Cuban guy on CNN (Castro maybe?) speculated that he was in Hell when news first broke off his death. I lol'd at the unproportional hate Chavez got from western media. But the dude hurt rich folks & corporations' pockets so I'm not too surprised.
Firstly, I said this was my opinion so don't go too crazy. The United States funds many minority groups in many countries across the world to help foster democracy. So does the EU. If you look at what happened objectively, the minorities in these countries started an uprising that was backed by western democracies almost immediately. It took support(guns,money,technology) to maintain the momentum in these countries from the western intelligence agencies for most of these minorities to be "successful" in overthrowing their governments. None of the rebels have been successful though at organizing any government because they do not represent the majority in their respective countries. Many of the militia groups that have been given legitimacy by western governments were done so selectively. The United States was just ensuring that if there was going to be a change in leadership, it was going to have some influence, which it did.
It is possible that my memory is faulty, but I believe that by the time of the coup, he had pretty firmly established his anti-US outlook. Therefore, unless he had a tardis stashed somewhere that we don't know about, the coup could not have been the cause. Though I have to admit, a Dr. Who series where the doctor travels through time with Chavez, bringing Bolivarian Socialism to the Daliks and the Cybermen would be pretty damn cool. I know I'd tune into that. I guess you are trying to argue with... who? ...yourself? At no point did I say Chavez's reasons were either valid or invalid. For what I was saying, merit of his reasons is irrelevent. In fact, it is less than irrelevent - trying to choose sides gets in the way of understanding human behavior. Its like watching a National Geographic documentary on the Serengeti and deciding whether the impala or the cheetah are morally superior.
I found it pretty humorous. I'll never be in sadness over a self proclaimed enemy of the United States. If that's the case for you. Maybe you should get the address for terrorist that have sworn the U.S.A. to enemy status to send flowers... assuming you are American.
Support. In Egypt and Tunisia? I call BS. US has had friendly relations with the Egyptian and Tunisian autocrats, and I remember reading discussions on whether the US should recognize them. Consequently, I don't believe that the US provided guns, money, and technology to the demonstrators in Egypt or Tunisia. So, I guess you can prove otherwise. Libya and Syria, it has been expressly clear that the United States provided aim - but it is also expressly clear that those wars already began without US support. And if those demonstrators have gotten to the point where civil war has begun, it clearly was not something instigated by the United States. It couldn't be because in virtually every revolution ever, there's all sort of squabbling over what form of government will replace the oppressor when the oppressor is gone? France, Russia, the US, what will happen to Korea when North Korea finally collapses, 1848, China after Qing don't ring a bell? The only thing you've established is that modern secular liberal democrats are not the majority of people in the Middle East. But that is hardly a precondition to get people to unite overthrow an autocrat. That, after all, is my argument. It's one thing to say that the United States helped the rebels. It's another to suggest that the revolutions in the Middle East wouldn't have occurred without foreign support just because the majority weren't liberal democrats, and frankly from my perspective that is cultural arrogance.
Good post, Major. As I stated earlier I am a left wing social democrat and in an abstract setting, he was a bit too authoritarian to me to be ideal. I cut him slack wrt to that because he did help create a potential good size middle class by teaching more or less the majority to read, keeping them from having their brains stunted by childhood malnutrition etc. . For the fans of big oil and neo-liberal economics, I would point out that is wasting potential big time. I also cut him slack because he was opposed by an undemocratic oligarchy that was just as undemocratic if nt more so as his opponents accused Chavez of. They tried to seize the government by a coup. They aligned themselves with an outside power and rightist and were not as patirotic as Chavez. They conspired with the oil companies to sabotage the economy by a national oil strike once their armed coup failed. The entire oligarach owned press, made Fox actually look fair and balanced. Given the Patriot Act I am not sure the US presidency would do much better from a democratic perspective if under such attack. If you look around the world, and even the US where literally hundreds and perhaps a few thousand died in fights with corporate thug security to create unions and the large middle class you will see that Chavez by creating a movement of the dispossed to battle the 1% is going to enable Venezuela to eventually have a real middle class that is not tiny or just middle class because their income/wealth is somewhat in between the huge group of dispossed or the very tiny elite. Of course there are many battles to come for Venezuela to advance to first world status with a large middle class as the same oligarchs aided by international allies are ready to fight perhaps even to the death for their privilege. So far the death toll in creating the social revolution for an emerging middle class has been miniscule compared what has happened in many countries. Despite the lies Chavez won election after election democratically. Good job overall, Chavez.
This post is full of fail. The world is not divided into "evil oligarchs" and "good leftists". You are completely deluded.
That second quote is horribly inaccurate. He did redistribute the wealth largely to the poor. It's why the poverty rate went down so drastically during his tenure, and why there was a line longer than one mile to pay their respects to him.
He bought votes. He amassed incredible wealth for his own clan. He allied himself with some of the most evil dictators in the world, like the Iranian regime. Again, you are ignoring facts for ideological reasons.
I've long been critical of Chavez. The elections were observed by credible neutral observers and the elections were not changed as a result of anything underhanded. He dramatically lowered the poverty rate in his nation and gave the poor many more schools and chances at education. He has allied himself with some horrible dictators, tried to seize powers that weren't his in an effort solidify his position. Even your boy Assad was allied with Chavez. He had many faults, and also did a lot of good. IT's one of the reasons he's so beloved by so many in his country.
This morning on the radio, I heard someone talking about Venezuela's debt situation with respect to China. I was not familiar with this, but apparently, Chavez racked up a whple bunch of debt with China that have a chance, given the right situation, to become ruinous to the Venezuelian economy in the not-too-distant future. I don't know much about it, but a quick googling shows some corroboration. This sets up an ironic situation where in the medium to near term, Venezuela's economy goes in the toilet, and people associate the end of Chavez's rule with the end of the country's Golden Age. Just something to think about if Venezuela's economy takes a signoficant downturn in th er not too distant future.
