Votes Defeat Chavez

[PanzerJaeger]

I think that for irony's sake it has to be said: people actually believe that Chavez is "El Diablo"... But yeah it's funny, what is not funny are rvg comments, rvg you better explain yourself to me and the latinamerican people, take it as a diplomatic meeting if you will, I'll not report you to the mods because it's not my style (though I suppose some moderator already read your words), but I want to hear an apology for what you just said, private message me if you want but I'll prefer it to be public...First days on the Backroom and already making so much enemies .

He doesn't have to apologize for his views and neither do you.

[Soulforged]

Come on Soul , it doesn't require an explanation , just read the posts .
Between this and the Sharia topic the explanation is obvious .

Yeah, and he didn't answer, probably is just another troll...

He doesn't have to apologize for his views and neither do you.

If his views are racist he has a lot to apolagize, but I won't expect him to do so, and I won't bring this thread to a close, lets just forget about it and take it as a joke as everyone else...

[ICantSpellDawg]

A land claim is not "racist". It may be insensitive, but it had nothing to do with racism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

rvg you better explain yourself to me

Send him to us...

While visiting Paris in May, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger received a summons to appear at the French Palace of Justice to answer questions about murders and disappearances in Chile in the 1970s.

The French wanted to ask Kissinger what he knew about Operation Condor, a consortium of Latin American governments that assassinated dissidents in each other’s countries. Evidence that the U.S. government supported Operation Condor has been available for years (The Nation, 8/9-16/99; New York Times, 3/6/01).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The French magistrate who summoned Kissinger was particularly interested in what light he might shed on the disappearances of five French nationals who disappeared in Chile during or shortly after the country’s 1973 coup, which Kissinger was instrumental in instigating. But the French courts would learn nothing from Kissinger, who left town the day after being summoned without answering any questions (Agence France Press, 5/29/01; Daily Telegraph, 5/31/01).

After the episode in France, Kissinger did a lengthy, one-on-one interview with PBS's Charlie Rose (6/20/01). Kissinger also appeared alone with CNN's Wolf Blitzer (6/21/01) and Fox News Channel's Paula Zahn (6/13/01). None of the interviews even mentioned the French attempt to question Kissinger about human rights abuses. Nor did any of the journalists bring up the question of whether Kissinger could himself be indicted on war crimes charges for his role in the Vietnam War and other atrocities, as journalist Christopher Hitchens argued in a two-part Harper's Magazine article (2/01, 3/01).

Linky

* quickly leaves thread before Banquo digs up yet another pesky story about France's dirty wars to protect her African sphere of influence... *

[rvg]

I think that for irony's sake it has to be said: people actually believe that Chavez is "El Diablo"... But yeah it's funny, what is not funny are rvg comments, rvg you better explain yourself to me and the latinamerican people, take it as a diplomatic meeting if you will, I'll not report you to the mods because it's not my style (though I suppose some moderator already read your words), but I want to hear an apology for what you just said, private message me if you want but I'll prefer it to be public...First days on the Backroom and already making so much enemies .

Apology? Never. I stand by my comments.

[Tribesman]

I stand by my comments.

Good

A land claim is not "racist". It may be insensitive, but it had nothing to do with racism.

Correct Tuff , though the comment did convey a sort of Waspish attitude it doesn't really comedown to racism as such since the US by its nature and heritage doesn't relly have one race , its a collection of many different races .
So a comment like......

The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that.

...is more of a national supremacist one .

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7135396.stm

Evo Morales just succeeded in something rather similar. For some reason I don't hate him yet, probably because I don't know as much. His policies are so close to Chavez, but the rhetoric isn't and he seems rather sincere.

He seems to be mostly peaceful, while Chavez is violent and dangerous. I think we should support some of his work and view the rest as shortsighted.

I believe that a more harsh tone is necessary with Chavez.

[Soulforged]

Apology? Never. I stand by my comments.

I see. Don't expect any leniency from me on the future then, you haven't even explained if what you said was a joke.

Peace.

A land claim is not "racist". It may be insensitive, but it had nothing to do with racism.

When he said that we where their backyard I took it as a little racist, but even if they weren't......"is more of a national supremacist one " as Tribes put it, still deserves at least an explanation. We're here for peaceful and rational discussion, I cannot take those comments, if they're not made as a joke, as any other thing than an offense. Sorry.

On the topic: What happened is as much a victory for the people of Venezuela, because they confirm their democratic spirit (nothing more than that), but also to Chavez because for so much talk about a possible fraud and how he rules everything as a dictator he took it calmly and accepted it like a man.

[Tribesman]

Evo Morales just succeeded in something rather similar.

Not quite , Chavez got through that step as well , it still has to go to the electorate to pass .
If he does is another matter entirely since he managed to upset lots of his supporters who see him as making too many major concessions to the old order , plus his nationalisation of mining screwed a lot of people over in that when he took on the foriegn owned interests to keep more of the wealth in the country he also screwed the local tribal co-ops .

[Papewaio]

I wanted a yes vote because it would have institutionalised his reforms and made it that much harder for the US and their puppet opposition in Venezuela to try and unwrap all the good Chavez has done, continues to do and will do in the future.

People should be above institutions. And one of the checks and balances against the power that corrupts is to boot out anyone to popular. It worked for the Athenians and it works for the USA with a limit on terms for the President.

If you have unlimited terms then you should have the power of that office highly limited. A head of state with lots of power should have a more highly limited time line.

Have to look at the long term. Maybe Chavez is great and gods gift to the poor. But what happened if the limit on terms was gone and then he died suddenly? Would you be happy to see the opposition having their President sitting in power for 20 years?

[Myrddraal]

rvg, perhaps we could abstract this and ask, what 'right' does the US have interferring in other sovereign states' affairs?

Of course, it's benficial to the US. Isn't that short sighted and selfish? National supremacist perhaps?

Don't they say: The rights of one man end where the rights of the next man begin. Your right to national freedom and independence is equivalent to saying you have no right to compromise the national freedom of other countries. Whatever the justification you have for you ideas, what would you think if it was another country doing it to the US?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's funny, JAG, how you complain about this vote. Now, if you care about the people of Venezuela and not just Chavez, you'd support what the people want. But I think we can see that you care more for Chavez, than the people socialists claim to support.

CR

[cegorach]

BTW You have to admitt that Chavez will enter history books soon - after all he is the first world's leader who makes extensive use of time travel...

[Odin]

Just how did you get the impression that I insulted you is beyond me.

And no, I don't "do" ignore lists. They feel petty to me.

I'm not insulted. I enjoy bile filled rants personally. You know the kind, the ones that really dont say much but attack a broad point of view?

Give you an example, someone posts in a thread a particular point of view or comparative. someone else comes along and says something like.

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
I just don't particularly enjoy the quasi-deification some give to the "Founding Fathers" and their viewpoints, as well as the Constitution of the United States...

Of course me being the one posting several quotes from founding fathers that would mostly like mean you "dont particularly enjoy" my point of view.

Please, do the ignore mate, your already petty.

[Odin]

????

What's with the 6th grader hostility?

Why did you read it as hostile? Are you in the 4th grade?

Poster says he dosent like to read about founding fathers or constitution or whatever the hell he was talking about and I gave him an option where he didnt have to read it.

Hows that 6th grade? I'll extend it to you genius. If you find something I post juvenile or not to your liking please take responsibility for your choice to do so and either ignore it move.

Or, and here is a novel concept: You could ask the intent rather then assume its hostility, which is very 4th gradish of you.

[KukriKhan]

Take it to email, gentlemen (or PM). This publicly-viewed thread is about Mr. Chavez - kindly return to topic.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't they say: The rights of one man end where the rights of the next man begin. Your right to national freedom and independence is equivalent to saying you have no right to compromise the national freedom of other countries. Whatever the justification you have for you ideas, what would you think if it was another country doing it to the US?

"They" do say that, but it really isn't the only saying going around. Some people don't subscribe to that idea at all. Do unto others isn't an official law and most people don't abide by the theory, either, particularly outside of a national legal system.

If we had gone by that rule historically, we wouldn't have colonized or expanded the nation.


I'm not advocating this, Im just pointing out that "do unto others" has as less to do with human history (including modern) than "do what needs to be done for personal aggrandizement"; Not in theory, but in practicality. Most of our laws were made with both in mind.

[rvg]

rvg, perhaps we could abstract this and ask, what 'right' does the US have interferring in other sovereign states' affairs?

Of course, it's benficial to the US. Isn't that short sighted and selfish? National supremacist perhaps?

Don't they say: The rights of one man end where the rights of the next man begin. Your right to national freedom and independence is equivalent to saying you have no right to compromise the national freedom of other countries. Whatever the justification you have for you ideas, what would you think if it was another country doing it to the US?

None. In international politics nobody has 'rights' to anything. I was merely describing the de-facto situation on the ground (the U.S. being the leader of the New World) and expressed my desire to maintain the status quo. In general, most countries in the New World have the same friends and enemies as we do and adhere (or try to adhere, or say they try to adhere) to the same democratic model as we do. When occasionally someone does something stupid, like what happened in Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc. we merely remind them that it is a bad idea. Cuba was the only one who managed to get away, and only because any tough measures would have ended with a nuclear war with the Soviets. Once the Castro brothers die, things in Cuba will return to normal.

Is this our 'right'? Not in any official sense. Still, just like China and Russia exert their spheres of influence, we exert ours.

[Tribesman]

When occasionally someone does something stupid, like what happened in Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc. we merely remind them that it is a bad idea.

What a nice reminder , giving people torturing dictators and death squads just to let them know you care .

[Soulforged]

Is this our 'right'? Not in any official sense. Still, just like China and Russia exert their spheres of influence, we exert ours.

I love you rvg, you're my new hero. Lots of kisses!!!

Would you go out with me?

[Ice]

Yes we are aware it isnt what its cracked up to be, thankfully we have lots of people around the world who make claims that the U.S. is the cause of instability, strife and general havoc.

Your a god sent to isolationist like me, please keep up the good work.

I'm with you Odin.

I wish we didn't have such an international influence. Being out of the spot light would be nice once and a while.

What I honestly think we should do, is just stop intervening everywhere. So then when people moan and complain about why the US isn't doing anything, we can just give them the big middle finger.

It would also prevent a number of atrocities this country is so infamous for, even though people seem to forget the good also.

Maybe then everyone would stop complaining about how "this and that" is the fault of the US, not our half ass leadership.

[Xiahou]

Hugo Chávez tried to overturn the results of Venezuela's recent vote but was rebuffed by the military.
Believe it, or not.

[Brenus]

I was waiting for this... Of course...
Bad bad Chavez...
"Hi Chavez, how boys did you kill today..."

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Doesn't sound much reliable to me... Not that I wouldn't expect such a thing from the Fidel fanboy. But everything seems to fit in a bit too perfectly.
.

[HoreTore]

It's funny, JAG, how you complain about this vote. Now, if you care about the people of Venezuela and not just Chavez, you'd support what the people want. But I think we can see that you care more for Chavez, than the people socialists claim to support.

So.... Whenever guns are banned by popular control, you fully support that?

[ICantSpellDawg]

.
Doesn't sound much reliable to me... Not that I wouldn't expect such a thing from the Fidel fanboy. But everything seems to fit in a bit too perfectly.
.

Yes it does, doesn't it?

[Ice]

So.... Whenever guns are banned by popular control, you fully support that?

If that's how the Venezuela constitution is set up, sure.

Here? Absolutely not.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So.... Whenever guns are banned by popular control, you fully support that?

No...but my quote really didn't have much to do with that.

Hugo Chávez tried to overturn the results of Venezuela's recent vote but was rebuffed by the military.

That would explain how he conceded quickly on such a 'narrow' defeat - I wonder what the real margin was.

CR

[Odin]

What I honestly think we should do, is just stop intervening everywhere. So then when people moan and complain about why the US isn't doing anything, we can just give them the big middle finger.

Yes. In the case of Chavez and the democracy in Venezula I dont care how they run it as long as they continue to provide oil to the world markets, live and let live.

It would also prevent a number of atrocities this country is so infamous for, even though people seem to forget the good also.

It would also prevent money pits like the war on drugs. How many regimes did we prop up down there with that ideology?

Maybe then everyone would stop complaining about how "this and that" is the fault of the US, not our half ass leadership.

the complaints dont bother me much anymore, I didnt remember hearing a lot of slaps on the back after the tsunami, or the quakes in Pakistan but hey hypocrisy is a natural human condition. Self recognition of that trait is saintly.

I prefer a complete monetary withdraw from the international system for awhile, at least until we can update our own republic (air traffic control, modernization of transport systems, a new power grid).

Maybe chavez and his oil money can lead the way internationally? Odd no one has chimmed in on that isnt it? Of course here in MA we have oil shippments reduced 40% for the poor from venezula, what a nice guy huh?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes. In the case of Chavez and the democracy in Venezula I dont care how they run it as long as they continue to provide oil to the world markets, live and let live.




It would also prevent money pits like the war on drugs. How many regimes did we prop up down there with that ideology?



the complaints dont bother me much anymore, I didnt remember hearing a lot of slaps on the back after the tsunami, or the quakes in Pakistan but hey hypocrisy is a natural human condition. Self recognition of that trait is saintly.

I prefer a complete monetary withdraw from the international system for awhile, at least until we can update our own republic (air traffic control, modernization of transport systems, a new power grid).

Maybe chavez and his oil money can lead the way internationally? Odd no one has chimmed in on that isnt it? Of course here in MA we have oil shippments reduced 40% for the poor from venezula, what a nice guy huh?

Our international forays are the main reason that we are so advanced and safe. I would love to go back to a simpler time, but I feel that the second we withdraw from the world stage, we will be in a downward spiral - defensively and in every other way.

I do love the idea though. You should vote for Ron Paul.