• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chavez now can reelect himself for life

Radical Ron said:
Chavez will not stop at this victory, you will see as time goes on that he will continue his socialist/communist leanings that could eventually usurp freedom in Venezuela. I don't think it's irresponsible to be cautious of events like these especially considering the proximity of Venezuela to the United States.
Click to expand...

Your not advocating caution, that would be a Conservative way of looking at the problem. You are advocating invading countries on the flimsiest of pretexts for ideological reasons which is a very liberal ideal.
 
Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life. Maybe War With Colombia???

Wessexman said:
So? They are not invading countries left, right and centre for ideological reasons.

Do you finally comprehend what I'm saying or am I going to have to explain it again?
Click to expand...

What? What's the difference?! You just admitted they are doing what we are doing. We aren't invading countries left and right, the last invasion was in 2003. Six years ago.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Your not advocating caution, that would be a Conservative way of looking at the problem. You are advocating invading countries on the flimsiest of pretexts for ideological reasons which is a very liberal ideal.
Click to expand...

How so? Please elaborate....
 
Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life. Maybe War With Colombia???

Radical Ron said:
What? What's the difference?! You just admitted they are doing what we are doing. We aren't invading countries left and right, the last invasion was in 2003. Six years ago.:2wave:
Click to expand...
I admitted no such thing. They are not invading nations for ideological reasons.

How liberal of you to think six years is a long time.:2wave:

How so? Please elaborate....
Click to expand...
Because humanitarian interventions based on ideological reasons like spreading democracy and bringing liberty are liberal in both the IR and regular sense. Conservative foreign policy is more realist in nature and based on national interest not such silly bollocks.
 
Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life. Maybe War With Colombia???

Wessexman said:
I admitted no such thing. They are not invading nations for ideological reasons.
Click to expand...

No but they are doing the same thing as the United States. Getting involved and trying to gather inteligence to assess future problems and events. That's what America's doing with Chavez. Did I ever say we were going to invade them because he won this election????

Wessexman said:
How liberal of you to think six years is a long time.:2wave:
Click to expand...

If you are trying to offend me by calling me a liberal it's working.....now I have to go talk to my shrink again. :roll:

Wessexman said:
Because humanitarian interventions based on ideological reasons like spreading democracy and bringing liberty are liberal in both the IR and regular sense. Conservative foreign policy is more realist in nature and based on national interest not such silly bollocks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps on your side of the pond. Here in America, it is very common for conservatives to push these agendas (i.e. Iraq) and it's pretty strange that such a smart guy like you would have forgotten something as monumental as.....I dunno, the Bush Administration.
 
Wessexman said:
Your not advocating caution, that would be a Conservative way of looking at the problem. You are advocating invading countries on the flimsiest of pretexts for ideological reasons which is a very liberal ideal.
Click to expand...

When did I say we needed to invade them? Only if he tries to fight us. All I said was choke him out and support his enemies. Big difference. If Venezuela posed a military threat to us I would absolutely support blowing the sh*t out of them. :)
 
Last edited:
Radical Ron said:
When did I say we needed to invade them? Only if he tries to fight us. All I said was choke him out and support his enemies. Big difference. If Venezuela posed a military threat to us I would absolutely support blowing the sh*t out of them. :)
Click to expand...
You support aggressive interventionist action for ideological reasons. My critique still stands.

No but they are doing the same thing as the United States. Getting involved and trying to gather inteligence to assess future problems and events.
Click to expand...
So? What are you talking about?
That's what America's doing with Chavez. Did I ever say we were going to invade them because he won this election????
Click to expand...
No you said we should take aggressive interventionist action based on ideological reasons.
Perhaps on your side of the pond. Here in America, it is very common for conservatives to push these agendas (i.e. Iraq) and it's pretty strange that such a smart guy like you would have forgotten something as monumental as.....I dunno, the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...
I know it is common but it is still not Conservative, it is liberal and an example of a large portion of so called Conservatives conforming to liberal ideological idiocy. My whole point is based on such action as the Iraq idiocy and reminding people that that had nothing to do with real Conservatism, in a meaningful, Burkean sense.
 
Wessexman said:
You support aggressive interventionist action for ideological reasons. My critique still stands.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to your opinion. I am not Hugo Chavez.

Wessexman said:
So? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

It just doesn't seem like what you said has any real relevance or pertainance to the topic. Just seems like you are on the attack, if you could give me an example of what you mean maybe it would make sense. But for now it honestly just seems like babble. In one breath you say China and Russia are not behaving this way, in the next you say they are and it doesn't matter. :confused:
please explain.....

Wessexman said:
No you said we should take aggressive interventionist action based on ideological reasons.
Click to expand...

Is national security an ideology? That's what confuses me.

Wessexman said:
I know it is common but it is still not Conservative, it is liberal and an example of a large portion of so called Conservatives conforming to liberal ideological idiocy. My whole point is based on such action as the Iraq idiocy and reminding people that that had nothing to do with real Conservatism, in a meaningful, Burkean sense.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Like I said I am not someone who can be pushed into a liberal or conservative label. I am not a partisan and only follow my own agenda.
 
Last edited:
Radical Ron said:
It just doesn't seem like what you said has any real relevance or pertainance to the topic. Just seems like you are on the attack, if you could give me an example of what you mean maybe it would make sense. But for now it honestly just seems like babble. In one breath you say China and Russia are not behaving this way, in the next you say they are and it doesn't matter. :confused:
please explain.....
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I have been quite clear. It is you who is making little sense and moving the goalposts. You have dropped your original more overt ideological stuff it seems and are now arguing from a different position.

Is national security an ideology? That's what confuses me.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? This is what I mean. Your original comments were based on your ideological differences with Chavez and your disapproval of what he does in his own country. Now you have switched to the slightly safer position of slightly stupidly pretending he is a threat to the US or something. Make up your mind and make a decent argument.


That's fine. Like I said I am not someone who can be pushed into a liberal or conservative label. I am not a partisan and only follow my own agenda.
Click to expand...
Good for you but you foreign policy is, or at least was before you seemed to switch positions, seemingly a liberal, ideological one. You sounded exactly like Vader and agreed with him, which wasn't a good sign. He think Chavez is going to the be the next Hitler and needs to be invaded now to stop tyranny in his country and surrounding areas.
 
Wessexman said:
What are you talking about? I have been quite clear. It is you who is making little sense and moving the goalposts. You have dropped your original more overt ideological stuff it seems and are now arguing from a different position.
Click to expand...

I don't want to take military action off of the table. Yes I disagree with Chavez's ideology. No that is not why I think military action should be taken off of the table. I feel he is a military threat to American interests.

Wessexman said:
What are you talking about? This is what I mean. Your original comments were based on your ideological differences with Chavez and your disapproval of what he does in his own country. Now you have switched to the slightly safer position of slightly stupidly pretending he is a threat to the US or something. Make up your mind and make a decent argument.
Click to expand...

If Chavez was a capitalist and a beacon of freedom in South America it would not change my opinion of him as a threat. He has made perfectly clear his hostilities to America and her allies in the region. His belief system (as much as I disagree with it) is not my motivation. It is the protection of American interests. I don't see how you could interpret that as a poor arguement. I don't think I've really flip-flopped. Sorry if you were confused.

Wessexman said:
Good for you but you foreign policy is, or at least was before you seemed to switch positions, seemingly a liberal, ideological one. You sounded exactly like Vader and agreed with him, which wasn't a good sign. He think Chavez is going to the be the next Hitler and needs to be invaded now to stop tyranny in his country and surrounding areas.
Click to expand...

Vader doesn't seem like a liberal to me. I don't think that Chavez is Hitler. I think he just wants control over other resources, and he supports rebellions our nations allies. (i.e. FARC)
 
Radical Ron said:
I don't want to take military action off of the table. Yes I disagree with Chavez's ideology. No that is not why I think military action should be taken off of the table. I feel he is a military threat to American interests.
Click to expand...
That is not ideological then, if that is your real position, it is just silly.



If Chavez was a capitalist and a beacon of freedom in South America it would not change my opinion of him as a threat. He has made perfectly clear his hostilities to America and her allies in the region. His belief system (as much as I disagree with it) is not my motivation. It is the protection of American interests. I don't see how you could interpret that as a poor arguement. I don't think I've really flip-flopped. Sorry if you were confused.
Click to expand...
He has made a few speeches, exactly how he properly threatens US interests I have no idea.

Vader doesn't seem like a liberal to me. I don't think that Chavez is Hitler. I think he just wants control over other resources, and he supports rebellions our nations allies. (i.e. FARC)
Click to expand...
Vader is liberal, in the sense of supporting liberal, humanitarian interventionist strategies to the core when it comes to foreign policies. He seems to have a list of places he'd love to see invaded for what are basically ideological reasons.
 
Wessexman said:
That is not ideological then, if that is your real position, it is just silly.
Click to expand...

At least we've come to the point that it not an ideology conflict! YAY!:cheers:

Wessexman said:
Vader is liberal, in the sense of supporting liberal, humanitarian interventionist strategies to the core when it comes to foreign policies. He seems to have a list of places he'd love to see invaded for what are basically ideological reasons.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that but I can't support it either. Are you in Austrailia?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
My argument is that you are blowing the situation out of proportion, the same way that those who cried "oppression" did when RCTV was denied their license renewal.
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised to see you supporting the 2nd coming of Adolf Hitler?
 
Vader said:
Why am I not surprised to see you supporting the 2nd coming of Adolf Hitler?
Click to expand...

He does seem to be following the same populism and state control agenda that Hitler did, but then again he is also a hardcore socialist. Nazism is a perfect example of Facism, which is different than Chavez's socialist dream world.
 
Vader said:
Why am I not surprised to see you supporting the 2nd coming of Adolf Hitler?
Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before. So far Chavez has not displayed himself as the next Hitler.

In the end of our last discussion on another thread related to this, I even agreed that if this passed, caution and a watchful eye are what is needed on Chavez.

But to say he is the next Hitler just because of this is premature and he has not done anything remotely the same so far as Hitler.

There are many leaders of countries that have no term limits, that doesn't make them all Hitlers.
 
TheNextEra said:
We've had this discussion before. So far Chavez has not displayed himself as the next Hitler.

In the end of our last discussion on another thread related to this, I even agreed that if this passed, caution and a watchful eye are what is needed on Chavez.

But to say he is the next Hitler just because of this is premature and he has not done anything remotely the same so far as Hitler.

There are many leaders of countries that have no term limits, that doesn't make them all Hitlers.
Click to expand...

I personally agree that he isn't the next Hitler but I think he is the next dangerous and possibly murderous despot.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I personally agree that he isn't the next Hitler but I think he is the next dangerous and possibly murderous despot.
Click to expand...

When you have a leader that has no term limits, of course that is possible. However, we haven't seen anything so far to suggest that is happening or will happen.

Always keep a watchful eye though and be cautious, that I have no problem with. I just think it is way to premature to say Chavez is the next dangerous or Hitlerish type leader yet.
 
TheNextEra said:
When you have a leader that has no term limits, of course that is possible. However, we haven't seen anything so far to suggest that is happening or will happen.

Always keep a watchful eye though and be cautious, that I have no problem with. I just think it is way to premature to say Chavez is the next dangerous or Hitlerish type leader yet.
Click to expand...

I think his control of the election and media at least hints at his future nastiness.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think his control of the election and media at least hints at his future nastiness.
Click to expand...

even if it's not him, he's made it possible for the next guy. that's the stupid part. they like chavez so they don't mind seeing him be president-for-life, but they aren't thinking at all long-term.
 
emdash said:
even if it's not him, he's made it possible for the next guy. that's the stupid part. they like chavez so they don't mind seeing him be president-for-life, but they aren't thinking at all long-term.
Click to expand...

Thats the folly of man.

Never looking at long term consequences of short term solutions.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think his control of the election and media at least hints at his future nastiness.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Until recently I argued his control of the media was a great wrong but I was shown he does not actually control the media and I have no evidence that he does. One station that still reports on cable lost its license but I think that was simply due to many, many regulation floutings including the support of an unsuccessful coup.

As for the removal of term limits I'd say most Western countries don't have them, Britain and Australia certainly don't, so that is hardly anything out of the ordinary.

Where he is in reality unsavoury is his centralisation and his seeming will to stay in power for decades. but hell you could have even said the same about Maggie Thatcher.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom