Dictator Chavez steals second Hilton hotel in Venezuela

Conquistador, what are your main problems with Chavez? Could you detail a bit more. You are pretty much the only one on the bbs commenting on Latin American whose opinion means much to me. The rest are just talking about abstractions and or reacting to the mainstream media that does not support Chavez or anyone who tends to mess with their corporate interests.

Sometimes I wish Chavez was a bit more like Lula, but after the US encouraged coup and constant attempts to defeat him electorally or spread propaganda , I think it is unrealistic to have expected Chavez not to be paranoid. After all the US has not encouraged a military coup against Lula.

As far as his speeches go, I find them somewhat irritating but, I think one of his main functions is to educate the majority who have finally been allowed to learn to read and take part in political life after years of the previous elite discouraging this --to the contentment of US leaders and elites.

My main problem with Chavez is I'm not sure he is training his successor and or creating enough of a movement to contend with the small monied right-wing elite will come roaring back with a vengeance determined to dominate again.

 

are you from FOX NEWS

Chavez is also a terrorist right. I mean he supports FARC, he has good relations with Iran... and of course most importantly Bill O'Reilly said he was so it must be true.

 

I haven't seen any real evidence of that.

 

The wealthy elite is desperate and know Americans are dumb enough to believe anything. Thumbs, did they tell you Chavez has wmd?

Well the Venezuelans I know are more nuanced. A husband and wife doctors. The wife comes from a really upper crust family and hates Chavez, but would never stoop so low as to spread that bs. The husband does not like Chavez either, but perhaps since he is more a middle class guy who worked his way up, and he, but not the wife, did more work with the poor in Venezuela, he told me privately that to a certain extent the wealthy got what they deserved because they neglected the majority so much.

 

I stand corrected.

But I still think that a democracy is defined not just by elected officials but also a strong bill of rights. I am not sure that is respected in Venezuela.

Nonetheless, he may not be a dictator.

 

Those pictures are of demonstrators and things that happened at the demonstrations to them, not exactly torture. I will say that I disagree with those kinds of attacks on demonstrators and protestors, but abuse(if that is what it was) and torture are two different things.

 

What has the mild mannered franchiseblade done now?

It seems that you are quite comfortable having countries with small elites controlling everything as long as there is no conflict or the oppressed act like middle class Germans or Americans in expressing their opposition..

Well I do think think that we have a world and a country that does not take into account the needs and concerns of the lower and middle class. Perhaps if I lived in Germany where there is more of a safety net I would feel differently. Working every day with folks suffering unnecessarily due to policies favoring the upper class has an effect also.

 

I'm no fan of Chavez but i agree those weren't pictures of torture. They were pictures of a heavy handed response to demonstrators but there have been much worse treatment of protestors in other parts of the World.

The most I would say from those is that Chavez's forces aren't necessarily nice but they certainly aren't the worst and that pales to what Saddam did to his opponents.

 

I agree. I hate brutal crackdowns on demonstrators.

That's kind of the whole point. Chavez has plenty of faults to lash out against. Why do we need to make up ones? His opponents seem to want to pigeon hole him into whatever their idea of authoritarian dictators should be. He "steals" elections, he tortures, he's oppressing the poor, etc.

I don't particularly like Chavez, because of the many valid criticisms of him. So there isn't a need to make up labels and attribute acts to him which he isn't really guilty of.

 

Thanks glynch! =)

Some of my concerns with chavez are that he is constantly making references to Fidel.
Many of his presentations start of with, "Today I spoke with my friend fidel and he told me..." Chavez sounds like ahmad rashad back when Michael Jordan was playing.
He makes no secret about seeking advice from fidel. It's worrisome behavior. Maybe he is counting on not needing a successor?
Chavez also likes drawing unnecessary attention to himself, which results in ammunition for the opposition to be used on all leftists in the continent. For example, does he really need to wear that comandante hat when delivering a speech?

Chavez has also spent a lot of money on National defense. It's money that could be used on more housing projects. There is no need to overreact to Colombian threats. Colombia couldn't even handle a druglord.


On a side note, Props to thumbs with the Chavez school of torture. It was a funny line, kind of like THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS. The only problem is that the SOA does exist, under a different name now but all human rights violations are still intact.

 

You're skipping your meds again?

 

With this trite banality, you have once again proved your intellectual standing, which, sadly, has not improved since you were consistently remanded to a corner in grade school. If only you could attempt a modicum of originality ... if only ....

 

I agree Chavez draws unnessary attention to himself. I wish he would get smoother.

I'm not so sure about Columbia being harmless when backed up by the US military "advisors". Obama may not start an invasion, but things are probably in place for the next conservative president if that is what they want. Although based on history there would probably be some sort of staged provocation to justify it. I have a brother in law a native of Panama who spent 20 years in the US special forces mostly in Latin America, I suspect he would think that the "advisors" could be trouble for Chavez.

I'm also not sure about how much Chavez is spending on defense. He is certainly also spending much more on such projects for the poor than other Venezuelan presidents or what the US dominated IMF and World Bank typically like.

I'm not the biggest fan of Castro, but I could see Chavez consulting Castro as to how to avoid being overthrown by the US. I would also like to see him distance himself more from Castro.

Overall bottom line for me Chavez has been much better for the average Venezuelan and so I support him over the previous governments.

 

Guys, I'm late to this discussion, and i'm no expert, but allow me to throw in 2 cents.

Let's get back to this topic of media suppression, and let's not assume that free press = neutral press. IMO Let's not dismiss Chavez's paranoia against US and Columbian forces, judging by what has happened everywhere else. The fact is USA openly plot against him, because USA would love to install puppet govt to extract oil from his "homeland". If the whole western press is so up against him, isnt it obvious that such "alleged threat" is actually a menace to his position?

As for free press, political opposition, isn't it obvious that the power of US money, CIA, and media empire have constant interest to slander or assist in slandering Chavez in order to disrupt the country's political stability and hopefully displace Chavez with puppets or someone who comply with the USA 'empire'? (for example, Saudi works with USA, no problem there. Iran nor Iraq would give-in, hence they get military action from USA.)

As have noted by others, USA is really good at drumming up a few 'selling points' such as freedom, freedom of press, democracy, dictator, oppress of poor etc.... Some of you who dislike Chavez can agree that it is unnecessary to make up false assertions. While the Western press is penchant to make false accusations, what makes you think that local oppositions make fair and legitimate political debate against Chavez without a hand-in by the big powers abroad who specializes in false accusations?

Recall the tibet issues, the Western press blatantly use false images and make up false accusations against the China crackdown, with very obvious proofs, what do we hear from people? the same free-tibet choirs. China is big, relatively self-sustained and powerful. But what can smaller countries of less resources do in the light of powerful Western psy-op attacks? I suppose that is why Chavez constantly looks up and refers to Castro.

Now i'm not saying one is evil while another is not, but that is exactly the tactic USA had been doing since the beginning of 'free press'... US govt is just doing what's best for our country in all our wars and foreign political efforts (except excessive support to Israel). The bottomline is Hugo is selling oil to other countries but USA want to have some control over it, hence the mess! (same for middle east)

 

Chavez crushes the opposition media. It is the fault of "the free press" and the United States. Are you kidding?

"If the whole western press is so up against him, isnt it obvious that such "alleged threat" is actually a menace to his position?"

This argument is so nonsensical. So if "the whole western press" is against him, which is not true, that justifies crushing the opposition media?

"Let's get back to this topic of media suppression, and let's not assume that free press = neutral press."

Obviously, you have no concept of "free press." No one has ever said it is supposed to be neutral. In fact, the US constitution is written to insure that the press can say what they want, without fear that some clown will put them out of business for doing so. It's part of that democracy you may have heard about.

"IMO Let's not dismiss Chavez's paranoia against US and Columbian forces, judging by what has happened everywhere else."

So you are unaware that Chavez moved troops and tanks to the Columbian border, for reasons that were ludicrous, just prior to an election because of "paranoia?" Making a trumpeted military move just before an election couldn't have been connected to getting votes, could it. It simply has to be due to a real threat at the border, according to you. So why don't you provide links showing that Columbia had mobilized it's armed forces and directly threatened Venezuela. I look forward to it.

"As for free press, political opposition, isn't it obvious that the power of US money, CIA, and media empire have constant interest to slander or assist in slandering Chavez in order to disrupt the country's political stability and hopefully displace Chavez with puppets or someone who comply with the USA 'empire'? (for example, Saudi works with USA, no problem there. Iran nor Iraq would give-in, hence they get military action from USA.)"

So the opposition in Venezuela is a construct of the United States, not anything that actually exists? And now we've attacked Iran? Iran? Has that happened recently? Can you show us why Iran is germane to this discussion and how we "attacked" them?

"As have noted by others, USA is really good at drumming up a few 'selling points' such as freedom, freedom of press, democracy, dictator, oppress of poor etc.... Some of you who dislike Chavez can agree that it is unnecessary to make up false assertions. While the Western press is penchant to make false accusations, what makes you think that local oppositions make fair and legitimate political debate against Chavez without a hand-in by the big powers abroad who specializes in false accusations?"

So is your problem really with the Western press? Seriously? Why... because they are "free?"

"Recall the tibet issues, the Western press blatantly use false images and make up false accusations against the China crackdown, with very obvious proofs, what do we hear from people? the same free-tibet choirs. China is big, relatively self-sustained and powerful. But what can smaller countries of less resources do in the light of powerful Western psy-op attacks? I suppose that is why Chavez constantly looks up and refers to Castro."

Ah, now I understand where you are coming from. Thank you for that, because I was wondering how you were going to "tie this all together." It all goes back to China and Tibet. Why didn't you say so from the beginning? Sure, that makes perfect sense.

"Now i'm not saying one is evil while another is not, but that is exactly the tactic USA had been doing since the beginning of 'free press'..."

Sure. Put free press in quotes. It is perfectly obvious that the entire concept of a free press scares the living hell out of you.

 

How come there's no videos of CNN/FOX/MSNBC/Obama passing judgement on the ruthless dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak?