Chavez warns of resistance war with U.S.

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

President Hugo Chavez urged soldiers on Sunday to prepare for a guerrilla-style war against the United States, saying that Washington is using psychological and economic warfare as part of an unconventional campaign aimed at derailing his government.

Dressed in olive green fatigues and a red beret, Chavez spoke inside Tiuna Fort — Venezuela's military nerve-center — before hundreds of uniformed soldiers standing alongside armored vehicles and tanks decorated with banners reading: "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"

"We must continue developing the resistance war, that's the anti-imperialist weapon. We must think and prepare for the resistance war everyday," said Chavez, who has repeatedly warned that American soldiers could invade Venezuela to seize control of the South American nation's immense oil reserves.

(snip)
"It's not just armed warfare," said Chavez, a former army officer who is leading what he calls the "Bolivarian Revolution," a socialist movement named after 19th-century independence hero Simon Bolivar. "I'm also referring to psychological warfare, media warfare, political warfare, economic warfare."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us

[Dark]

1. I wonder how many here will condemn him for exploiting his troops for a photo op

While he's wearing military fatigues

While he's scaremongering

While he's chanting up rather fascistic slogans

[David__77]

2. How is a socialist fatherland "fascistic?"

I don't understand the argument. Socialism is the antithesis of fascism. Fascism misappropriates patriotism, but loving one's homeland is not fascism either.

[Dark]

4. The closer you come to either extreme, the more the extremes become one another.

Chavez has done some good things, but the man relies on the same tactics as Bush to stay in power. Grab executive authority, demonize anyone who disagrees with you, make the populace scared of a boogeyman, exploit the military for photo-ops. That doesn't sound familiar?

Socialism can be good or bad, depending on how it's implemented. Europe provides an example of how socialism can benefit society, when it's done smoothly.

But China's oppressive, totalitarian regime shows how it can devastate society.

Chavez is edging closer and closer to a totalitarian regime. Not saying it's going to happen. There are some things he's done that are noble. There are other things that are questionable.

But it never bodes well for a leader to resort to such tactics as "There's someone out there who's big and bad and wants to get you!!!."

Remember, whether it's coercive socialism or fascism, when a society moves too far too either extreme, it always ends up the same: a dictatorship.

P.S. Read up on history. When people start shouting "Fatherland" or "Motherland" or even "God bless ________," it never ends well.

[WCGreen]

5. I couldn't have said it better myself....

Sure HC has raised important issues concerning the corporate imperialism practiced by the US government...

But I think a lot of the support for HC on this board is due solely to that old saying that inevitably leads to trouble down the line...

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

[originalpckelly]

21. Indeed, I think many of us had the same opinion of him, but I knew it wasn't going to end well...

When he started moving to consolidate power in the executive branch. That is a technical dictatorship.

On top of that, he's started consolidating his political power. His movement was a coalition of far left parties to middle left parties and MVR, now he is moving to quash those parties and have a single Chavista party (United Socialist Party of Venezuela).

The final straw was when I looked up his prior coup attempt and learned that he started planning it way before the alleged causus belli even occurred (which was the killing of 3,000 by an awful President in Venezuela. However Chavez started planning the '92 coup much earlier in the 1980s way before the 3,000 were even killed. He just timed it right, though of course, just like Hitler's putsch the plan wasn't as good as Chavez thought it was.)

[Peace Patriot]

28. You "knew it wasn't going to end well"? "It" has "ended," has it?

Ended in what way?

Mass arrests? Repression? Torture? Mass graves? "Re-education" camps? Violent purges? Fascists being tossed out of airplanes? Rightwingers being rounded up and shot? Constitution suspended? Civil rights suspended? National Assembly shut down? Courts shut down? Leftists thugs rioting in the streets, shooting rightwingers?

Evidence?

The Chavez government is not over. It is STILL the democratically elected government of Venezuela, with overwhelming popular support.

Strength is not the same thing as "authoritarianism." For godssakes, we are forever criticizing our Democrats for being wimps! Would that they would show the strength that Chavez has shown, on behalf of the poor majority! And consolidating your political power is NORMAL political behavior. It is not "dictating" to anybody. It is saying: Stop being typical, fractured, squabbling leftists, and get UNIFIED! And it is especially appropriate in a political scene of fractured parties and entrenched and corrupt party and bureaucratic power.

What is WRONG with being unified behind a beneficial platform? What is WRONG with trying to pull people together? And where is the evidence of coercion in Chavez's efforts to do so?

I DO think that the rightwing opposition has made itself ridiculous and hated (much like our rightwing here). And I'm sorry to see this. I'm sorry to see them be so unpatriotic and uncaring about their own people and country, as to engage in violent military coup attempts, and to accept money from, and collude with, rightwing Bushites and other anti-democratic and villainous forces. But that is not Chavez's fault, nor the fault of his supporters. The rightwing is the rightwing. They are bad news. It is rather the excess and ill intentions of the rightwing elite that has pushed the majority to the left, and that has prompted the leftist majority to want their leaders and their government to act decisively and with strength to right many grave injustices, and to be able to defend itself against rightwing plots and relentless Bush State Department and corporate news vilification.

And if you line up what Chavez has proposed and implemented, as government policy, with government policy in many European countries, Chavez can hardly even be called a leftist. He is a CENTRIST. Government ownership and control of natural resources. Universal health care. Universal education. 100% literacy. Widespread citizen participation in government. Decent wages. Rational drug policy (as opposed to the murderous U.S. "war on drugs"). These are hardly extremist policies. It's only here, in our corporate-ruled country, that they are treated as radical ideas.

So, in effect, Chavez is trying to consolidate the political MIDDLE. He IS the "mainstream." That is who and what he represents. And how often have we wished for a political leader HERE who can pull the REAL middle together--the majority--which only wants fairness and justice, and protection against corporate predators, and a decent life, and not to be gouged and robbed and lied to.

Your attempt to pin Chavez with the label "Nazi" is ridiculous. Militaries all over the world use slogans like this to motivate the troops. (We would be utterly shocked at the vile, racist slogans used by OUR military to motivate U.S. troops to kill Iraqis.) It is yet another AP hit piece on Chavez. And, frankly, I don't care what he says to his troops in this vein; it's what he DOES to his troops, and to the people of Venezuela, that matters. And I have not seen even the slightest evidence that he is misusing or abusing military power, or that he has harmed the Venezuelan people, and their democracy, or has violated the rule of law, in ANY way.

If you have evidence of Chavez behaving like a Nazi--other than his use of the word "Fatherland"--please present it. And don't fall back on what Chavez did as a young man. A lot of us may have had ideas of overthrow of the government that was slaughtering 2 million people in Southeast Asia in the Sixties. We live and learn. We grow up. We begin to understand the wisdom of the greatest figures of the 20th century--people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King--that change must come peacefully and democratically. It's my judgment of Chavez that he has learned this lesson, and so have his closest friends and advisers. He would not have the support he has if he was not committed to the rule of law and to democracy.

And even if he did at one time attempt violent overthrow, and scheme for a long time to do so, that does not make him a "Nazi." You could make the same accusation of Thomas Jefferson. There is a very significant difference between violence, in a revolutionary cause, and Nazism.

I want your evidence that Chavez is a Nazi. I want your evidence that Chavez is not committed to democracy and the rule of law. I want your evidence that he did not, long ago, eschew the use of violence for political ends. What have you got?

[unkachuck]

168. Bravo!....n/t

[mhatrw]

31. So it doesn't matter that he's now democratically elected and the

most recent failed coup was against him? What matters is what happened in the 1980s?

Who are Chavez's political enemies in Venezuela, and how would they behave to keep power?

[originalpckelly]

62. I'm sorry, I forgot he went through the putsch reform program, he's a changed man.

:eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

169. Let's have a look at that source you "looked up" on the coup attempt.

I'll bet it doesn't even begin to resemble this source I found which said "El Caracazo" happened in 1989, yet the coup wasn't initiated until 1992:

~snip~
..... 1989 the Carlos Andrés Pérez administration enacted widely unpopular IMF-inspired structural adjustment programs. The programs' backers sought to restore fiscal stability to Venezuela's ailing economy by way of neoliberal policies, such as curtailing social spending and releasing longstanding price controls on many goods. These policies resulted in many hardships for Venezuela's poor majority, and their resultant discontent erupted in the violent February 27, 1989 Caracazo riots—the most violent and destructive in Venezuelan history.

Origins of the Coup
The 1992 Coup Attempt in Venezuela has its origins based in the system of 'partyarchy' and the government's subjective control of the military.

From 1959, Venezuelan politics had been dominated by two major political parties, the Democratic Action party (AD) and COPEI. During the pre-Bolivarian era, these two parties had formed themselves into a loose coalition which became known as a 'partyarchy', rule by parties. This type of government soon led to problems with corruption, particularly in the wake of an oil boom. Oil revenues had been up 54% during the Pérez government of 1974 to 1979. Money was diverted from the government into the hands of officials. The courts who had aligned themselves along party lines were reluctant to convict those accused of corruption. Corruption and partyarchy were later blamed for many problems including an economic crisis in the 1980s.

The coup was also partially caused by the way the Venezuelan government had chosen to run the military. Under an objective military system, the military and civilians are separated. A subjective system relies on the military working together with the civilian population. Middle ranking military officers were sent out in the field to work with civilians. The main goal was to democratize the military. When military officers, including Hugo Chávez, saw the conditions in which Venezuela's poor lived, they became disenchanted with the country's system of government. Corruption was blamed for the problem. This feeling was being felt by the nation's citizens as well. By 1990, the government had ceased attempts to satisfy them. People began searching for alternatives to the corruption of Venezuelan democracy. Riots erupted in 1989 to protest government corruption.


The MBR-200
The MBR-200 (Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200) was founded by lieutenant colonels Hugo Chávez Frías and Francisco Arias Cárdenas. They used the Venezuelan revolutionary hero Simón Bolívar as their group's symbol. Their main dispute was the corruption of Carlos Andrés Pérez as well as Venezuela's ongoing economic difficulties and social turmoil. In the view of these two men, the entire political system had to be changed in order for social change to occur.


The coup unfolds
After an extended period of popular dissatisfaction and economic decline <1> under the neoliberal administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez, Chávez made extensive preparations for a military-civilian coup d'état. <2> Initially planned for December, Chávez delayed the MBR-200 coup until the early twilight hours of February 4, 1992.
(snip/.....)

http://www.answers.com/topic/1992-venezuelan-coup-d-tat-attempts



Chávez calls for the surrender of all forces on national TV.

(This would have been 3 years AFTER El Caracazo, by the way.)

[melody]

11. Exactly. It's not a straight line, but a circle.

One extreme is the other.

[leveymg]

13. In Chavez's case, there really is "someone out there big and bad" who wants to get him.

You can hardly blame him for doing what he can to try to defend himself, his government, and what he views as his movement. What do you recommend he do? Allow himself to be Allende-ed?

Don't forget that the Bush Administration organized an actual armed coup attempt against him, that was barely put down.

Is Chavez a friend of multinational corporations? No. Is he a friend of the Venezuealan poor? - no doubt he is, that's his political base.

I don't see his responses or policies to be extraordinary or particularly threatening to the United States, under the circumstances.

This too shall pass.

[EFerrari]

34. John Perkins (Economic Hitman) speculates that we'd already be

in Venezuela by now but for Iraq. The hitmen didn't work and so far, the assassins haven't either. Perkins says the military is the next stop.

I'm surprised Chavez is still breathing but BushCo has been too busy setting the Middle East on fire.

[leveymg]

187. I agree with John about that.

[Toots]

161. And what is your opinion of Ghandi?

I thought his reign actually ended up quite well.

[Dark]

170. Um ... wasn't Ghandi assassinated?

Or are you speaking about one of India's other Ghandi's, who used Mohatma's name to get elected as prime minister and then corrupt India's democracy?

[eridani]

171. Even when there actually is someone out there big and bad who wants to get you?

--and who actually succeeded for a few hours a couple of years ago?

Actual or threatened attacks never bring out the best in people, and if you don't believe that check out the Bush popularity ratings right after 9/11.

[slackmaster]

234. "A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass"

Said a Chinese acquaintence.

[originalpckelly]

20. Yeah, I'm sorry, but this guy is starting to act like a nationalist.

Trumping up the whole nationalist BS.

How the fuck is he any different from any other nutty dictator, eh? He's taking the same crazy ass path.

[mhatrw]

32. Exactly. Why can't he just be a corporate globalist? You know, the way

we like our dictators?

[originalpckelly]

64. Have you ever considered that just maybe it's possible to not like Chavez...

and to not like globalism at the same time?

[mhatrw]

81. It's not that you don't like Chavez.

It's that you love to broadcast obvious propaganda spread by corporate globalists that seeks to demean Venezuela's political independence down to the level of some sort of personality contest.

So Chavez used a word in Spanish that has some fascist connotations in English -- just like "Homeland Security." Aren't there a thousand things in today's paper more worthy of your indignation?

[ProudDad]

57. Duh!!! (n/t)

[eridani]

172. Is he nuttier than Uribe of Columbia?

You know, where the rightwing paramilitaries carve up whole families with chainsaws.

Nuttier than our proteges in Central America in the 80s, who sawed off mom and dad's head and arranged them on plates at the dinner table for the kids to find?

[otherlander]

210. well, because, the people can vote to remove him from office if they want to.

[knight_of_the_star]

218. Look at the full name of the Nazi party

National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party

[Judi Lynn]

219. ThatS been tried here before. Nazis were not Socialists.

Socialists are LEFTists, aren't they? Please!

[knight_of_the_star]

232. Depends on how far left you go

Go far enough either way and the only differences are the justifications, the means and ends turn out looking more or less the same. That and engaging in populist demagogue rhetoric combined with appeals to patriotism looks pretty similar to what Mussolini was espousing when he swept himself into power.

[Judi Lynn]

233. Informed opinions are legitimate. Take time to have a grasp of the subject. n/t

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bjorn Against]

230. And of course we should just take everything the nazis say at face value right?

Read some history, just because the nazis called themselves socialists does not mean they actually were. They were fascists not socialists, yet too many people seem all too willing to take Hitler's propaganda at face value when it suits their argument.

[knight_of_the_star]

231. Just pointing out how Fatherland and Socialism can be in the same place

And they did consider themselves socialists, just "national socialists" and honestly the only real difference between fascism and the government of the USSR was really the rhetoric and who got sent to camps.

[Bjorn Against]

235. The Nazis claimed a lot of things, but I don't believe everything they claimed

Socialism is an economic system, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the crimes committed by Hitler a man who despite anything he claimed was not a Socialist.

Socialism has nothing to do with those camps you mention in the USSR either, because again socialism is an economic system it has nothing to do with concentration camps.

I get sick of hearing this nonsense that when people move too far to the left they will inevitably end up like Hitler (who was a right-winger)or Stalin. That is nothing but propaganda and lies.

Martin Luther King was quite far to the left, are people going to start comparing him to these tyrants? Of course not, because people see what the left is really about they see it is not about tyranny but about peace, human rights, and equality.

If it was all about left and right, then what about those people in the "center" who support the massacre that is happening in Iraq right now? They seem to be supporting things far worse than anything Chavez is doing right now.

[knight_of_the_star]

237. Except he's moving in a direction that's very dangerous

Shutting down opposition controlled television, being granted decree powers by his party, establishing a militia, demanding his followers give up their excess material possessions, all of which are moves in a very authoritarian direction.

The only difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is where Chavez seems to be going, and a fascist police state, is the window dressing.

[Bjorn Against]

238. Can you name me another country which would not have shut down a station advocating a violent coup?

You call it a militia, other people would call it a military, and he is not threatening to invade any other countries with it unlike one other pResident I can think of.

Chavez is no threat to the United States, and he has won his elections in Venezuela by huge margins. We have absolutely no reason to be worried about a man who is loved by most his country and does not pose a threat to us in any way.

[Doctor_J]

15. Scaremongering?

Did you not watch Shock & Awe on TV 4 years ago? If Saddam had warned his citizens in Mar 03 that their country was about to be invaded, would that have been scaremongering? Or do you not think that the neocons would do to Venezuela what they've done to Iraq? The CIA already sponsored one coup against Hugo.

[NeedleCast]

23. There's a big difference in what you're arguing

and what happened in Iraq. Saddam was justified in such a warning because we were busy lining up combat divisions along his border and readying our military to attack while Bush was putting together the "coalition of the willing" and trying to drum up international support for the invasion.

In Venezuela's case, none of this is happening.

[mhatrw]

33. That's funny.

What does the history of US intervention in Latin America tell you about Chavez's fears? Are they legitimate or not?

[redqueen]

91. sad, some of these responses...

cult of personality... judge by superficial crap / easy labels, ignore history / context

*sigh*

[devilgrrl]

53. Bugga bugga bugga!!!!!

:eyes:

[MilesColtrane]

3. Sorry Hugo.

The U.S. military is not in a postion to invade anybody.
Bush has seen to that.

[flobee1]

7. I realize fearmongering is bad

but after seeing what bush has done in Iraq and what he's threatening to do in Iran, I dont think fear of an extremely oil rich country being invaded by bush is that far feched.

All I've heard him say so far is "Dont come here, because we will fight you"
The US has already tried to bump off HC once, I dont blame him a bit for being a little jumpy.

[Prophet 451]

6. Counting down...

I've noticed that any time the words "Venezuala" or "Chavez" are in a thread title here, it won't be long before the two camps descend. You know the ones: One side believes Chavez walks on water, the other wouldn't give him any credit if he single-handedly rebuilt Carthage.

As for this, he's probably right in that Bush (and his think-a-likes) would like to invade Venezuala but wrong in that, barring instant withdrawal from Iraq, the US doesn't have the resources to do so.

[flobee1]

8. I dont think Bush would be that retarded

as to start a 3rd war.




but it wouldn't be the first time that he has proved me wrong.

[Prophet 451]

41. I have a horrible feeling he would

Also, I worry that Bush is disconnected enough from reality that he would declare war regardless of troop levels or their readiness.

EDIT: Two rules that have served me well in life, both applicable here:
1. People will believe what they want to believe or what they fear to be true.
2. Always bet on stupidity.

[ProudDad]

56. The bushies think that they can

buy the minuscule oligarchy "opposition" in Venezuela to pull another coup... Coups are pretty cheap.

You did notice that the bushies have quintupled the money for the "Cuban resistance" haven't you? You do remember when the U.S. bought the votes that brought in a corporate globalist friendly right-wing government in Nicaragua?


Chavez is trying to keep all that from happening in Venezuela.

More power to him...

[Peace Patriot]

14. True, about the "camps" at DU. But one camp is well-informed, and the other

is not. And guess which is which?

I've noticed that the uninformed "camp"--the anti-Chavez one--uses very short "hit and run" posts, riffing off the latest "talking point" from the Bush State Department or its echo chamber, the U.S. war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and when they are asked for facts and evidence, to back up their one-liner accusations, they just don't have it. It's clear that they don't have a clue what is happening in Venezuela.

The most we ever get from them is a PROGNOSIS. They PREDICT that Chavez WILL BECOME a "dictator." But they cannot come up with any evidence that he is--and he's been in office, repeatedly elected by big majorities in Venezuela, in the most highly monitored elections on earth--since 1998.

Whom has he oppressed? Show me a Venezuelan who does not speak his or her mind freely. Point to someone who has been arrested, punished or silenced for their views. Prove to me that Venezuela does not, in fact, have the liveliest political culture in the western hemisphere--because that's what the evidence shows, and if you are going to say that Chavez is, or soon "will become" a "dictator," you are going to have to prove it.

Whom has he "dictated" to?

These "hit and run" posters sometimes grab onto some little fact--for instance, that Chavez asked the National Assembly (democratically elected congress) for certain "edict" powers, and, according to the poster, that means that Chavez is ruling by fiat. They take no time to investigate the matter--to find out, for instance, that previous presidents have asked for and been given the same powers (they are part of Venezuelan law), that the powers are limited to certain economic matters that need immediate attention (such as big grocery chains hoarding food to drive up prices), that these powers have a time-limit, and that these powers are very similar to powers granted by the U.S. Congress to President Roosevelt during the Great Depression. And Roosevelt ALSO got accused of being a "dictator" by the rightwingers of that era.

The truth of the matter is that, when a president is acting with strength and determination on behalf of the poor, the rich elites, the exploiters, the greedy, the owners and the bosses, and, these days, the global corporate predators, DON'T LIKE IT, and they try to badmouth and topple any such pro-people government.

And the rich elites and global corporate predators operating in Venezuela have NOT respected the will of the majority and the right of the majority to social justice (food on the table, medical care, education, decent housing). They have instead tried every dirty tactic imaginable--including a violent military coup attempt--to topple this legitimate and repeatedly elected government, and to INSTALL a rightwing DICTATORSHIP!

WHO are the would-be "dictators"--Chavez and his majority supporters, or the rich elites and their US/Bush and corporate backers?

The latest Bush State Department/corporate predator "talking point" is Chavez's "suppression of free speech" because he denied renewal of a broadcast license to RCTV, a rabidly rightwing TV station that actively participated in the military coup attempt, hosted meetings of the coup leaders, encouraged violent mobs to overturn the government, and broadcast outright lies (such as that Chavez had resigned) to further the aims of the coup (disinformation, confusion) while it was in progress. The coup plotters kidnapped Chavez and spirited him away to an undisclosed location (what about HIS free speech, hm?), suspended the Constitution, and shut down the National Assembly and the courts. This is what RCTV actively supported, and any lawful government on earth would have denied them a license renewal because of it.

The public OWNS the broadcast frequencies, there as here, and has a right to regulate what the public airwaves are used for, there as here. The Chavez government would have been within its rights to deny a license to RCTV--the Faux News of Venezuela--even if they had NOT participated in a military coup, because of their failure to provide balanced political coverage, in the public interest. Pre-Reagan, we used to have a "Fairness Doctrine" here that, among other things, required "equal time" for opposing political views. Is that a restriction of "free speech"? No, it is a FURTHERANCE of free speech.

Wingers and corporatists can rant and rave all they want in print newspapers that they own, and exclude all other opinions, but they do NOT own the public airwaves. And every democratic country on earth has laws that regulate those airwaves that, if broken, result in a loss of license.

This is another example of the plain ignorance of the "hit and run" DU posters, who echo Bush State Department "talking points" and have no evidence to back up their claims.

The airwave that RCTV was filling with rightwing corporate crapola is now open to small, creative, independent producers, and to previously excluded groups--racial minorities, the indigenous, workers, unions, coops, human rights advocates, environmentalists, the poor. The airwave has been OPENED, not closed--IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, something that corporate broadcasters in THIS country have long been permitted to abandon, by our rightwing (Reagan, Bush) and corporatist (Clinton) governments.

I laid out these FACTS, in one thread on Chavez and RCTV, and then the "hit and run" posters changed tactics, and said, "Well, why did Chavez wait four years after the coup attempt to shut down RCTV?" As if that mattered. I suppose their point was that, NOW Chavez is BECOMING a "dictator." (You really have to guess at their points, sometimes, because they don't give you much.) Funny thing, though, Chavez scrupulously followed the law, is what happened. RCTV had had a license for 20 years. Their license ran out. Chavez did not renew it. What was the alternative? Sending storm troopers into RCTV studios, back in 2002, just after the coup, with the country in chaos and threatened with civil war? That's probably what the coup plotters WANTED. More trouble. Images of repression to spread throughout the world. Instead, Chavez did everything he could to restore calm, and LAWFUL government. He waited them out. He didn't renew their license, which he had a perfect right to do. (Licensing of the public airwaves is a presidential power, in Venezuela, as it is here--vested in the FCC, appointed by the President.)

And now I want to address Prophet 451's tactic of trying to marginalize the "camp" that defends Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and South America, here at DU, by saying, "You know the ones: One side believes that Chavez walks on water..." This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else on this board who has argued Chavez's side by citing FACTS AND EVIDENCE, and presenting reasonable arguments, has EVER SAID, or even implied, that "Chavez walks on water." We have evaluated him, his government, his supporters and conditions and events in Venezuela and South America, on the basis of how a truly democratic country should be governed, and what is happening in other countries in the region (where there is widespread support for Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution, which has strong partners and allies in the elected governments of Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina). We have evaluated Venezuela's elections, their political discourse, the level of public participation in politics and government (very high in Venezuela, as compared to here), the problems the region faces, and the policies and effectiveness of the Chavez government.

Chavez is a great and visionary leader. No one can deny this. It is a fact, and it is the truth behind his huge support among Venezuelans, Bolivians, Ecuadorans and Argentinians (and others in South and Central America). He is leading the region toward policies of independence (from the U.S.) and self-determination. He is demonstrating that the region's rich natural resources CAN be used for the benefit of the people, and CAN be prevented from being stolen by the rich and powerful. Given the terrible history of brutal exploitation in South America, this is revolutionary. And it is especially awesome that these goals are being implemented with lawful, democratic, constitutional government.

This is NOT the same thing as saying that Chavez should not be criticized, and should not be scrutinized and held accountable, and watched like a hawk--as with any politician--for unlawful, greedy, powermongering actions or tendencies. My general opinion of him is that he most resembles our own FDR, in intelligence, strength and genuine commitment to the poor. He does not have FDR's upperclass social polish, and so, he speaks more bluntly and plays more to the "gallery," so to speak. But a man who reads Noam Chomsky, and recommends his latest book to the ambassadors at the UN, is one smart fellow, into education, literacy and thinking things through. He may say that Bush is "the devil"--a perfectly defensible position, it seems to me--and cause belly laughs throughout Latin America, but he has shrewdly analyzed just what that "devil" is up to, and has, since the 2002 coup attempt, preempted Bush's moves at every turn.

It would be a tragedy, in my opinion, if Chavez were to be tempted by his personal power to pursue goals of personal greed, self-aggrandizement or authoritarian control, or to be pressured by the vile Bushites' plots against him into violating the rule of law or oppressing any group, or into paranoia and militarism (beyond the reasonable precautions that he and his government must take, in the face of REAL plots). It would be a tragedy for millions of people, who have fought so hard for democracy and social justice, and who have fought so hard--against such big odds--to elect good leaders and good governments, in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina and other countries. He is walking a tightrope, to be sure. Thus far, his balancing act--between being strong (a necessity) and being open and democratic (the best way forward, the path to an enlightened and prosperous society)--has gone well. Bushites and corporate-funded "human rights groups" might fuss and bother about a corporation losing "free speech." I don't shed a tear over that. Corporations DON'T HAVE human rights. And the upshot of it is more "free speech" for THE PEOPLE. That, to me, is not "authoritarian." It is the government DOING ITS JOB. And the same with all the other Bushite criticisms. There is no evidence that Chavez is doing anything at all that is not what the people of his country elected him to do.

I won't get into the forces of evil arrayed against Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution--items like our taxpayer money being used to fund a recall election against Chavez, and billions of our tax dollars being used to fund the Colombian military, which is now known to be hatching assassination plots against Chavez, and all the rest of the conniving, dirty, murderous plotting that is going on in the Bush State Department, in corporate board rooms and at the DLC, to topple this DEMOCRATIC government, and stop the momentum of the peaceful, leftist (majorityist) revolution that is sweeping South America. The "hit and run" anti-Chavez posters at DU never mention these FACTS, nor the FACTS of our government's horrendous history in Latin America, on behalf of corporate predators and rich fascists. I will just sum it all up this way: What do you think would have happened to the "free speech" of the Venezuelan people, if the military coup that RCTV sponsored had succeeded? What do you think would have happened to any dissenters who spoke out against this coup, if the people of Venezuela had not risen up, in defense of their Constitution, and overturned the coup attempt? Many would be dead. Many would be 'disappeared.' Many would be jailed and tortured. And all the advances for social justice in Venezuelan would be undone.

THAT is what we are discussing here, at DU. It is not some idle conversation. And it is insulting and demeaning to be called "Chavez worshipers" when we are talking about the welfare and the lives of so many people, and are trying, through discussion and information sharing, to prevent our own government from killing, torturing and oppressing them, and denying them democratic government, by open violence or by stealth, while the people of the U.S. get propagandized into ignoring it or thinking it is inevitable. The "hit and run" anti-Chavez posters here--whether wittingly or unwittingly--are serving the Bushite propagandists. And I call bullshit on it. I call bullshit on anyone who would dismiss my posts, or Judi Lynn's posts, or any informative posts on this matter, as saying that Chavez "walks on water." It's smug. It's stupid-making. And it's bullshit.

[Prophet 451]

40. Dude, it wasn't an attempt to marginalise you

I was making a comment about how discussions on Chavez (and internet discussions generallt, to be honest) tend to end up dominated by the extremes of either side, it wasn't so much a criticism as a thumbnail (admittedly, a crude one and I'll hold my hands up to that) but it certainly wasn't a "tactic".

As it happens, I quite like Chavez. I'm not sure if what he's trying to do will work but after the recent history of South America generally, it has to be worth a try. Now do I much care about his actions with RCTV for the same reasons as I didn't think the Imus case had anything to do with free speech: Restricting someone's free speech is not the same thing as simply taking away their soapbox.

Chavez is certainly a visionary. Whether he's a great man will have to wait on history to make it's judgement. Here's the thing though: He IS a dictator. The word "dictator" is Roman in origin. It refers to a position where a single person was given vastly expanded but strictly limited powers by the Consuls (the two co-Prime Ministers) and Senate, usually for a strictly limited time to resolve some crisis. The simplest example would be a war. It's virtually impossible to have two equal leaders during a war so powers would often be vested in a single leader, the dic tator, until the conflict was resolved. Caesar Julius screwed the system up by using the powers of dic tator to sieze lifetime control (which ultimatly led to a civil war and the collapse of the Republic) but the system itself was a sound one.

Chavez is also a tyrant. The word is Athenian. It comes from a time when Greece was divided into autonomous states. Nominally, those states shared certain ideals but in practice, those were often ignored. A tyrant was someone (usually but not always, a local lord) who achieved local power through mass grassroots support, often (but not always) involving a civil uprising. Needless to say, the powers that be really didn't like this and it's because of their propoganda that we think of a tyrant as a bad thing.

Enjoying this ramble through classical history? I use these examples not because I am in love with the sound of my own typing (although there's an element of that, I wanted to teach history at one point) but because Chavez is not something new in politics but something quite old, he's just the first we've seen in a while, a throwback if you will. While he should be watched like a hawk (as any politico must be), he seems so far to be getting things mostly right. That doesn't mean I agree with every position (I don't agree with Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich on every position) but certainly, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: Chavez is wrong on one thing though: Bush isn't the devil. I'm not Christian (actually, I'm a Satanist) but I'm rapidly becoming convinced he's the AntiChrist.

[Vidar]

130. Excellent post. That sums up the situation here nicely.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

190. When were you most recently in Venezuela? n/t

[plasticsundance]

201. Thanks Peace Patriot

I enjoy reading and learning from both you and what Judi Lynn post on this topic. Very well articulated. I would also suggest some of the DUers read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. It gives the MO for the United States exploitation of not only some Latin American countries, but how it is done on a global basis.

My wife is Argentinian, and I had the opportunity to visit Buenos Aires. I was amazed how active the left and people in general are in Argentinia, as when I was there I practically saw daily protests. There is much anger at the US, and how little people realize how justified it is in Latin America.

[redqueen]

92. overly simplistic

that sounds like the people who dismiss both conservatives and liberals cause 'they're both corrupt'

[Prophet 451]

142. Of course it's overly simplistic

I wasn't trying to accuratly describe either side, I was just making a point about the tendancy of debate on this subject to polarise to the extremes.

[redqueen]

156. my point is that just as with the media

making like both conservative & liberal views are equally corrupted, which is BS.

so too is the argument that both the pro- and anti- chavez camps' arguements are equally valid.

cause they're not.

do you see?

[Prophet 451]

158. Sure

Sorry, I never intended to imply they were equally valid, just that those two positions tended to dominate.

[EFerrari]

200. I don't believe Chavez walks on water, and have spent time

trying to track down good information on the constant attacks against him in the US press. Duers raise good questions and I've learned a lot about Venezuela and about us in trying to find answers. I've also learned to admire Chavez. He's a good leader and does what most Democrats can't seem to do -- he stands up to BushCo.

[Judi Lynn]

9. It’s always far better to give your opinion on situations when you actually

understand them. Take some time off from posting on Hugo Chavez threads and spend it catching up on the information you’ve missed.

Read what has happened in Venezuela. Teach yourself what it is the _Bush administration has done directly, and surreptitiously to cause real tension with this country.

For chrissakes, start reading the history of U.S. actions regarding Latin America. Start to grasp the patterns which are used OVER and OVER and OVER decade after decade. Get a hint of what the hell has been happening all this time you’ve been entertaining yourself.

I've posted some photos and stories on one of the plots to kill Hugo Chavez, using paramilitaries from Colombia, composed of death squad members and a few Colombian military people.

The rest of DU'ers who pay attention have read about this as recently as the last couple of months, when it was discussed since the recently fired head of Colombian intelligence, Mr. Noguera knew all about it for a long time, and was recently named as someone with deep ties to the death squads by former death squad members.

There's a ton of stuff you have certainly missed.







Barracs at the property of opposition activist Robert Alonso located in the outskirts of Caracas.
Colombian paramilitaries lived there for 46 days in preparation for attacks on military bases.
Credit: Carlos Rios - Radio Nacional de Venezuela

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Washington planning a bloodbath in Caracas?
by Stuart Munckton
April 05, 2005

The Venezuelan government headed by President Hugo Chavez repeatedly accused the US government of planning a “new aggression” against Venezuela, including a plot to assassinate Chavez, despite pro-Chavez forces winning nine national elections in six years. Caracas claims to have information of an assassination plot to be carried out “within 100 days” against Chavez, although the government has refused to reveal its sources.*

While Washington has dismissed the accusations as “ridiculous”, further evidence was provided by a mid-March interview on Miami’s Channel 22 TV station with former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez.

A March 17 /Washington Post/ article, entitled “Anti-Bush fears assassination”, reported that the previous week “former CIA operative and prominent Bush supporter” Rodriguez, when asked by his interviewer about the assassination plot accusations, stated ‘‘that he had information about the administration's plans to 'bring about a change' in Venezuela, possibly through 'military measures’”.

Rodriguez went as far as to set out possible scenarios. He said that an air-strike aiming to kill Chavez was one possibility, pointing to the bombing raid then US President Ronald Reagan ordered in 1986 to kill Libyan President Muammer Qadhafi (Qadhafi survived the raid, but his daughter was killed). The Cuban news agency Prensa Latina reported on March 15 that in the interview Rodriguez had stated that he personally expected to participate in a CIA operation to kill Chavez.

The /Washington Post/ pointed out that “Rodriguez's remarks cannot be dismissed as bombast. He is well known in Latin America for his role advising a Bolivian military unit that captured and executed Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara in 1967. He is well-connected with the Bush family. The memory of various White House-approved, CIA-sponsored conspiracies to assassinate Fidel Castro in the 1960s may have faded in Washington but they have not in Havana or Caracas.”
(snip/…)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7579

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Venezuelan elite imports soldiers
by Marta Harnecker
May 23, 2004

venezuelanalysis.com

If anything has become clear following the discovery of an incursion of a significantly large paramilitary group into the country, it is that the 'anti-Bolivarian and anti-Venezuelan oligarchy and its masters in the north' have not been able to recruit Venezuelan soldiers for their subversive objectives and 'have been forced to recruit them in another country,' as expressed President Chavez in front of tens of thousands of people, who gathered in Caracas this past Sunday, May 16th, to demonstrate their rejection of paramilitary activity and to express their support for peace.

Since 'the conspiracies against Venezuela do not end with the capture of mercenaries in Caracas,' there must be many other infiltrators in other areas of the country; since this is not an isolated action, but one whose efforts to stop the process continue, one can reach but only one conclusion: it is necessary to prepare oneself for self-defense. This is why the President considered it opportune to take advantage of the occasion and to announce three strategic lines for defending the country. The most radical proposal was a call for the population to massively participate in the defense of the nation.
A week earlier, on the 9th of May, on the outskirts of Caracas, a paramilitary force was discovered, dressed in field uniforms. Later, more were found, raising the total to 130, leaving open the possibility that there are still more in the country. The three Colombian paramilitary leaders of the group are members of the Autonomous Self-Defense Forces (AUC) in Northern Santander state in Colombia.

Some of the captured Colombian fighters have a long history as members of paramilitary forces. Others are reservists of the Colombian army and yet others were specifically recruited for the task in Venezuela and were surely tricked. Among these there are several who are minors.
(snip)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5579
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uribe admits anti-Chavez plot planned in Colombia

AFP, SANTA MARTA, COLOMBIA
Monday, Dec 19, 2005, Page 7
Venezuelan former soldiers plotted against President Hugo Chavez's government at a Colombian military building, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said.
Uribe made the stunning disclosure on Saturday at the Caribbean resort town of Santa Marta where he is meeting with Chavez, and after analyzing documents furnished by Chavez.

"The Venezuelan soldiers who are in Bogota went to a building to meet with members of the Colombian military. President Chavez gave us these documents ... we analyzed them and this morning I said to President Chavez: `I must tell you the truth: this is a building of Colombia's public forces,'" he said.

Uribe said that intelligence efforts against the Venezuelan government are conducted in the building, and took full responsibility for the affair.
The two presidents met for six hours amid a climate of unusual goodwill on Saturday to discuss the purported Bogota-based conspiracy against the Venezuelan president, which Chavez first disclosed to his Colombian counterpart during a meeting in Venezuela on Nov. 24.

Seven Venezuelans involved in a 48-hour coup against Chavez in April 2002 have been linked to the new plot. Businessman Pedro Carmona, leader of the failed military-civilian coup, enjoys political asylum in Colombia, where he is working as a university professor.
(snip)

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/12/19/2003285082

[Judi Lynn]

10. Adding one more: US ambassador warned Vene. Vice-Pres. Rangel of possible assassination attempt....

Many DU'ers knew about this long ago:

Statements Indicate Chávez May Indeed Be in Somebody's Crosshairs

IPS
March 09, 2005
Analysis by Humberto Márquez

CARACAS, Mar 9 (IPS) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. government has plans to assassinate him and thus trigger chaos that would allow it to intervene militarily and take control of the South American country's huge oil reserves.
Now, recent statements by the top U.S. official in Venezuela appear to back up his fears of a plot against his life.

In an interview last weekend with the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio, Venezuelan Vice President José Vicente Rangel reported that former U.S. Ambassador Charles Shapiro had warned him of the possibility of an attempt on Chávez's life.

Shapiro, who served as ambassador to Venezuela from 2001 to 2004, "did not go into details, but felt he was obliged to share this information with us, for legal reasons," Rangel added.
(snip)

On Tuesday, the current U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, admitted that "Vice President Rangel is telling the truth. On two occasions, Ambassador Shapiro informed the Venezuelan authorities of actions against the current administration." Brownfield did not clarify the origin of these actions.
(snip)

Venezuelan state television has repeatedly aired an excerpt from an interview, originally broadcast by a Miami, Florida television station, with Venezuelan TV actor and host Orlando Urdaneta, an outspoken Chávez opponent who now lives in the United States.

In the interview, filmed last year, Urdaneta says that "Venezuela's biggest problem can be solved with a rifle with a telescopic sight," obviously alluding to Chávez. When asked by the interviewer, "Who would give the order?", he replies, "The order has already been given."
(snip/...)

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/2897.html

[originalpckelly]

22. Would you like to explain:

"Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"

On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't ask, I don't want you to waste your time defending this jackass.

[Judi Lynn]

89. Ah, I'm reminded of the famous rallying cry, "Give me liberty or give me compromise!"

Who ARE you to demand explanations from people of translations of things people say in their own country regarding situations you won't even take the time to grasp?

[Preening Fop]

12. Maybe, in 30 Years, the CIA Murderers Will Be Forced To Disclose their Current.........

feculent "National Endowment for Democracy" South American operations.

[Mojorabbit]

16. I do get

a bit worried when the US instead of * is demonized. The people start believing we as citizens all want to cause trouble there and this could be a big problem in the future as oil starts to run out and another administration is in power. Mexico's biggest field is drying up and it is a big funder of that govt.Lots of big problems coming. I hope not to live to see a war with a big block of south america with the US. Gods but we need someone with vision in the White House.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

183. self-delete

n/t

[Peace Patriot]

18. AP has nothing better to do? Where are their articles on the mass graves in Colombia,

filled with the bodies of union organizers, peasants and political leftists, or the recently revealed close ties between the rightwing paramilitaries who have been torturing and murdering innocent people, and engaging in drug trafficking, and the Uribe government (Bush's pals), including the head of the military, the former chief of intelligence and many top Uribe office holders? Where are their articles on the plot against Chavez's life that was recently uncovered among these paramilitaries? Where are their investigative reports on the use of the billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars that Bush has poured into Colombia?

Where are their articles on the USAID/NED (US taxpayer) funding of the recall election and other opposition campaigns against Chavez in Venezuela? Where are their exposes on the World Bank/IMF ruination of Argentina's economy, or their reporting on how Argentina recovered, and why it's doing so well today? (--creation of the Bank of the South, by Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay, to COUNTER the World Bank/IMF's ruinous loan policies). Where are their articles on the improvement in the quality of life for the vast poor population in Venezuela--on every social indicator (income, education, literacy, medical care, housing)?

Chavez is the elected president of Venezuela, and the commander in chief of its military. There is nothing unusual about a president and commander in chief speaking to his troops, warning them of potential threats against their country and against lawful government, and trying to inspire them to do their job. Why an AP article on this?

It's just another shred of pig food on the pile of garbage that AP and our war profiteering corporate news monopolies are shoveling at the U.S. middle and upper classes, to get them to buy it--so that when John "death squad" Negroponte--Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America--makes his move, on behalf of the super-rich and the corporate, we will be fast asleep under this pile of garbage, and won't notice or care. Who cares if another "dictator" in South America is overthrown, hm? This article is part of an intense corporate media campaign to foster that attitude, and to create an entirely false picture of Venezuela and its president, so that we don't care. The fact that Venezuela has far, far, FAR more transparent elections than we do, the fact that the Bolivarian revolution is a real and true, peaceful, democratic social justice movement with huge support throughout South America is never illustrated, discussed or referred to. The voices of the millions and millions of people who support it are never heard. Instead, these corporate reporters follow Chavez around, looking for photo ops with which to distort who he is, to fit their campaign of vilification.

And their other reason for this disinformation campaign against Chavez is that they don't want US to get any ideas about social justice here, or transparent vote counting, or widespread participation in government, or the use of resources to benefit the poor and the middle class, or lawful, constitutional government, or denying use of the public airwaves to corporations who fail to use their broadcast license in the public interest.

We need to fight this sneaky kind of disinformation (distorted images, omitted context, black holes of redacted news) every day. Every time we read a newspaper, every time we turn on the TV news, we are hit with this kind of crap, not just on Chavez but on EVERYTHING. Personality politics. Trivialization of the issues. Failure to report what's really happening and what people really think. Promotion of the latest corporate/war profiteer "villain." And ignoring of all the real villains and villainy in the world.

To counter the disinformation on this particular topic--Chavez--I recommend www.venezuelanalysis.com, and also the DVD "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (available at www.axisoflogic.com). Please realize that the corporate media are lying to you, that million of peoples' lives could be horribly affected if their lies succeed, and get informed.

The Bushites and their corporate puppetmasters want unfettered access to the oil, gas, minerals, forests and other resources of the Andes region, and I don't think we need to be reminded that they will torture and kill many thousands of people to get it. Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, has said, "We want partners, not bosses." But the Bushites and their corporate brethren don't want to be "partners." We know this. And they are using OUR MONEY to insure--by violence or by stealth--that the people of South America don't have the power to insist on fair play. And they are using corporate monopolies on the news in this country to keep us stupid about these issues.

PLEASE get informed! PLEASE don't let them get away with it THIS TIME, the way they did in the Reagan era, that resulted in the tortures and deaths of tens of thousands of people, and the destruction of democracy throughout Latin America. They're planning to do it AGAIN. All these anti-Chavez articles in the corporate media are prep for it. Get informed! Think! Analyze! Understand the history of this fascist Reaganite/Bushite cabal. And apply recent lessons, such as Iraq. Did they lie to you about Iraq? Why? Resources! Are they bald-faced lying to you about Chavez as well? Why? Resources! This is the Corporate Resource War, part II: South America.

Don't be fooled by baseless assertions that Chavez is a "dictator." Look into the matter for yourself! Who they are REALLY demonizing is the PEOPLE OF VENEZUELA, and the people of other Andes democracies, who have dared to challenge U.S./corporate power in South America. Chavez is one leader. There are many others. And they have the overwhelming support of the people of the region.

[originalpckelly]

19. "Fatherland" when the fuck did he become a fucking Nazi?

That gives me the fucking creeps, I didn't like him because I don't usually take to demagoguery, and I thought he was just not following the appropriate procedures of democracy, but this is worrisome.

"Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"

[Peace Patriot]

24. Oh, yeah, right, Originalpckelly, you haven't been calling Chavez a "dictator"

all along. Just now you're beginning to feel that "this is worrisome." Before this, you have only been criticizing him for "not following the appropriate procedures of democracy."

Har-har. Nice try.

And while we're at, name one "appropriate procedure of democracy" that Chavez has NOT followed. Name one!

And if you're really worried about "Nazis," I think you need to look in our own front yard, in our own halls of government, in our own capitol, and in particular in what was once our own White House. Save your "fucks" for Dick Cheney, and stop shilling for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Negroponte's pre-slaughter "talking points."

[NeedleCast]

25. Typical straw man argument

Your post is almost a complete straw man. In no posts I've see has originalpckelly shilled for Bush, Cheney, et. al. Your argument in this case seems to be that because Bush and Cheney suck, we should stick to talking about them and have no opinion on anything else.

Chavez's rhetoric in this scenario barks of fascism. He's pointing out enemies, encouraging rampant nationalism, glorifying the military, and one might argue that he's attempting to control the media.

Peace Patriot, obviously you and I don't see eye-to-eye on Chavez and that's fine. You've made some good argument in the past but this "you don't like Chavez so you must be pro-Bush" business is silly.

[originalpckelly]

30. Before, everything was procedural, now it is becoming more than that.

It's not just that he's abandoning the doctrine of separation of powers, he's moving on to whipping up nationalist sentiments. He's consolidating power outside of the government, in his own political party.

I you pay attention to my posts, you will notice how the criticism escalates as time goes along and more and more becomes apparent as to Chavez's real intentions.

But at no time have I shilled Bush or Cheney (though quite frankly, I don't think Bush is our number one worry anymore, Cheney seems to be that.)

If anything, I have used our own problems in America to try to get people who still support this kind of stuff from people on our side of the political spectrum to stop supporting it. Authoritarianism and dictatorships rob people of their inalienable rights, no matter how much they are promised in turn for being robbed.

[mhatrw]

37. Whipping up "nationalist" sentiments?

Come on. Venezuela faces a true military threat. The Monroe Doctrine has never been disowned, and the USA is only remaining military superpower.

Chavez doesn't stoke the fires of nationalism any more than FDR, Truman, Kennedy or LBJ did.

[northzax]

39. if there is a 'true military threat'

then, honestly, Venezuela has no chance at all. how long will the $3 billion worth of new fighter jets last, you think? the $1 billion worth of new Russian submarines? If there is a 'true military threat' it isn't from the US. How are we going to launch an invasion, you think? through Colombia? Guyana? Brasil? or is the US secretly building a million plus man amphibious force?

[mhatrw]

46. What? Open a history book sometime if you think the USA is not a threat

to any Latin American regime it deems not friendly enough to the "interests" of the USA.

[northzax]

50. "military'

the word used was 'military threat' you used it, you explain how the US is a 'military threat' to Venezuela. please, I am really interested to know. please explain a realistic circumstance when, in 2007 or the near future, the US is a MILITARY threat to Venezuela.

you made the claim, you back it up.

[mhatrw]

76. As I said, just open any history book. n/t

[northzax]

87. can you recommend a history book

that will detail the current (this is 2007, isn't it?) military threat by the United States against Venezuela?

cause funny thing, anytime I mention the historical precendents for strongmen in Latin America who start acting like Chavez, I am told that this is different, because it is now, not the past. but you want to use past threats to justify the same thing. how do you reconcile that?

[mhatrw]

98. What Latin American "strongmen" in the past have acted like Chavez?

Meanwhile, here is just a slice of the history of US interventionism in Latin America: http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

[northzax]

103. why, not a single one!

why the number of people who have failed in a coup attempt (must be almost zero)
claimed decree powers from a compliant assembly (again, almost never)
nationalised industry (never)
changed the constitution to remain in power (nope, can't think of one)
used a foreign bogeyman to blame all problems on (unheard of!)

nope, I guess no one has ever acted this way before.

[mhatrw]

108. What "rogues gallery" of history are you referring to?

Please feel free to name names.

[eridani]

174. Chavez didn't change the constitution of Venezuela

The people of Venezuela did that. The decree powers predate Chavez by many years. Why weren't you bitching online about it when his predecessors used them? Or for that matter, why aren't you now bitching about the fact that Alan Garcia of Peru was granted similar powers in April of this very year? Not saying that I think we ought to have similar laws, but you really ought to get well informed enough to know that such laws are commonplace in the constitutions of Latin American governments.

[northzax]

179. oh, well in that case

if his predecessors, who were so bad as to inspire Chavez to lead a coup against them, did it, then it's no big deal, right?

glad to know you think rule by decree is the right way for Latin American countries to go. it does seem to be working exceptionally well in such fine places as Colombia, Peru and Haiti, ain't it?

and why wasn't I on DU complaining the last time the power was granted to a different president in Venezuela? er, cause that was 1993, and DU was, well, only a twinkle in the eye of Skinner et al

I am an especially big fan of all the arguments that rule by decree is, in fact, democratic in some manner. Think of it this way, would you grant this power to the leaders of the oppostition in Venezuela? just because something is 'commonplace' doesn't make it democratic, right? I thought Chavez was going to do this a 'new' way, not the same old way. heck, this is a 'bolivarian' revolution, and Simon Bolivar wanted to be President for Life and declared himself a dictator, so maybe...

[eridani]

185. By the Venezuelan constitution, any government in office has the power

Chavez didn't lead the coup because of this particular decree--he led it because in 1989, thousands of people protesting neoliberalism were killed outright by the government.

If you think that removing presidential term limits from the constitution implies dictatorship, then you must agree that America was a dictatorship until we imposed such limits, no?

The only thing I'm objecting to here is that you are slobbering on demand like Pavlov's dogs. There are no AP articles on Garcia of Peru acting on similar presidential decrees. Uribe is not acting on any decrees at all--he's merely backing the paramilitaries who are chainsawing union organizers into pieces without any legal justification whatsoever. Nobody starts any threads on those things because articles bemoaning those them aren't being put out by AP at the moment, and they never will be as long as our elite objects only to Venezuela. You only start barking when our corporate-owned media ring the bell.

[northzax]

191. sorry to correct such a noted scholar

but the Chavez-lead coup was in February, 1992, not 1989, and, according to scholars, wasa result of the use of military personnel as labourers, exposing them to the lives of the rural poor in Venezuela. Chavez himself didn't cite the '89 riots and massacre as a motivation.

[Judi Lynn]

192. Would you be good enough to provide a source for your claim

.....but the Chavez-lead coup was in February, 1992, not 1989, and, according to scholars, wasa result of the use of military personnel as labourers, exposing them to the lives of the rural poor in Venezuela.

This is extremely interesting, considering we've never heard it.

Definitely need to see that source claiming "wasa result of the use of military personnel as labourers, exposing them to the lives of the rural poor in Venezuela."

Always imagined it was more complex, and that the nation's trauma which manifested suddenly in 1989, which they will NEVER FORGET, had a great deal to do with the coup.

On edit:

Here's what I found the second I attempted a quick search:

February 27th 1989 was a Monday, and over the weekend Pérez's liberalization of petroleum prices had kicked in, the first stage of which was an immediate 100% increase in the price of consumer gasoline. While the government had attempted to force small transporters to absorb the majority of the increase, convincing the National Transport Federation to pass on only 30% of the increase to passengers, many smaller federations and individuals refused to respect this agreement. Since their gas costs had doubled overnight, one can hardly blame them.
Protests kicked off during the early commute of informal workers into Caracas. Upon discovering that fares had doubled, many refused to pay. Resistance, rioting, and the burning of buses was reported from a number of suburbs and in cities across the country well before 6am. Demonstrations in the eastern suburb of Guarenas (where looting was reported as early as 7:30am), sparked off broader resistance in the region. By 6am, students had occupied Nuevo Circo station in Caracas, at the other end of the Guarenas-Caracas line, and were publicly denouncing the drivers.
Joined by informal workers, the crowd at Nuevo Circo moved north onto Avenida Bolívar, building barricades to block traffic on this major artery. By noon, blockades had spread eastward to Plaza Venezuela and the Central University, southward to the Francisco Fajardo highway, and westward to Avenida Fuerzas Armadas. Revolutionary ferment united students, informal workers, and hardened revolutionaries, and the initial anger at increased transport prices (an anger directed predominantly at individual drivers) was successfully generalized to encompass the entire neoliberal economic package (thereby directing anger directly at the president).
The structure of the informal economy provided more than the constituents of the rebellion: it provided the means of coordination and communication as well, with motorcycle taxis zipping back and forth across the city, drawing the spontaneous rebellion into a broader coordinated picture which more closely resembles what we would consider a revolutionary situation.
Meanwhile, a similar pattern was appearing spontaneously in every major Venezuelan city: protests emerged early in the morning in San Cristóbal, Barquisimeto, Maracay, Barcelona, and Puerto la Cruz, and Mérida, and later in the afternoon in other major cities like Maracaibo and Valencia. Some have argued, and rightly so, that the common moniker "Caracazo" is misleading, concealing as it does the generalized and national nature of the rebellion.
Deaths were reported in Caracas as early as the afternoon of the 27th, as police opened fire on students near Central Park. As night fell, sacking and looting became widespread (often aided by the police), touching even the generally untouchable sectors of wealthy eastern Caracas, and more than 1,000 stores were burned in Caracas alone. While many were looting necessities (most video evidence shows people hauling away household products and food, especially large sides of beef) luxuries were not exempt, and as a result many barrios enjoyed a taste of the life so habitually denied, celebrating with fine food and imported whiskey and champagne.
(snip)

Politically, the Caracazo represented the death knell of the old regime. Former Chavista vice president José Vicente Rangel put it clearly: "Venezuelan history split into two." Juan Contreras, head of the revolutionary Simón Bolívar Coordinator, argues that it was the Caracazo in 1989 rather than the pair of coup attempts in 1992 (the first led by Chávez) that definitively destroyed the corrupt "partyocracy." And the proof of this is the fact that those coups were the direct result of the 1989 rebellion, or as Contreras puts it, "Chávez didn't create the movements, we created him."
(snip)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1973

[eridani]

197. But reaction to the 1989 event is the foundation of his support n/t

[pschoeb]

229. Actually he was arrested in 1989 on suspicion of plotting a coup

After the massacre during Caracazo, that the military was ordered to take part in(though Chavez himself did not,being ill) , Chavez started to get a huge influx among the military ranks into his political organization, he then changed the name to Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario-200, because he also wanted to include not just the Army. He was arrested at the end of 1989 on suspicion of plotting a coup, but was let go on lack of evidence, and was moved far away from the capitol. The President who had ordered the military to do what they had done in 1989, was still in power in 1992. Chavez does cite the Caracazo as a motivation, and it's the main reason he garnered much support for his political party.

[Judi Lynn]

99. Spend some time learning about American policy and history in Latin America.

Where were you when _Bush armed, trained and outfitted death squad members from Haiti in the Dominican Republic, then, as they stormed over the border, in a bloody rampage, forced the popular, beloved Haitian President to resign and flew him as far away from Haiti as possible, as the death squads cranked up the slaughterhouse, and topped it off by surrounding Haiti with an American armada which terned back ALL the frail boats as people who supported the previous President attempted to flee for their lives, forcing them all right back into the bloodbath to be torn limb from limb and left to die on the streets of their country.

Where were you during Iran/Contra? Reagan's arming death squads in Guatemala, etc., etc.

What the hell do you think has been happening all these long years?

What do you imagine happened in Chile? Argentina? Brazil? During the overthrow and bloody attack on Guatemala's President on behalf of United Fruit in 1954?

When the #### are you going to start learning something about South America?

We can't wait forever while you inform us of your dread, your suspicions, your gut reactions, etc., etc., etc. That's exactly what this administration expects from the helpless clowns in its party: mindless support of deadly, dishonest, uncivilized, shameful behavior.

[northzax]

117. ok, fine, you are right

it is imperative that the people of venezuela are prepared to fight the enemies of Chavez, I mean Venezuela. anytime a poltiical leader starts to use 'external enemies' as justification for anything, I tend to get suspsicious. Anytime power is consolidated in one person, I get suspicious.

so let me ask you, as the 'resident expert' three questions:

1: is Chavez using an external threat to cover internal problems? Has he ever accepted blame for anything that may have happened in Venezuela? Since he has become President, has he said, even once, that he made a mistake, in any way? (and don't tell me that Bush hasn't, because if that is your baseline, it's not hard to find a better president)

2: can you name one law, or one decree, passed under Chavez that has decreased the power of the office he currently holds?

3: in your expert opinion, which is more democratic, a strong presidency or a strong legislature?

[Judi Lynn]

160. What an odd post! First, are you saying there IS no threat?

Please attempt to familiarize yourself with what has happened to Venezuela since Chavez took office February 2, 1999.

Has he accepted blame for WHAT? For things he did imperfectly? What are they? Do you know?

The coup attempt he led? He has said a lot about that. By the way, the President against whom he led the coup, as the rest of us know, ordered his military to fire into crowds of protesting poor people who hit the streets after he raised the cost of their transportation far far above their ability to pay.

That event was called "El Caracazo," and it suddenly brought things into focus in Venezuela. It is tremendously vivid to them as a national scandal, tragedy, and infamous nightmare.

President Carlos Andres Perez was later impeached and imprisoned for his own embezzlement and corruption. Most of us know that. Why didn't you?

Many people would be sorely pressed to act rashly in the face of that kind of filth. Chavez was pardoned.

Power in Venezuela is passing from the racist, tiny oligarchy to the people. That's what really gets right-wingers wild. They will fight it as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything, then they'll bail, without a doubt. They have absolutely no intention of relinquishing the exploitive power they've held over the vast majority of poor Venezuelans, using all tools they have and those _Bush gives them, at their disposal.

More Democratic? My expert opinion? How childish to be snotty.

If you're concerned about the preponderance of non-oligarchy people in the national assembly, you have only the oligarchy to blame, who knew they were going to get clobbered in the next to the last FREE election, and tried to distract the world's attention by simply refusing to play altogether. They didn't want to be publicly humiliated for the world to see, and they made up reasons to boycott the election.

They have no one to blame but themselves. Had they been more patriotic all this time, had they been DEMOCRATIC all this time, they wouldn't be pounding sand now.

[northzax]

38. the fact that he rules by decree?

that? the fact that the congress gave him the power to rule by decree?

the fact that he is creating a hyper-militarized state aligned against an external enemy, and that every problem is blamed on that external enemy? come on. Given the practical history of Latin American strongmen, hell, strongmen from any resource rich country, from the left and the right, at what point do you start noticing the parallels?

where is the practical line between the state and the person? it's a cult of personality, is it not? for better or for worse? or can you document the strong governmental institutions that Chavez is building to continue his bolivarian revolution when he retires in, hold it, when is his latest version of the presidential term up? 2012, isn't it? after promising to retire in 2010 wasn't it? under the Constitution of 1999?

tell you what, I will give 5-1 odds on a $50 bet that Hugo Chavez will still be President (barring a coup or assassination) in 2013. Or do you think he will listen to his own constitution and retire? would you like a piece of that action? anyone?

[ProudDad]

61. "he is creating a hyper-militarized state"

U.S. Military spending per capita: $3333.00

Venezuela Military Spending per capita: $65

Wow, he's really building a hyper militarized state, isn't he?

Go peddle this right-wing bullshit somewhere else.

Thanks

[northzax]

86. oh right, you got me

when, in the face of no invasion, you urge the people to take up arms in the face of an invisible enemy that isn't even close to military action against you, that is not militarizing the state at all.


and actually, the US is closer to $1,900 per capita ($585,000,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 = $1,940, not $3,333) but hey, what's a 60% difference when you have a point to prove?

[mhatrw]

93. And what's a 3000% difference in military spending per capita when

you have no point?

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America: http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

Looking at history, how can you possibly say that Venezuelans' fears of US intervention are not legitimate?

What Latin American "strongmen" does Chavez parallel? What Latin American "strongmen" in history have ruled from the left without any help from the US, their own country's elite or large corporate interests? What is their legacy?

[northzax]

102. the words 'Juan Peron' come to mind

but hey, maybe that's not really 'latin america' and maybe he wasn't really a 'strong man' who knows? How about "Fidel Castro"? does he count?

and when it comes from the left or the right, strongmen are strongmen, don't you think?

[mhatrw]

110. If Castro and Peron are your bogeymen, color me less than

terrified.

[northzax]

120. if Castro and Peron are your heros

then you really shouldn't be claiming to be a democrat, since neither are or were.

[mhatrw]

129. Who said they were my heroes?

You made them your bogeymen. They are not my heroes. It's just that there have been thousands of worse leaders of countries in modern history, so consider me less than terrified of the supposed "strongman" specter of Castro and Peron.

[ProudDad]

177. Chavez was the victim of a coup

supported by the bushies. That's a pretty good reason to be vigilant.

As for the cost of the bloated American war machine, YOU are forgetting the percentage of interest payment on the national debt that's DIRECTLY connected to the military build up of the last 3 decades. That's another $350 BILLION per year. And you're leaving out Iraq -- another 200 billion in the last year and a half... Oh, right, that's for my grandson to pay back...

But hey, who cares about interest payments and new debt when you've got an ax to grind against a Socialist Patriot?

[roody]

26. I doubt that they had English on their banners.

The word was probably "Patria." I would prefer "Matria," but they did not ask my opinion.

[mhatrw]

36. Who came up with "Homeland Security"?

What's the difference?

[originalpckelly]

67. I don't see any difference, and I think they're both designed to stir nationalist feelings.

[mhatrw]

79. And how many Democrats voted for "Homeland Security"?

Was Kerry "whipping up nationalism" when he said this in his acceptance speech at the 2004 DNC?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/johnkerry2004dnc.htm

Remember the hours after September 11th, when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon. When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol. When flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us. ...

And the front lines -- And the front lines of this battle are not just far away; they're right here on our shores. They're at our airports, and potentially in any city or town. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement all the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of our container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.

[Flanker]

48. I know you already made up your mind long ago

BUT... he said PATRIA the AP is just editorializing with their translations, so please call anybody that considers themselves patriotic to be a Nazi.

[devilgrrl]

55. He's a nazi in every Associated Press article...

connect the dots.

[pschoeb]

159. Well, it's supposedly a banner, which I can't find a single AP photo of

Despite there are many photos from the AP for that event with Chavez, the 186th Anniversary of the Army. So it's quite possibly not accurate. I also found this story that says "Motherland, socialism or death! We shall overcome!" was the salutation from Brigadier General Celso Canelones, the Commander of the 31st Infantry Brigade, who was the chief of the military parade staged on Sunday, to President Chávez before commencing the act." So it seems the AP reporter might not have gotten this correct.
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/06/25/en_pol_art_chavez-decrees-30-pe_25A890213.shtml

Also, who cares, I mean we wouldn't get upset if any US President had a banner "Our Nation, Liberty or Death, we will triumph" during a celebration of the anniversary of the founding of the US Army during the revolution. Or maybe even saying something like "Hail to the United States Army, preserving our liberty, upholding our values, and advancing our interests". The 186th anniversary of the army is in part, celebrating the war of independence from Spain, that was finally won by Simon Bolivar, they were also inaugurating a bust of Simon Bolivar.

As a side note, this parade and celebration were to have taken place at a different location(site of the battle of Carabobo), but because of fears of an assassination attempt it was moved to Caracas.

[roody]

27. I think it is time to plan a DU meetup in Venezuela. eom

[EFerrari]

35. I'd love that! Dying to see Caracas

[Bacchus39]

42. I would have thought the meeting would be held here

you might just get your wish there.

[EFerrari]

43. Why not? Then, I'd get to see schools where children are fed

and clinics where people from all over Latin America are treated and new homeowners with a new investment in their community.

Why not?

:hi:

[Bacchus39]

45. well, its all there for you to see.

they do favela tours in Rio, so why not Caracas?

[EFerrari]

52. False comparison. Really, Bacchus, you can do better.

:)

[Bacchus39]

58. you're kidding or you' ve never been there

the Caracas slums are slums by any stretch of the imagination.

[EFerrari]

60. But the current policy in Caracas and in Sao Paolo

bear little relation to each other. And the suggestion that they do is simply dishonest.

[Bacchus39]

72. what is the current policy? drugs and crime

just like Sao Paulo

[ProudDad]

63. Really?

I haven't seen bacchus do any better than this...

[EFerrari]

71. I'm trying to be nice. n/t

[ProudDad]

178. Worth a try.

I always try to assume that everyone is redeemable.

[Flanker]

54. Well there are tours of these areas

Upcoming Reality Tours to this Region:
Media & Freedom
July 21, 2007 - July 31, 2007
Language School In Venezuela
August 04, 2007 - September 01, 2007
August 04, 2007 - August 19, 2007
Democracy, Development, and Regional Integration- A New Vision for the Americas
August 11, 2007 - August 22, 2007
Labor, Land Reform, and Agriculture
September 01, 2007 - September 11, 2007
Indigenous Peoples' Rights in the Bolivarian Revolution
October 06, 2007 - October 16, 2007
Venezuela : Democracy, Development, and Regional Integration- A New Vision for the Americas
November 18, 2007 - November 28, 2007

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/

[Bacchus39]

59. aprovecha!!

n/t

[roody]

164. Let's do our own.

[mhatrw]

49. Daly City, CA -- just outside of San Francisco

[Bacchus39]

51. never been there, been to Caracas several times though

is there abject poverty in Daly City?

[ProudDad]

65. Yes

there is.

[Bacchus39]

74. maybe a meetup in Daly City is more appropriate then

n/t

[junior college]

214. Joking, yes?

There probably isn't a house in Daly city that would sell for under a half a million dollars. Abject poverty in Daly City. Hahahahahahaha, that's funny.

[EFerrari]

69. Was when my family lived there. n/t

[mhatrw]

73. Was there abject poverty in Venzuela before Chavez?

Just wondering ...

[Bacchus39]

75. absolutely, and there still is

n/t

[mhatrw]

77. What makes Chavez's political enemies in Venezuela preferable

to Chavez in terms of reducing poverty? Just wondering.

[Bacchus39]

78. political enemies??? how about an alternative to authoritarianism

any alternative candidate could fight poverty. That does not require Chavez's heavy handed political maneuvers. oil revenue certainly has helped hasn't it??

[mhatrw]

80. So fighting poverty is OK, just as long as it's not "heavy handed"?

You do realize that these exact same criticisms were made of FDR, right?

[Bacchus39]

83. fighting poverty is fine

its the same old argument that is incessant on this board. just like the Castrophiles always point out low infant mortality, education system, and health care. and I just as quickly point out Uruguay, France, and Canada have the same without the government police state. same analogy for Chavez.

[mhatrw]

85. Why is it the same for Chavez?

Where is Venezuela's government police state other than in your predictive imagination?

Can't we predict far, far worse for our own nation looking at how badly things have changed for us on the "government police state" front over just the last 6 years?

Seriously, I just don't get all the whining and hand wringing about Chavez. Can't you see that you are responding to clear, undeniable anti-Chavez propaganda?

[Bacchus39]

100. I don't get all the adoration

I am more concerned about issues in this country such as the Iraq war.

Chavez rule by decree, seizures of land by military personnel, coercing of media, stacking of the Supreme Court with his own allies are examples I am referring to. these are things that NOT EVEN Bush has done.

p.s. regarding your reference to the US being a police state. I find most concerns about the US becoming or being a "police state" to be unfounded. the US has always been a nation of enforcement of laws and general order. it can be quite anal frankly.

latin america on the other hand is characterized by lax enforcement of laws and general disorder. however, it is much more relaxed and there are many "freedoms" that can be enjoyed whereas in the US it is against the law. this is without regard to political inclination of any particular country, with the exception of Cuba of course.

[mhatrw]

113. Bush has stacked the Supreme Court, Bush rules by signing statements,

the media was coerced after 9/11 to the point the Bill Maher was fired for daring to look at 9/11 from a jihadist's perspective, and city governments are allowed to seize personal property for the greater remuneration of the developers who line their pockets!

Meanwhile, all our domestic email and phone calls are being monitored without warrant based on executive decree and you think that's just dandy! Meanwhile, our President has declared by decree that he can strip any citizen of the most basic right of habeas corpus and you think concerns about the US becoming or being a "police state" are unfounded!

But those damn Latinos are basically disorderly, corrupt and lazy -- so we got to watch our backs with that crew! Right?

[northzax]

121. but obviously you must be ok with that

cause if it's ok for someone on the left to do, it is also ok for someone on the right to do. Democracy is not an endpoint, it is a process.

if you are willing to say that Chavez has the same respect for the rule of law as bush does, then, well, I guess you have proven your point.

[mhatrw]

126. What I'm saying is, don't you have anything better to do than get up

on your high horse (once again) about obvious anti-Chavez propaganda?

Luckily for his countrymen, Chavez has neither the means nor the will to flout the rule of law like BushCo does.

[northzax]

127. he doesn't need to, now does he?

since he has the power to rule by decree until June of 2008, he is, in fact, the law, so he doesn't need to flout the law, just say it is changed.

[mhatrw]

131. At least he asked the legislature first.

Unlike BushCo's signing statements.

[northzax]

135. again, if all you have is a 'slightly better than Bush'

arguement, then I agree with you, he is slightly better than Bush is. But then, that's not really much of a challenge, is it?

[mhatrw]

137. What I have is that his methods of consolidating power are slightly

better than Bush.

On everything else, BushCo and Chavez are like night and day.

[northzax]

139. consolidating power in one person is always troublesome

don't you think?

my general rule is, imagine if that power was in the hands of someone you are politically diametrically opposed to. would you still think it is a good idea for the office to have it? if no, then the power should not be consolidated. if yes, then it should be. what if Chavez has a heart attack tomorrow, and someone who believes the exact opposite of him is elected to his position. would you still think these rules are a good idea? Democracies are institutions, not people.

[mhatrw]

144. It depends on how much power the executive already has.

It also depends on the state of emergency. But I would agree that it is generally troublesome.

If I felt the extra-governmental threats to Chavez (including those emanating from the USA) were farcical, I would be more in line with your alarmist attitude about Chavez. As it is, I see Chavez as the imperfect head of an imperfect but very democratic political system trying to do what every politician does -- amass power in order to advance his agenda. The big difference I see is that Chavez is one of just a few successful politicians today who is trying to use his power to help the masses rather than the elite.

[northzax]

149. ok, that's sensible (who knew, after all this we are still capable of sense!)

thank you for the reasoned response. My major concern is with consolidation of any sort, I beleive in decentralized power more than trusting in one person. I live by the old adage about power corrupting, knowing that history has shown, across the human spectrum, the incredibly rare number of poeple who gain increasing power and then relinquish it voluntarily to preserve a system. I, personally, prefer a weak executive to a strong one.

I also think that Chavez' stated goals are laudable. I don't always agree with his methods and think that he is setting the country up for failure in the mid-long term, but I do think his heart is in the right place. That said, it is much easier to give up power to someone you agree with, ony to find that the trust was misplaced. I also note that you say the 'extra-governmental threats to Chavez" well I am more concerned with the threats to the system he is building than to him. If the whole revolution is based solely in him, then it's in trouble.

[mhatrw]

154. Well, in that sense populist leaders like Chavez typically end up becoming

"victims" of their own success. Yes, process matters a lot and Chavez has made some disturbing power grabs, but Venezuela's democracy does not exist in a vacuum nor in some sort of idyll.

Whenever I read anything about Chavez, I consider the source. Since the source is generally the same NY Times and AP operatives who were lambasting Chavez and cheering Chavez's even more authoritarian enemies long before Chavez ever consolidated power, I generally give Chavez the benefit of the doubt. But only time will tell the tale.

[Bacchus39]

122. all of our domestic email and phone calls monitored

I doubt it. the volume would be overwhelming.

Bush has not stacked the Supreme Court. He has replaced vacancies. just as every other president has. hello!!! Chavez added additional seats to get his way.

yeah, I was against the Supreme Court decision that allowed the taking of private property to give to someone else. I would be against it in Ven too.

the President cannot hold US citizens without habeas corpus rights. it applies to foreign nationals and NOT US citizens.

I never said Latinos were lazy. you did. they certainly have a history of corrupt governments and their society is more disorderly for sure.

[mhatrw]

128. Is Padilla still being held as an enemy combatant or not?

Interesting that you are satisfied that the volume of calls and emails protects us from warrantless government intrusion.

What US President tried to add seats to the US Supreme Court?

[Bacchus39]

134. not really, besides the government could simply monitor

us without us even knowing or without "permission". and even if they get "permission" that is one man, a judge, saying its ok. big deal, do you feel better now? If the government wants to monitor someone they will.

Padilla is being held on charges of some sort or the other. Suspected criminals should simply not be allowed to walk free. there are penalties for crimes you know.

Franklin Roosevelt tried to add seats to the court. he was unsuccessful, unlike Chavez.

[mhatrw]

136. When was Padilla's trial? Do you even know what habeas corpus means?

Was FDR a horrible dictator?

If the government wants to monitor someone they will.

What happened to our "anal" rule of law protecting us against becoming a police state?

[Bacchus39]

141. I don't know, again you are so interested in

abstract notions of freedom than actual violations seem quaint to you. I listed several practical real impositions on freedom that Chavez has done but you seem unphased.

but lock up a suspected terrorist without parading him out in a court room and the whole of the USA has turned into a nazi concentration camp.

yes, I am not naive. if the government wants to monitor you they will. and what difference does it really make whether a judge "approves" a warrant? they are still watching you. even though, more than likely they are not.

[mhatrw]

145. Your posts speak for themselves.

Who has Chavez thrown into jail while suspending his right to habeas corpus? What violation of rights could be more actual or more fundamental?

What private correspondences and communications is Chavez monitoring without a warrant? What violation of rights could be more actual or more fundamental?

[EFerrari]

68. Your link is broken. I spent some years there, 4-8 and am curious.

:)

[Judi Lynn]

115. You are attempting to pull a fast one on DU'ers by pretending this level of poverty

somehow can be laid at the feet of Hugo Chavez.

We're ALL intelligent enough to know it was a long, long time under the thumb of the racist oligarchy which owned almost ALL the land in Venezuela which forced the poor onto these hills in the first place, so very many years ago, and it was the cheap labor they offered which made the oligarchy happy to exploit them and keep as much of Venezuela's money for themselves as possible, just the way the right-wing is doing here.

We weren't born yesterday. Anyone can see this is the kind of problem which isn't going to be changed overnight, and certainly won't be erased in a few years with a new, democratically elected President.

It's going to take a whole lot of time to turn that train around.

You only shame yourself.

[treestar]

29. The M$M will relabel it an "insurgency"

The US preferred government being the "real" government, lol.

Any country with oil realizes that the US feels totally entitled to take their product without paying the fair market price for it.

[Bo]

44. Chavez has no intention of EVER stepping down.

He has become a another banana dictator with oil. I still cannot believe people in D.U. support this idiot.

[mhatrw]

47. You sound just like a Republican during the FDR administration.

What makes Chavez's political enemies in Venezuela preferable to Chavez?

[northzax]

90. gee, seems like at the time

FDR was involved in a world war. and yes, as a people we decided we didn't want to have that happen again, so we changed the constitution to LIMIT the reelection of the president. as opposed to Venezuela under Chavez which changed the Constitution to INCREASE the election of the president.

[mhatrw]

96. Learn some history, please!

I was not talking about FDR decision to run for a third term (which preceded the USA's entrance into WWII by at least 18 months), but Republican response to FDR's New Deal policies.

[northzax]

105. then talk about the right thing

and yes, the same things were said by republicans in response to FDR running for a third and fourth term. Personally, by the way, I am glad that the constitution forbids a third term at this point, I wouldn't have minded if it did during Roosevelt's term. I don't believe that we need 'great men' to sustain the system, I beleive the system should sustain itself.

tell me, how different do you think the US would be now if George Washington had served a third term? (besides the fact that he would have died during it) but if he has set that precedent, how different do you think things would be? would they be better, or worse, over the past two centuries? the argument that Chavez needs to stay in power for the revolution to continue implies that there is, in fact, no revolution, only Chavez. shame.

[eridani]

175. It happens to be the right of the Venezuelan people to change their own constitution

Was the US a dictatorship before we amended our Constitution? Had the amendment failed and FDR lived, wouldn't he have actually had to win an election to a 5th term? How is Venezuela different from that?

[ProudDad]

180. Nope your history is faulty

FDR was vilified by the republicans (and my Grandmother) for everything he did in the New Deal starting in 1933.

He was called a socialist dictator for co-opting enough of the Progressive/Socialist agenda to save capitalism.

In case you didn't noticed or can't remember, war wasn't declared by the U.S. until December of 1941...

Thank God for Chavez...picking up where FDR left off.

[ProudDad]

66. Do you have any proof

or are you just making this crap up?

[northzax]

94. the burden of proof, historically

is on people to give up power. Since Chavez has changed his own rules to allow him to maintain power longer, the burden of proof is on him to abide by the rules he set, not to advocate for changing those rules to maintain power.

when do you think he will step down as President? he's currently in power until 2012, at which point he will have served two and a half terms after changing the rules to allow him to do that. Can you say, right here, right now, that you expect him to leave then, or do you think he will attempt to change the rules again to allow another term? what's your prediction?

[Judi Lynn]

104. He was elected in December 1988, inaugurated February 2, 1999.

Venezuelan Presidential terms are 6 years long. He has been the President for 8 1/2 years.

The Venezuelan assembly created the rules it chose. Why would you claim Chavez wrote the rules?

If he leaves in 2012, as you mention, he will have served two six year terms.

[northzax]

112. as you no doubt know

when he was elected, the Constitution called for called for five year terms (this was the 1961 constitution) at Chavez' urging, a new constitution was put in place in 1999, which, among other things, called for six year terms (increasing the power of the presidency) limited to two. it also dissolved the bicameral legislature and replaced it with a unicameral one (generally, this increases the power of the executive) it also gave the President the right to dissolve the legislature when it was not responsive to him.

I am a bit confused, though. How is it that 1998-2006 is 6 years? the last election was, in fact, in 2006, right? oh, right, he ran for another election in 2000, which means that, despite his own desire for a rule of only being elected twice, he has, in fact, been elected three times. And threatens, fairly often over the past year, to ask for the right to run for a fourth term in 2012.

do you really think he will leave power in 2012?

[Judi Lynn]

116. He did not serve as Venzuela's President during 1998. How is that hard to grasp?

[northzax]

118. he was, in fact elected in 1998, yes?

so 1998 + 5 years (under the constitution he was elected under) = 2003. was there a presidential election in 2003?
1998 + 6 years = 2004. was there a presidential election in 2004?

oh no, right, cause he ran again in 2000. and then in 2006. So he has, in fact, been elected three times, or can you show me where my math is wrong?

[Judi Lynn]

147. He didn't take office until February 2, 1999. That's not my fact, it's THE fact. n/t

[northzax]

153. and US presidents don't take office until January of the next year

but we say that they are elected in the even numbered year, right? do we say we have our next election in 2008 or 2009?

you didn't answer, how many times has Chavez been elected president?

still waiting for your responses to post 99, your chance to educate me about Latin America. will they be coming?

[pschoeb]

162. Wow, a whole year added, and term limits added as well

So overall the new constitution added a year, but also added a two term limit, thus the probable reason for slightly lengthening the term, also added was the possibility of popular recall after 3 years of election. Talk about complete BS as far as increasing the power of the presidency. The election in 2000 was the first under the new 1999 constitution that added term limits, so was the first election for this rule to apply, he never served the whole term of his presidency under the old constitution, so he never served a whole term. Chavez also faced a recall vote in 2004 as per this new constitution, which he also won.

Also generally unicameral and bicameral have no effect on presidential power. Bicameral divisions usually represents an anti-democratic function in government, much like our Senate(aptly named) is essentially an anti-democratic force(representing States, not People), even more so when it was first founded and elected by State Congress, or often paid for by the rich.

[eridani]

176. Why do you think he won't? n/t

[EFerrari]

70. Do you have any other predictions you'd like to share

with this reality-based community?

Kreskin -- is that you?

[Bo]

114. SU EXCELLENCIA will be there until the revolution succeeds. lol

That guy ain't going anywhere. I have seen these wonderful socialist experiments in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru in the 70s, all failures of course, judging by the governments they now posses.

[mhatrw]

124. Yep. Much better to stop trying and resign yourself to a highly stratified

society consisting of the top 2% who sell out the nation's national resources to multi-national corporations in order to enrich themselves while 98% live in squalor.

[PassingFair]

206. I LOVE IT that you can see into the future. You are AMAZING!

[Judi Lynn]

208. We are honored to have one of them amungus! They're so evolved. n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

84. No, see, it's not the left they have a problem with.

Just any part of the left that's politically effective in any way ...

[redqueen]

95. bingo. n/t

[northzax]

97. aw, that's cute

what a great strawman arguement, did you think of that all by yourself?

is South America really only governable by single strongmen, be they Pinochet or Peron? is your arguement that the people in Venezuela are incapable of finding another leader through the electoral process to replace Chavez, and therefore it's absurd to even try? are you arguing that Venezuela is incapable of democracy? (and no, an elected leader with decree powers is not 'democracy')

are Chavez supporters really 'democrats' when they support a man who subverts his own electoral rules to maintain power? (by this, of course, I mean that he pushed through a constitution with term limits for the executive, and then pushed for a change in that rule to allow himself to be reelected) is that something 'democrats' should be supporting?

democracy is a process, not an end result.

[Bacchus39]

101. I often have the same question of Castro and Chavez supporters frankly

and what does support of either have to do with being a Democrat?

[mhatrw]

106. Once again, all of your arguments were used by Republicans against FDR.

Nobody is promoting left wing or right wing totalitarianism. All we are saying is to look at Chavez's terms as the democratically elected President of Venezuela with widespread and overwhelming popular support in the context of the undeniable history of US intervention in Latin America including BushCo very recently supporting a coup against Chavez himself.

I don't see the Pinochet comparison one whit. As for Peron, he was deposed in a military coup after just 9 years of rule (much like the one that almost got Chavez). While he wasn't perfect by any means, I don't understand why you think he's an example of a horrible dictator.

[northzax]

107. terrible or benevolent dictator is a point of opinion

of course. and where I come from, 'democrats' don't support dictators, NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE OR DO because that isn't democracy.

you really don't think Peron was undemocratic? how about the Campora farce elections of 1973?

[mhatrw]

119. What about it? How was this different from Poppy & Sons or Bill & Hill?

[northzax]

123. ahh, speaking of GOP arguements

I love the 'but Clinton did it" one. good times.

[mhatrw]

132. You didn't answer my question. How is what Peron did any different from

Poppy and Sons or Bill and Hill or the Adamses or even JFK/RFK?

[northzax]

138. you mean when he was ineligible to run

and had someone else run in his place, then change the law and immediately resign so that he could run again? that?

i don't understand why subverting democracy is ok because other people did it? first off, your JFK/RFK doesn't work, because JFK wasn't around to be influential in his brother's administration. Your Bush example doesn't work, because Senior is certainly not influential in his son's administration. Your Clinton one might be effective, we don't know yet (and it is one reason I do not want her to be elected)

[mhatrw]

140. Yes, Poppy has nothing to do with BushCo.

Are you sure you are on the right board?

[northzax]

143. are you sure you are?

have you been paying anything remotely resembling attention? remember when Bush sr didn't invade Iraq? remember when he didn't cut capital gains taxes? remember how even before the Iraq war Bush I people like Scrowcroft were saying 'this is not a good idea?'

look, I don't want to make Bush Sr out to be a particularly good President, but the man was not a messianic drunkard. He may have been wrong about things, but he was a realist, cognizent of the restrictions on power, and competant (for the most part) plus, he surrounded himself with much better people. he did not rule over the politicization of the civil service, the destruction of the Justice Department, or the decay of the US in the world. I would much rather have had Bush I in power from 2000-2004 than Bush II. I know people who worked for I, I know people who work for II, and the Is are much more reasonable people.

[mhatrw]

146. Yeah, right!

Now I get it. You buy whatever propaganda the AP serves up regardless.

[northzax]

150. ah, another good revolutionary point

whenever the news doesn't agree with you, blame the news.

come on, you have proven you can do better than that.

[mhatrw]

155. Is it OK if I just find it a bit gullible of someone to believe that the

ex-head of the CIA, the architect of Iran-Contra and arms for hostages and principal in the Carlyle Group has a bit more to do with his idiot son's Presidency than he and the US corporate press let on?

Remember that Rummy and Cheney lobbied for Poppy to replace William Colby as the head of the CIA all those years ago ...

[ProudDad]

181. You should really find out what the Bolivarian Revolution is about

You sound like an idiot otherwise...

[Judi Lynn]

109. It wasn't too long ago we had a visitor from the right-wing message board,

who outstayed his welcome, who fought tooth and toenail to claim Pinochet was a terrific President, and did a whole lot of good for Chile, taking Chile to previously undreamed heights of glory, and that the U.S. had absolutely nothing to do with his bloody coup and reign in Chile.

A great DU'er did a quick search on him and tracked him down to that place in no time at all. At the time he was the loudest, most obnoxious anti-Chavez poster around.

When pressed, he also had no information to bolster his right-wing charges, claims, insults, insinuations, and obvious lies.

[northzax]

125. but the process isn't important

as we are constantly told, only the end result. And so if we hold Pinochet to the Chavez standard (that he is pursuing change and the process isn't important, only the change) then Pinochet was, in fact, an effective president, and Chile has the best economy in Latin America to show for it.

See why process is more important than end results?

[Judi Lynn]

148. But you don't make sense, do you? Most of us know what Pinochet did. n/t

[northzax]

152. shouldn't matter

I am told on this thread that what is important is what Chavez is trying to do, not how he does it. works both ways, right? Sure, Pinochet was a murderous bastard, but then, Chile today is in better shape than any other South American country, so obviously it worked, right?

see the problem with putting too much power and trust in the hands of one person and only caring about results, not process?

[Andrushka]

182. Who was it above that was talking about

"strawman arguments"?

:eyes:

[ProudDad]

228. Instead of pulling your "facts" from the same dark place

that Limpballs and O'LieLy get theirs, why not find out what the Bolivarian Process actually is???

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9426

"When President Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1998, there were only 762 cooperatives in Venezuela. These cooperatives, as the rest of Venezuelan society, had survived the structural adjustment measures started by the presidency of Carlos Andres Perez in 1989. In the last two decades, Venezuelan GDP fell almost continuously, and inequality became extreme. An estimated 80 percent of the population lived in poverty and more than half of the employment was in the informal sector. The Venezuelan economy is also heavily dependent on oil revenue, with most of its GDP coming from oil exports. Much of the food is imported, well under FAO’s minimum food production levels for food self-sufficiency.

To deal with this social and economic situation, the Chavez administration has embraced a new development model, referred to as “endogenous development.” Its conceptualization draws heavily from Osvaldo Sunkel’s ideas in Development from within: toward a neostructuralist approach for Latin America (1993), which calls for an adaptation of import substitution policies where local development, adjusted to their specific conditions and employing local resources, equity and human development are prioritized. The official interpretation of endogenous development also emphasizes the importance of local, diversified and sustainable development, and the commitment to respect Venezuelans’ different cultures and identities. Most significantly, drawing from its commitment to include the historically-marginalized sectors of the Venezuelan society, the Chavez government also recognizes the need to “democratize” the economy, combat inequalities and encourage solidarity in order to pay the accumulated “social debt” to the popular sectors."

Bad Chavez -- :sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

166. No, Chavez non-fans are Democrats because...they're Americans who support the Democratic party

I'm having a lot of trouble finding posts here praising Pinochet, btw...

[devilgrrl]

88. Ooooh! The Associated Press said it - it must be TRUE!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

You know the AP says eating shit and drinking piss is good for you. You believe that too?

[Judi Lynn]

111. Yeah. Whatever they say about a leader the right-wing hates is true.

They are above politics at AP, aren't they? God love them.

[Bo]

133. I seem to remember one Alberto Fujimori, Pres.of Peru

Who also amended the constitution to allow more than one term and he won his 2nd term. Then, he wanted a 3rd term and the people simply said Fuck You. Now he is fighting extradition in Chile,lololololol.

[Judi Lynn]

151. Last week he claimed he just may be considering running for office in Japan!

It didn't take long until the Japanese government issued a statement that he wasn't eligible to run for office there.

Guess they are adverse to death squads.

[ohio2007]

157. "psychological warfare, media warfare, political warfare, economic warfare.""

That talk of his all leads to an internal struggle not far down the road.

I wonder when he will start to report "I have uncovered 'spies' in my own cabinet"

What will he do to spies in his own government ?

[Endangered Specie]

163. "Dressed in olive green fatigues and a red beret"... Suprised he didn't wear a

flight suit.

[roody]

165. Chavez really was a soldier, not just for dress up.

[ozone_man]

167. He's the real thing.

Unlike Bush. What a bafoon.

[ohio2007]

173. Chavez to head to Russia, Belarus, Iran, in latest bid to heckle US

Chavez has said he hopes to put the "finishing touches" on an agreement to purchase from Belarus an integrated air defense system with a 200-300-kilometer range (125-200 miles).

snip

Flush with petrodollars, Chavez said last week he might purchase some Russian submarines when he meets with Putin -- a deal observers said could chill the planned Putin-Bush summit.



snip
It is not yet known what Chavez plans to do in Iran, which is a charter member of Bush's "axis of evil" troika of alleged global trouble-makers that included North Korea and Iraq under the late Saddam Hussein.

Tehran in recent weeks has implemented a crackdown on its nationals deemed too close to the West.


snip
During Sunday's military parade, Chavez brandished a Russian-designed AK-47 assault rifle proclaiming: "If it weren't for Russia we'd be almost weaponless today.

"We must recognize the Russian government's bravery for not caving in to the pressures of the empire that intended to disarm us."



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070625144440.6s1g8r9r&show_article=1

[Matilda]

184. There's a lot of the showman in Chavez.

He does like to grandstand, and he has a very theatrical touch, often with his tongue in his cheek,
like his U.N. speech about Bush being the devil. It catches the imagination, keeps attention
focused on Venezuela, and lets the whole world know what he thinks the Bush cabal is up to. I don't
doubt that most of what he says is true - the US has a sorry record in South America, and Bush is
amongst the worst when it comes to throwing his weight around. But these days Venezuela is fighting
above its weight, and is a more formidable foe than Bush could ever have imagined.

And underneath the Chavez rhetoric is a very smart man, and one genuinely dedicated to lifting up
his own people. And if he should suffer a sudden accident, the whole world will point to Bush. I
don't think there's any way that the Chavez supporters would ever accept a US-nominated puppet in
his place; they're too well-informed now, and too aware of what's going on, thanks to Chavez. Bush
would do far better to accept the Bolivarian Revolution as a fact and just get on with business.

[sanskritwarrior]

186. So uh

Why is chavez purchasing an offensive weapons system that allows his military to project a threat envelope for SAM's 200-300km's into the Carribean? This effectively puts Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Grenada, and St Vincent and the Grenadines under an ADA umbrella they might not want to be under.......Make no mistake this is an offensive weapons system, Jane's classifies defensive ADA systems as ones that have a ranged of 5-50km's, anything over that is considered an offensive weapon........

I believe this is the weapon system mentioned, althougg the article does not give its nomenclature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-5_Gammon

Interesting things about this missle

* It can be fitted with a nuclear warhead
*It has a feature to use against AEW aircraft, i.e.....AWACS aircraft.
*This particular missle type shot down a Siberian airlines aircraft in 2001 due to missing its primary target and hitting the airliner instead.

I'm just unsure what an offensive weapons system like this is for...........especially for a guy now talking about the Fatherland and a war with the US............

[Nihil]

188. When do we get to the bit about having to pre-emptively attack?

> *It can be fitted with a nuclear warhead

OH NO! Not A NUCLEAR WARHEAD?!

Your next task is to show where Hugo is going to make a nuclear warhead ...

> *It has a feature to use against AEW aircraft, i.e.....AWACS aircraft.

Seems reasonable if it's spying in a sovereign country's airspace.

(What am I saying? The concept of "sovereign country" has been shown to
be a quaint anachronism with regard to the US administration hasn't it?)

> *This particular missle type shot down a Siberian airlines aircraft in
> 2001 due to missing its primary target and hitting the airliner instead.

Sounds like it could easily be confused with the type that shot down
a TWA aircraft in 1996 (flight 800) or even with the type that shot down
an Iran Air aircraft in 1988 (flight 655) if we're going on results ...
still I suppose that's ok as those were "our" missiles ...

(BTW, it was the latter event that produced the memorable quote from
George H.W. Bush: "I will never apologize for the United States of
America — I don’t care what the facts are". Sounds like he still has
a lot of followers.)

I still find it rich that someone is spreading shit about Chavez's
"offensive" missiles while Georgie the Younger is desperate to get
his own offensive missiles on Russia's border. Irony is not dead.

[High Plains]

189. I'm quaking in my boots at the Venezuelan threat.

I find it odd that the US always gets hysterical if anyone else buys a gun when our war machine dominates the planet.

[mhatrw]

217. OHMYGOD, his missiles will be able to go almost 300 km!!!

Is this supposed to be even more frightening than Hussein's model airplane "drones"?

[rinsd]

193. Mission Accomplished was bad but "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"is good?

[Judi Lynn]

194. How about "Give me liberty or give me death?" How is that wildly different?

Your attempt to rally people who know better than to believe something which is a rough translation proves the entire Venezuelan movement is stupid, is ill advised.

Look at the similar rallying cries, remarks, slogans from the country where you live currently. It's the honest thing to do.

[pschoeb]

195. You do know what the word Patriot actually means, don't you?

Patris is Latin, it means "Fatherland" so you can guess what a Patriot is, a "Fellow of the Fatherland". In Spanish one might use the word Patria, it means the same thing as Nation, Country, though these would be a less loaded definitions, though strangely Americans don't use the loaded definition of Patriot, I wonder why. So if an American said at a fourth of July celebration with some military present, say at West Point, "Patriots, Liberty or Death, we will overcome(better translation than triumph)" you would have a problem? June 24th, the day of this event is Venezuela's independence day celebrating a military victory, by Simon Bolivar over the Spanish. Chavez was at a military academy, which he graduated from, which was founded at the beginning of Venezuela's war for independence.

[rinsd]

196. I have no problem with the word Fatherland.

"So if an American said at a fourth of July celebration with some military present, say at West Point, "Patriots, Liberty or Death, we will overcome(better translation than triumph)""

If George Bush said so while warning of impending war I would have a problem with that.

Apparently overt militarism isn't an issue when is Saint Chavez.

[pschoeb]

198. Where did he say anything about impending real war.

Your taking the musing of this AP reporter as if fact. For example the AP reporter does state "saying that Washington is using psychological and economic warfare as part of an unconventional campaign aimed at derailing his government." but then the AP reporter claims(but doesn't quote) he is calling for guerrilla warfare, this seems like bullshit to me. One can't fight psychological and economic warfare with militarism, and I doubt he is really proposing this. He also supposedly speaks of the "resistance war" but this is to US imperial interests, one thing I'm sure of, is that he is concerned with keeping the Venezuelan military uncorrupted, as this has been an ongoing problem with moneyed interests buying out the military, just look at the last 170 years of Venezuelan history. He clearly states in this same article, that the US government, would prefer to subvert Venezuela without using any military means.

I'm quite sure the US government is doing everything it can to subvert the Venezuelan military, in the hopes of another coup attempt, if people think otherwise I think they are extremely naive. Why do you think we have non-stop stories on Chavez, but rarely anything on other Latin American countries. Chile has been dramatically increasing it's military spending since 2002, And Venezuela's crazy neighbor, Columbia has a very large military budget, plus money from the US for military spending, it would be foolish for Venezuela not to make some upgrades in their military, and definitely would be wise not to depend on US military supplies. Also, Chavez is increasing military pay at the lower ranks.

I don't see any overt "militarism", I see someone addressing an institution(the Venezuelan military) with a long history of being subverted by money and US interests, and trying to remind them of the principles of Simon Bolivar, in keeping colonial interests out of Venezuela.

I don't remember anywhere saying Chavez was a Saint or perfect or even good. I'm fairly interested in Latin American politics, so the reason I get on this post, strangely it seems DU rarely has any LBN on any other Latin American countries except Venezuela. Though I have to admit, I certainly find Chavez less militaristic than any NATO member country, which has pretty high minimum military standards, usually a absolute minimum of 2% gdp spending on military is required for aspiring countries with no advanced military and more is appreciated, Venezuela is at 1.2% which is actually lower than any year except for one in the last 15 years of Venezuelan spending.

[rinsd]

199. "I don't see any overt "militarism","

If you don't see a country's leader in full military regalia addressing uniformed troops with patriotic slogans draped about on that country's independence day as not being overt militarism that I am unsure of what to say next.

[pschoeb]

202. Patriotic slogans are the norm on independance days/ memorial day

addressing uniformed troops at a military academy founded to fight for independence from colonial powers is pretty typical, I'm guessing we can find many US Presidents addressing the military at West Point. Often wearing faux uniforms, like Bush, Clinton, Reagan or even Theodore Roosevelt for some military event. Chavez was wearing his Lieutenant Colonel uniform he earned in the military, and he was a graduate of the military academy where the proceedings were at, he didn't create some faux "commander and chief" outfit often used by American Presidents.

[rinsd]

203. Clinton & Esienhower in jackets is the best you got?

"Often wearing faux uniforms, like Bush, Clinton, Reagan or even Theodore Roosevelt for some military event. "

Bush? Yes.

But part of the reason for the stink during his flight suit jaunt was that sitting American Presidents do not wear military uniforms even when they had served. Not Washington, not Jackson, not Grant, Not Roosevelt, not Eisenhower, not Carter, not even Bush's father.

I don't have a problem with them wearing a simple jacket.

To me, the photo in the article below is much different.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/06/25/en_pol_art_chavez-decrees-30-pe_25A890213.shtml

You apprrently do not have a problem with it nor consider it militaristic so we will have to agree to disagree.

[pschoeb]

205. Actually Washington did,,and actually personally commanded troops against

the Whiskey protests, after declaring martial law, he was also known for wearing his sword sometimes while in the midst of Congress. James Madison wore one as well, though at least while commanding against an invading force. Theodore Roosevelt wore his uniform on several occasions as President, as probably did earlier Presidents, though obviously only on specific occasions. Sorry Bush's flight uniform is as much a uniform as Eisenhower's at the Korean DMZ, also a military style jacket with title "Commander and Chief" is a fricking uniform in every respect, and was worn by Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr. at minimum. Chavez isn't touting a general's uniform, like Washington did, merely his fairly low rank uniform, nor is he touting even a "Commander and Chief" uniform, the sash, by the way is worn by every Venezuelan President, as such sash's are worn by many countries Presidents and Prime Ministers. Personally, I would have no problem with someone who served, wearing their uniform say on Memorial day, even if they held office, but the US has it's own traditions, which don't necessarily mean those that don't follow them are fascists.

[rinsd]

211. In battle is quite a different thing than an independence day celebration

Wouldn't you say?

Though battle would be a stretch considering there wasn't any during the Whiskey rebellion.

I also like the slipping in of the martial law thing. You're quite skilled at this.

"James Madison wore one as well, though at least while commanding against an invading force.
Theodore Roosevelt wore his uniform on several occasions as President, as probably did earlier Presidents, though obviously only on specific occasions."

Do you have links for this? Or at least library references?

I have no problem with the sash, its the full on military uni and a jacket is a hell of alot different than one's full uniform.

[pschoeb]

213. Yeah, It would have been better if Washington wore his uniform on independence day

than what he did. Of course there wasn't any battle, that's why I called it the Whiskey protest, as it didn't amount to a rebellion in any way, certainly it wasn't even remotely close to the failed coup attempt of 2002 in Venezuela. Considering the circumstances, there was no need for Washington to be General, he could have safely let General Lee control the 13,000 troop army he called up just for this task, larger than the army he used during the revolution(talk about militaristic). Of course making every male over 18 in western Pennsylvania sign a loyalty oath or be imprisoned is certainly a cool thing to do while all dressed up as a General, toting along your Secretary of the Treasury as one of your officers as well. But your right, if Washington had instead worn his uniform in some July fourth celebration, while President, that would have been truly horrific for Democracy.

Do you think Eisenhower should have personally been Supreme Commander of all NATO forces and also been personally General in the Korean War while President, since he had been Supreme Commander of NATO forces right before he was President? I'm glad he didn't do that.

James Madison, personally commanded troops when the British attacked near Washington in 1814, but only briefly. As far as Theodore Roosevelt, when the dust-up happened about Bush's flight suit, someone researched the last President to wear their former military uniform while President, and it was Theodore Roosevelt.

Why do you have the problem with the pants, I can find a Clinton photo wearing a military hat and jacket while holding binoculars, he could be wearing military pants as well, though the picture doesn't go that far. now is it bad?

[pschoeb]

209. I'm waiting for the concern over Filipe Claderon, of Mexico

Since he has worn his five star general outfit, several times already, of course this rank is given to every Mexican President, and is no different than the title "Commander in Chief", and wearing a military jacket with said title. Considering he's right on the border and has much higher military spending than Venezuela and oil, had close and questionable elections, one would think we would hear more of this. But strangely this never makes American news or even DU. But since Calderon is a fan of privatization, "open" economies and buying weapons from the US, he is a supporter of American "Liberty" and is OK. Of course he wants to use the military to fight the drug war in Mexico, one would think many would be concerned this could escalate into Columbian style human rights abuse.

[rinsd]

220. You have a picture of this? Because I couldn't find one.

Or is this another attempt of distraction on the subject of Chavez's obvious overt militarism which is apparently ok with some because its Chavez.

[Judi Lynn]

221. That country is obligated to protect itself. It's not up to you to determine whether or not there's

a threat you perceive significant enough to acknowledge.

If you actually know what has been happening then you are attempting to misinform those readers who don't.

If you don't know what has been happening, it would be far better if you spent some of your valuable time getting in there and catching up on your homework, the way the rest of us must.

[pschoeb]

222. Here you go

This is one, though he's done this several times, often during a simulation of military work for drug enforcement.



read more here, the first two mention the wearing of the uniform, though notice the framing in Time is very different than for Chavez, I wonder why?
http://www.sipaz.org/informes/vol12no1/vol12no1e.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1597507,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
"Calderón donned an olive green army jacket and a five-star general's cap and was later photographed in a military Hummer." this was a different event than the other photo, but have unfortunately not been able to find it.

http://www.globalinfo.org/eng/reader.asp?ArticleId=49695

As I said, for some reason these stories are either not reported at all, or are minor, or they are not framed the way Chavez stories are.

It seems constantly asserting he is overtly militaristic seems your only form of argument left.

What's really sad is that no one seems to care that the OP AP story was so badly written(on purpose), as it didn't even let you know this was Independence Day event, which also celebrated the 186th anniversary of the Army, and a dedication of a Simon Bolivar bust at the oldest military academy in Venezuela, formed at the onset of independence, which Chavez was a graduate of. Not a single one of these was mentioned, even though from even the basest journalistic standards these are pertinent facts to the story, in fact most of the content is not about events on this day, but assertions by the journalist about what Chavez has supposedly done before.

Also the actual "Fatherland, Socialism or Death, we will overcome" in this story was supposedly on banners, yet as I stated in a post way up thread, there is no AP picture of such a banner even though there are many AP photos from this event. In that same post, I showed that possibly this AP reporter made a mistake, as a Spanish language story has one of the Generals saying these words at the event, but doesn't mention banners.

[rinsd]

223. So your excuse for Chavez is that Calderon and Bush did it too.

Not exactly lining him up with good comapny there.

[pschoeb]

224. Actually I never said Calderon wearing a uniform was bad

The rest of his actual policies might be, but since it is the traditional military rank of the Mexican President, I really don't care, though I certainly wish there was more reporting on his policies of using the military as police. I also don't care that Clinton did it either, or any other Presidents. You seem to be the one that thinks it would be bad for Washington if he had worn his uniform on independence day, but good that he did during the Whiskey protest, I'm fine with both, though I think his actual policies during the Whiskey protest were very poor. Because it's not actually wearing a uniform that makes one militaristic. I certainly find Chavez much less militaristic than Washington's actions during the Whiskey protest, and considering that Chavez actually had a military coup against him(and yet didn't imprison anyone), with some tangible evidence of American support, and later threats of assassinations by Republicans in the Media, plus a clear media propaganda effort to distort facts, as the OP AP story clearly shows, he definitely should be concerned about letting the military know that they serve a democratically elected President, and not the whims of oligarchs.

This whole discussion is so laughable though, considering the whole of US history, especially in the last fifty odd years, yet you seem only concerned with Bush. Do you consider the last 50 years as the US being overtly militaristic? if not, then I'm fairly certain no country could really qualify.

What policies of Chavez are overtly and egregiously militaristic?

[Judi Lynn]

226. So Calderón opted for the five star General's chapeau! Excellent choice!

Might as well.

Thank you so much for making a superb point. We see this again and again: right-wingers pointing to superficial aspects of a leftist's behavior or persona, and gumming the hell out of it to the point people question their sanity, while neatly sidestepping the truly important facts, almost all of the truth, and the complete big picture.

I've bookmarked your post for future reference, and it's a great one.

Thank you so much.

[Judi Lynn]

204. Other countries seem to be in error in not consulting your whim on how to conduct their business.

You're going to have your hands full instructing all the countries who would fall short of your high standards.

Apparently you're not willing to allow them to go follow their own customs, traditions, and beliefs. I'll bet they're glad that you, unlike the scum in the White House, don't control the most horrendous death machine in our world's history, to try to enforce your preferences for the entire world.

[PassingFair]

207. No, try this:

650,000 DEAD IRAQIS IS BAD

Leave Venezuela to the Venezuelans is GOOD.

[Judi Lynn]

212. Just found a fascinating little video, around 8 minutes long, on the coup attempt

in April, 2002.

I hope the serious DU'ers who read these threads will find it worth the trouble of examining:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5876899235792172930&q=Caracazo&total=47&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

I think it's the first time I've ever heard comments from the journalists with Katia, the public tv station which the opposition mayor in Venezuela took off the air during the coup.

Please give it a star, if you find it worthwhile.

[gorbal]

215. He has seen what we have done in the past

I hope we will no longer allow such conduct in our national affairs.

[MetaTrope]

216. Sounds like somebody told him about Haiti?

:hide:

[OldschoolDem]

225. I really don't understand why Chavez still thinks Bush will attack him

Seriously to do so we would have to begin mobilizing our reserves 6 months ago because our troops rotation in Iraq is utilizing our Active Army and Marine Corp Divisions. Our active carrier divisions are in the Middle East or the Mediterranean. Once Chavez's oil runs out (which is already in decline) so will his power and Venezuela will be a third world country. I personally believe hes doing it consolidate power much like President Bush after 9/11. The thing is though Venezuela was never attacked by the US directly.

[Judi Lynn]

227. Spend more time reading about the subject. You need to get some background.

It will make it easier to grasp the elements of a decent discussion.