[Mot]

Democracy Via Tear Gas the Chavez Way

Venezuela opposition attacked after Chavez speech

CARACAS (Reuters) - Assailants attacked Venezuela's opposition with tear gas on Monday after President Hugo Chavez told police to use gas at anti-government public disturbances ahead of a referendum on allowing the leftist re-election.


_______________

Chavez ramped up his anti Israel rhetoric this month, the people arrested for doing the attacks are Chavistas and yet in Moonmoths mind there is not a connection. Chavez talks out of both sides of his mouth on the subject of Israel, befriending Iranian leaders who want to exterminate Israel then decrying attacks on innocent Jews in Venezuela after he created the enviroment where these attacks can happen. These people have nothing to do with Gaza.

In 2005 Chavez stated that those who killed Jesus Christ had become the owners of the world's riches

 

[JasonParis]

You are freaking SO wrong. Stop getting your information from CNN.

The only thing I use CNN for is Presidential Innaugurations.

Chavez was democratically elected indeed, but has tried to subvert democracy (and thankfully failed on some occassions) since then. Hey, I hate to bring him up, but Hitler was democratically elected too, non?

This doens't make me "freaking SO wrong," but perhaps of a different opinion than yourself. Relax.

 

[ShonTron]

How about Robert Mugabe? Democratically elected!

Then there's George W. Bush. "Elected". Only problem is that five people got to vote for him twice in 2000, and Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) votes weren't properly conducted.

 

[Moonmoth]

Mot, ShonTron, DarkStar, KeithZ: Do you people accept Jimmy Carter, and his Carter Centre as a fair arbiter of legal and transparent election processes?

If you DO accept the Carter Center's efforts as an accurate measure of electoral validity in Venezuela (as the Carter Centre was asked to evaluate the elections there) specifcally, then I think we can stop with the Hitler, Mugabe references with respect to Hugo Chavez. In case you weren't aware, the Carter Centre routinely evaluates elections internationally and makes assessments on international electoral processes. Here's the statement the Carter Centre issued on Zimbabwe. Aside from the report quoted above, the Carter Centre issued this statement on the referendum in Venezuela in 2007. They are very different, the Zimbabwe statement draws attention to the harrassment of voters & police activity whereas the Venezuela statement congratulates on a fair and transparent election process.


if you do not accept the Carter Centre as a fair arbiter of election processes, then I challenge you to find an equivalent, internationally respected organization which does evaluate elections for their assessment of Venezuela. Not partisan newspaper publications, but an established internationally recognized organization.

 

[Mot]

Sure I will accept Carter if you accept Chavez has fasicst tendencies based on his actual quotes and actions against democracy in Venezuela.

The only blind person I see in this thread is the one who won't concede an inch, some of us admit Chavez has done some good, but you refuse to admit he has done anything bad.

I also put much more faith in Human Rights Watch to tell me the truth.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web_1.pdf


"Venezuela currently lacks a credible, independent judiciary that can serve as a check on arbitrary state action and a guarantor of fundamental rights. In the
absence of judicial oversight, the government of President Hugo Chavéz has undermined journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association,
and the ability of civil society groups to promote human rights.
Police abuses remain a widespread problem. Prison conditions are among the worst on the continent, with a high rate of fatalities from inmate violence."

 

[kEiThZ]

...I think we can stop with the Hitler, Mugabe references with respect to Hugo Chavez.

Why? I don't doubt the elections were free and fair. But just like the those listed above, he uses populist measures to gain and maintain power. That's quite easy when you're running an oil rich country and ever provocative action against your enemy and chief customer actually raises your the price of your main commodity, weakening your enemy.

Let's see how democratic Chavez feels as the low oil prices force him to make not so popular choices and as the new US president pursues his strategic objective of reducing US dependence on foreign oil (or at least oil from unfriendly suppliers). Combine those trends with his disastrous management of the oil sector with production lower by as much as 25% by some counts and Chavez is looking like he's peaked already. Let's see what the Carter Centre and you (moonmouth) say when Chavez becomes President for life when his current mandate expires in 2013.

The test of a leader isn't what he does when the Gods are smiling down on him, it's what he does when the devil rains on his parade. We'll just have to wait and see what kind of a leader Chavez is. I for one, will not be investing a penny in Venezuela for the next half decade at least.

 

[Moonmoth]

Why? I don't doubt the elections were free and fair. But just like the those listed above, he uses populist measures to gain and maintain power. That's quite easy when you're running an oil rich country and ever provocative action against your enemy and chief customer actually raises your the price of your main commodity, weakening your enemy.

I understand your point here. However, everyone likes to bash Chavez for being dramatic and outspoken, so what if he talks for hours on public television and insults Bush. There is little understanding about how terrible it was for the majority prior to Chavez. There were NO social programs, all of the oil money was siphoned off, none of it was spent on the Venezuelan people. It was totally a culture of a small number of elites living very well and many many many people living in underprivileged conditions. Now we have the elites with their privately owned media clamoring for the olden days and hating Chavez because he has empowered and given voice to the long ignored majority. To your point; I guess we shall see, in this case.

Let's see how democratic Chavez feels as the low oil prices force him to make not so popular choices and as the new US president pursues his strategic objective of reducing US dependence on foreign oil (or at least oil from unfriendly suppliers). Combine those trends with his disastrous management of the oil sector with production lower by as much as 25% by some counts and Chavez is looking like he's peaked already. Let's see what the Carter Centre and you (moonmouth) say when Chavez becomes President for life when his current mandate expires in 2013.

I wouldn't say his management of the oil sector is disastrous, I see investing in their own country as a good investment, unlike Canada, where we willingly sell our oil while ravaging our own fragile ecosystems (the Alberta oilsands) and we cut down our trees to sell wood cheaply to the US only to buy it back at a higher price as hockey sticks. I don't see Canada investing in new vast Canadian national social programs to any satisfaction (such as national childcare, wtf have the liberals and now the neocons done with that? Plenty of time has passed, yet we, collectively, have nothing to show). Venezuela has made huge strides in creating new social programs over the last decade (Barrio Adentro, Mision Ribas, restoring lands to indigenous people, literacy programs, to name a few). KeithZ calls this 'populist measures to gain votes', I call it: actually doing something for lots of people!

I guess we shall see what happens with this development of Chavez' attempting to be president indefinitely.....I guess if the people over there vote on it, and want it, then so be it. Presumably international agencies will be monitoring this one very closely. I would have thought that over all this time as President, Chavez would be merely grooming his successor.....

I for one, will not be investing a penny in Venezuela for the next half decade at least.

I assure you Venezuela will do just fine without your either paltry or large attention.

Here is a very interesting blog post explaining Chavez polariziation.

 

[Moonmoth]

I also put much more faith in Human Rights Watch to tell me the truth.

How sad.

Human Rights Watch.org is an ideologically-based organization. HRW.org was expelled from Venezuela for breaking Venezuelan law. And HRW.org was harshly criticised by 118 luminaries and academics such as Noam Chomsky and Oliver Stone here.. Humanrightswatch.org sources' were questioned, they were deemed not credible as HRW.org quoted from opposition publications only.

 

[kEiThZ]

I understand your point here. However, everyone likes to bash Chavez for being dramatic and outspoken, so what if he talks for hours on public television and insults Bush. There is little understanding about how terrible it was for the majority prior to Chavez. There were NO social programs, all of the oil money was siphoned off, none of it was spent on the Venezuelan people. It was totally a culture of a small number of elites living very well and many many many people living in underprivileged conditions. Now we have the elites with their privately owned media clamoring for the olden days and hating Chavez because he has empowered and given voice to the long ignored majority. To your point; I guess we shall see, in this case.

Nobody here has questioned that he hasn't done some good with the poor. However, that still does not justify his rather authoritarian tendencies.

How sad.

Human Rights Watch.org is an ideologically-based organization.

That's hilarious. You are calling HRW a neo-con campaign. WOW. ROFL.

I wouldn't say his management of the oil sector is disastrous, I see investing in their own country as a good investment, unlike Canada, .....

Blah blah blah...lotsa internet links. Good you know how to use google. Now do some research and tell me what happens when you mismanage production of your primary source of income such that your income that you rely on to fund those social programs experiences a precipitous decline. The decline in world oil prices may not be Venezuela's fault. But the 25% drop in crude production sure is. That's kinda what happens when you fire 18 000 skilled oil workers (for striking for their wages no less...what happened to solidarity with workers?) and then don't pay the contractors who replace them.

As for your comments about Canada's use of it's oil wealth. You obviously fail to understand the governance of the country you live in. Here in Canada, resources belong to the provinces not the federal government. That's how our federation works. So if we are to make a fair comparison let's compare Alberta and Venezuela. You might not consider excellent health care (and Alberta does have great health care), heavy investment in university research capacity, and minimal taxation (including no sales tax) to be of benefit to anyone. But I am willing to bet that the Albertans will disagree on that. Last time I went to Calgary, I certainly didn't see any Barrios. Please let me know if you have. That's why they aren't lauching new social programs. They have many adequate programs and a good quality of life already in place. Moreover, the Albertans are banking their wealth in that superfund they are building up. When the oil runs out, they'll be using it to sustain the programs they have and keep it affordable for everyone. And the infrastructure and education networks they are building will pay dividends for years to come as they generate tons of new skilled workers who won't need to rely on social programs (a good paying job is the ultimate social program after all) and will make the tax income for people that do. So what's Chavez's game plan for the end of oil? which under his regime looks set to come fairly soon btw.

I guess we shall see what happens with this development of Chavez' attempting to be president indefinitely.....I guess if the people over there vote on it, and want it, then so be it. Presumably international agencies will be monitoring this one very closely.

Let's say after 9/11, at the height of Bush's popularity, he put to vote a constitutional amendment requesting that he become 'president for life'. Would that have been acceptable to you if Americans had voted for it?

The fact that he would even entertain that kind of an amendment to the constitution should tell you enough about his character and his politics (and yours as well). He may have started out being all about the poor. But now he's all about Chavez.

 

[Moonmoth]

He may have started out being all about the poor. But now he's all about Chavez.

All politicians are all about themselves without exception at any level of governance! It's so Canadian to resent that!

 

[ShonTron]

And with that we are closed. It's not about Caracas anymore.

 

[interchange42]

Every politician is only about themselves? Every one?

Is that what you tell yourself so that it becomes easily forgivable to attempt to be President for life?

Moonmoth, you are not doing your side of the argument any favours by making apologies for Chavez's bigger missteps. I do not see that you and Keithz are going to agree on this, so why not just agree to disagree...

42