Aggressive interventionism is the more liberal approach.
I backed up my argument ---
Yes I'm the liberal who started the traditionalists and social conservative usergroup on this forum.You are a liberal who knows less than **** about what must be done to secure peace and freedom.
Not an argument.Here is a hint: FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!!!
Not an argument.You cannot see the danger he poses ... so logically you would not have the sense to do what must be done. Few liberals do.
I think you're confused we are discussing Chavez.Terrorists with access to nuclear weapons IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
Not an argument.If you had any clue what was going on, you wouldn't be pulling the liberal cowardice maneuver.
You seem very confused now.The Taliban need to be stopped ... even if you're narrow view of the world prevents you from seeing why.
Not an argument and I don't take orders from you.Kindly get out of the way and let the educated people do what must be done.
You hopefully will not be free to endanger domestic liberty and external security with your liberal ideological crusades.You are free to go to your tree hug-a-thon.
Not an argument and I'm not an American and you're not British so you have no right to decide whether I'm a Patriot or not.One thing is certain ... you are NOT a patriot.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
Voting booths "secured" by the Venezuelan National Guard(Chavez), militia(Chavez) and red shirt wearing Chavez supporters is obviosuly not intimidation.
International Observers signed off on Mugabe last year.
Last edited by Triad; 05-16-09 at 09:53 PM.
Alright, I think I have time to deal with this thread. Sorry for kind of necro'ing old pages in this response. Here is my original post, for context.
Here is some proof of corruption charges filed against Chavez supporters:Khayembii CommuniqueTriad
The primary opposition leader had to flee the nation recently do to questionable charges from a Courts run by Chavez.<br>
Interpol seeks arrest of opposition leader: Venezuela - Yahoo! Canada News
I don't think it's that far out that this man was actually guilty of the charges of corruption leveled against him. To put it into context, there have been supporters of Chavez that have been charged with corruption as well. Corruption is a bipartisan affair in Venezuela, as is prosecution for it.However, in recent weeks a former Chavez government defence minister has been detained, and a former pro-Chavez governor and an opposition have had arrest warrants issued against them for failing to attend court hearings over corruption charges. In total, 11 former elected officials, opposition and Chavez supporters alike, have been summonsed to face trial.The National Assembly is by majority comprised of PSUV members; however, there are five other parties that hold members in the Assembly, as well as numerous members whose affiliations are undeclared and/or unknown. For the rest of this quote I think I'm just going to be lazy and ask you to support your claim.Khayembii CommuniqueTriad
Which part of Venezuelan political reality does Chavez's party not hold control of? Parliament? Police? Courts? Military? Executive? Which one? ...the answer is none. He controls all of them.
There are various opposition judges that are still presiding over numerous courts. Also, there are opposition members within the parliament as well, obviously. In terms of the police, I haven't seen any information to support the assertion that they are all pro-Chavez, or that the leadership is completely pro-Chavez. I'll get some sources for you later.I'm not really even that interested in pursuing this topic further. This argument has been completely debunked. If you're interested in finding out why then search my posts or just google it.Khayembii CommuniqueTriad
Who said they where inciting a revolt again?..Chavez. They are also not the only media that has been silenced or intimidated.
There is video footage from RCTV in the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised that shows the station's complicity in the coup against Chavez.How many?Know how many dictators have been elected to office multiple times and had those elections verified by international observers?Oh, so you're making a point that you can't even back up. Gotcha.Neither do I...Because they implement terror as a method of achieving their goals. However, I disdain the term "terrorist" so I pretty much see where you're coming from.I'm confused as to why the Taliban are even identified as "terrorists."So it went from having guns held to their head to having Chavez supporters standing outside. Oh, and it doesn't stop there!It not made up. Chavez supporters (usually in red t-shirts) stand outside voting areas and intimidate people. They break up anything Chavez declares as "illegal".So now we've gone from having a gun held to the voters' heads, to having "thugs" standing outside intimidating people, to having Chavez supporters stand outside to prevent opposition violence and act as a police force.Read the thread and you will find some. If you prefer Hugo Chavez himself-Mr Chavez has called on his red-shirted militants, whom he calls "socialist battalions", to keep a "vigilant presence" around polling stations to protect them from opposition violence. "Imperialism and its lackeys are desperate," he declared before a big closing rally. "They will resort to anything."Ah, so you must uncritically accept this then, too. Oh wait, you don't:Its notable to note that General Raul Baduel once Chavez's Secretary of Defense before he resigned. Calls Chavez a dictator who is using the outlets of democracy to destroy democracy.Congratulations, you've just completely demolished your own argument!I also enjoy how the OP believes every Bush official that has anything to say that he wants to hear.
To the main point, I think it's rather clear to most that this nationalization is primarily for political purposes. Controlling the oil in Venezuela means controlling the country's primary source of power. Let's not also forget that, "President Chavez has re-invigorated his nationalisation programme since his victory in a February referendum that removed limits on how many times he and others can stand for re-election." In essence, Chavez is setting himself up for constant reelection (although he hasn't been able to move into dictatorship status yet). In economic terms, this nationalization of oil is going to limit the diversification (which the poor in Venezuela need to sustain increases in the standard of living), and increased capital flight (why invest when there is such an uncertain investment climate). In the long-run, if Venezuela continues with these policies it will generally hurt the overall welfare of their citizenry.
Capital Flight To South Florida
On diversification...Venezuela has become even more dependent upon oil (under Chavez).Originally Posted by Business Week
The problems of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez | Socialism with cheap oil | The Economist
Originally Posted by The Economist
Last edited by SFLRN; 05-18-09 at 01:12 AM.
When certain people who hate the U.S. and threaten the peace and stability in the hemisphere and or possibly the world as Chavez and Ahmadinejad both do, I wonder how it is that they can fly half way around the world and there is never a mysterious plane crash in the middle of the ocean with only minor traces of wreckage found and sadly no survivors. Ostensibly it would be the result of some unfortunate catastrophic mechanical or structural failure. Hopefully it would be blamed on either a Chinese, Russian, or my last choice would be an Airbus built aircraft.
We could then volunteer to mount a sadly fruitless search followed by our sincere condolences on the misfortune of those on board, but sadly the wreckage has sunk to one of the deepest parts of the Atlantic, and any recovery efforts for parts would be pointless.
I simply do not undertsand why people who support Chavez general ideology are always so eager to deny or downplay everything they see him doing.
He's not an outright dictator..then neither was Mussolini.
What many on the "anti Chavez" front forget or conveniently forget, is that the previous governments in Venezuela were corrupt and run by big business and elitist families. Now this was all backed by the US, so I guess that is why they are "up in arms" over what is happening now.... but hey when you support a corrupt regime for decades, a regime that bought and paid for every election, barely used the oil revenues to effect the majority of the population, and instead made only the rich richer, then hey you will get a blow back at some point and that is what you got in Chavez.
So no, it is not a support of Chavez, but a realisation that it is business as usual in Venezuela and it is time for the other side for the first time in decades (if ever) to rule the country into a ditch. What one can only hope is that they dont drive the country into the ditch further, but one thing is for sure.. the alternative would have since they have been doing it for 40+ years.
He aint. He is no different than previous leaders of the country, with the exception that he is a supposed socialist. Personally I see him as a populist with nationalistic xenophobic elements. I also dont see much difference between him and Bush actually at the hight of Bush's popularity, other than Bush is a righty and Chavez uses left wing policies to keep power.. but I am guessing the would never be popular if he used right wing policies since they were the policies that oppressed the majority of the population for decades.He's not an outright dictator..then neither was Mussolini.