracted strikes, particularly if they have the support of the blue-collar oil workers' union, could trigger a confrontation [section deleted].

i would provide a link but lexisnexis won't allow access without a registered account.

 

[tetsuoxb]

And let me add one more thing -

Socialism has historically been a successful way of running a country.

 

[scorcho]

And let me add one more thing -

Socialism has historically been a successful way of running a country.

oh if only this wasn't sarcasm :lol

 

[tetsuoxb]

You are right that the military was involved, but the conditions leading to this were clearly motivated from the civilian sector.

After the coup, a civilian leader was installed (granted he was flanked by the military), but this point is probably lost on you.　

You cant have a coup, in the classic sense, without control of the military, so military complicity is required, especially in a situtation with massive street protests that previously sparked violence.

The existence of CIA intelligence reports that say basically "something is up and is coming soon" do absolutely nothing to prove the moves were us sponsored. They were supported after the fact, and I am proud my government stood up to Chavez in this manner.

The political situation in venezuela is one of the things preventing me from going to visit a great deal of my family.... in general, I just want Chavez out, and it is a shame that it will be a few more years before it can happen. If he even allows elections.

 

[scorcho]

You are right that the military was involved, but the conditions leading to this were clearly motivated from the civilian sector.

After the coup, a civilian leader was installed (granted he was flanked by the military), but this point is probably lost on you.　

You cant have a coup, in the classic sense, without control of the military, so military complicity is required, especially in a situtation with massive street protests that previously sparked violence.

what we're essentially arguing on are semantics. military officials both at the senior and junior level were involved in the planning and execution of the coup. the installation of a 'civilian' leader (it was for less than a week, right?) that was 'flanked by the military' likewise doesn't exactly bode well to the establishment of a democratic regime nor dispell the classification of a 'military coup'.

this is what i don't understand. for better or worse he is a democratically elected president who not only survived the coup, but won the next election after he returned to power. what else is a better example of a democracy than this? please note that by 'democracy' i just refer to the popular will of the people.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Because he was elected on false pretenses. Go look at his biography and see what he stood for before and what he stands for now.

He was not initially elected on state control and wealth redistribution.... However, when he realized his support was slipping on all sides, he enacted these policies. The effect was to have the poor flock to him, while similtaneously alienating the middle and upper class.

Since the referrendum failed (for a number of reasons ranging from at best voter fear of a power vacuum to at worst blatant rigging) most middle and upper class venezuelans are just waiting it out.

It kinda sucks that it has come to this, especially since my family has a long history of involvement with the Venezuelan government as diplomats.

 

[scorcho]

don't get me wrong, i don't believe he is a great leader at all, falling into the mold of most Latin American political leaders in terms of ineptitude unfortunately. what i take issue with is the forceful nature of US involvement in the region to remove Chavez as that will ultimately do more harm than aid the country IMO. the brutality of Pinochet's military rule in Chile doesn't exactly speak well of US 'intervention' in Latin American politics, and the rhetoric between the two leaders would be silent were it not for US reliance on Venezuelan oil. the case of Pinochet is even more illuminating as it came with the removal of a democratically elected president. god bless samuel huntington.

 

[tetsuoxb]

No one knows the true involvement of the US government, but I doubt sincerely it was as prominent as you claim.

The US has to protect its interests in Venezuela, unless you want to pay 4 dollars for gas.

 

[scorcho]

No one knows the true involvement of the US government, but I doubt sincerely it was as prominent as you claim.

there's enough facts to satisfy both camps with regards to the US' role in Chile. i obviously stand apart from you, again.

The US has to protect its interests in Venezuela, unless you want to pay 4 dollars for gas.

exactly, so the US shouldn't attempt to argue for regime change under any other guise then. it's the same situation as Iraq - admiting that the war was heavily influenced by Iraq's vast oil reserves would be more refreshing and respectful than the empty preaching of spreading democracy, WMDs and evil dictators. the US doesn't care about democracies, it cares about allies and resources. it's the 1,000 pound elephant that everyone sees but no one talks about, leaving joe and sally smith from tokepa, kansas woefully uninformed about everything.

 

[tetsuoxb]

there's enough facts to satisfy both camps with regards to the US' role in Chile. i obviously stand apart from you, again.


exactly, so the US shouldn't attempt to argue for regime change under any other guise then. it's the same situation as Iraq - admiting that the war was heavily influenced by Iraq's vast oil reserves would be more refreshing and respectful than the empty preaching of spreading democracy, WMDs and evil dictators. the US doesn't care about democracies, it cares about allies and resources. it's the 1,000 pound elephant that everyone sees but no one talks about, leaving joe and sally smith from tokepa, kansas woefully uninformed about everything.

I mean role in regards to Venezuela. Chile I agree with you.

 

[scorcho]

the US obviously wants regime change in Venezuela, and publicly has attempted to ostracize Chavez from other leaders in Latin America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/i...&en=b36fa7885766675f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

As President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela veers toward greater confrontation with Washington, the Bush administration is weighing a tougher approach, including funneling more money to foundations and business and political groups opposed to his leftist government, American officials say.

The Bush administration has already begun to urge Venezuela's neighbors to distance themselves from Mr. Chávez and to raise concerns about press freedoms, judicial independence and the Venezuelan government's affinity for leftist groups abroad, including Colombian guerrillas.

But it has found no allies so far in its attempts to isolate the Venezuelan leader, and it has grown more and more frustrated by Mr. Chávez's strident anti-American outbursts and policies that seem intended to fly in the face of Washington. On Sunday, Mr. Chávez ended a 35-year military cooperation agreement and ordered out four American military instructors he accused of fomenting unrest.

The accusation, which American officials denied, was the latest blow to relations that had been bitter since the United States tacitly supported a coup that briefly ousted Mr. Chávez in April 2002. Since then his strength has grown. He won a recall election last August, and record high oil prices have left his government flush with money as it provides 15 percent of American oil imports.

i've personally sat in on several statements by the Venezuelan delegation to the United Nations (for my internship) and have always been struck by their virulent defense of national sovereignty, one that has been eerily mirrored by statements from the acting US delegation to the UN as well. national sovereignty and the right for the people to decide their political fate aren't exclusive to the United States, plain and simple, and any involvement into another country's democratic political matters is a cause for concern.