The worlds newest dictator

[robin]

I have to agree that Chavez is not yet a "brutal dictator" because he hasn't massacred anyone (although he has paid FARC to do so). He is, however, definitely a dictator and will most likely become a brutal dictator if left unchecked. He has virtually eliminated freedom of the press, is working hard to eliminate freedom of speech, punishes his political opponents with trumped-up criminal charges, overtly supports some of the worst authoritarian regimes in the world, and has ensured that his country will be impoverished for decades.

He's about on par with Vladimir Putin, I'd say.

Kandahar
So things are looking up for you on the Chavez front. He may become a brutal dictator. That'll save the CIA having to install a brutal dictator of their own then.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
Lets consider just one of the US backed dictators.....
"13 GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET
President of Chile
On July 2, 1986, 18 year old Carmen Gloria Quintana was walking through a Santiago slum when she and photographer Rodrigo Rojas were confronted by government security forces. According to eyewitnesses, the two were set ablaze by soldiers and beaten while they burned. Their bodies were then wrapped in blankets and dumped in a ditch miles away. Witnesses who spoke out about what they saw were beaten and arrested. Such events are not unusual since "Captain General" Augusto Pinochet seized power from democratically elected President Salvador Allende in 1973, and buried Chile's 150 year old democracy. "Democracy is the breeding ground of communism," says Pinochet.
The bloody coup, in which Allende was assassinated, was carefully managed by the CIA and ITT, according to the Church Committee report. Tens of thousands of Chileans have been tortured, killed, and exiled since then, according to Amnesty Intemational. A U.S. congressional delegation was told by inmates at San Miguel Prison that they had been tortured by "the application of electric shock, simultaneous blows to the ears, cigarette burns, and simulated executions by firing squads." Despite Chile's bad human rights record, the U.S. government continued to support Pinochet with international loans. Even the state-sponsored car-bomb assassination of Chile's former Ambassador to the U.S., Orlando Letelier, did not convince the U.S. to break with Pinochet. Chileans called for his removal in a 1988 election, but he clung to the presidency until 1990, and remains the commander of Chile's army."

 

[MSgt]

I am not nuts about Chavez but how about some links to the comments you have made in you last paragraph. I just don't believe all that you say.

How come you people are always asking for links? Do your own studying, instead of dismissing things because you weren't provided with Internet "proof." I guess I'm a liar. I'm secretly trying to propel myself as the new leader of Venezuela by spreading untruthful propaganda. Or I'm simply just trying to help the Venezuelen people, because I care soooo much.:roll:

Go to Google and type in "Is Chavez a Dictator?" I did it a couple weeks ago plus he is on the global intel reports all of the time. You will get more than enough links to read that say a whole hell of a lot more things than what I've said. These links will vary from local opinions to official opinions to facts surrounding the opinions. Then weigh all of these opinions and the credibility of them with the facts involved against what you should know from what history has taught you. This is how I keep myself aware of the global hot spots before a politician deems it necessary to reveal them to the public and before some reporter passes off his personal opinions mixed in with the "news", which, by the way, are usually based on nothing.

One our biggest problems in this world is that we lack the ability to identify a problem before it grows, because we insist upon "proof" first - no matter if that "proof" must involve mass death first. History is full of dictators. Put them all together and you will find similar beginnings and similar tactics while in power. Chavez is an obvious future dictator.

 

[dragonslayer]

This is indeed disturbing news, it would appear that the ball has been set in motion for the worlds next brutal dictator.

"CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Lawmakers loyal to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday they had won all 167 seats in the National Assembly, after only about one-fourth of eligible voters participated in an election boycotted by the opposition

Electoral authorities were to present the final tally later on Monday, but Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement party said it had secured 114 out of 167 National Assembly seats and that preliminary figures showed its allies had won the rest of the legislature.

Lawmakers backing Chavez say they want to amend the constitution to scrap the two-term limit on presidential reelection and introduce other reforms opponents worry will increase the left-wing former paratrooper's grip on power"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205...asQr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Sounds familiiar doesn't it , Dubya sets a good example.

 

[MSgt]

Kandahar
So things are looking up for you on the Chavez front. He may become a brutal dictator. That'll save the CIA having to install a brutal dictator of their own then.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
Lets consider just one of the US backed dictators.....
"13 GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET
President of Chile
On July 2, 1986, 18 year old Carmen Gloria Quintana was walking through a Santiago slum when she and photographer Rodrigo Rojas were confronted by government security forces. According to eyewitnesses, the two were set ablaze by soldiers and beaten while they burned. Their bodies were then wrapped in blankets and dumped in a ditch miles away. Witnesses who spoke out about what they saw were beaten and arrested. Such events are not unusual since "Captain General" Augusto Pinochet seized power from democratically elected President Salvador Allende in 1973, and buried Chile's 150 year old democracy. "Democracy is the breeding ground of communism," says Pinochet.
The bloody coup, in which Allende was assassinated, was carefully managed by the CIA and ITT, according to the Church Committee report. Tens of thousands of Chileans have been tortured, killed, and exiled since then, according to Amnesty Intemational. A U.S. congressional delegation was told by inmates at San Miguel Prison that they had been tortured by "the application of electric shock, simultaneous blows to the ears, cigarette burns, and simulated executions by firing squads." Despite Chile's bad human rights record, the U.S. government continued to support Pinochet with international loans. Even the state-sponsored car-bomb assassination of Chile's former Ambassador to the U.S., Orlando Letelier, did not convince the U.S. to break with Pinochet. Chileans called for his removal in a 1988 election, but he clung to the presidency until 1990, and remains the commander of Chile's army."

Same old garbage.

1) What does this situation have to do with another?

2) Why did the CIA help this along?

-and-

3) When did the CIA or American government encourage his treatment of his people or back any of it? We conducted business with the USSR despite their treatment of Eastern Europe. Did we "back" them?

Rediculous. If we attack..we're evil and have no right attacking a "soveriegn" nation. If we do business through diplomatic ties, we "back" their tyranny. You would be part of that global left I talked about in post# 21. The only other option is to ignore them and that's just as bad.

 

[Deegan]

Sounds familiiar doesn't it , Dubya sets a good example.

Errr.......no, I had not heard Bush was trying to change the law on term limits.

Anyway, this situation is only getting worse, now a representative from Maryland, is considering talking oil from this man. In return, I assume he is going to be praising the dictator as a man of honor, and a savior of the worlds poor.:roll:

 

[Kelzie]

He doesn't quite fit the definition of what we view as a dictator. Our definition of focus strays from the likes of Hitler and Saddam as the most obvious. However, he shows every sign of an individual that is on his way.

- Catholic Religious leaders in Venezuala have gone as far as to publicly condemn him as a dictator.

- Womens groups in Venezuala have been outraged over his "obscene and lewd" remarks towards women...including our own Condeleeza Rice.

- He has used his military to sieze private vehicles and businesses and despite Venezualen court orders to return them to their rightful owners, he refuses.

- He has seized control of various police departments in venezuala and has refused to return them to the elected mayors of the districts.

- He has used violence and murder to influence his will and to gaurantee his envisioned outcomes to situations - to include political ambitions.

- Protesters are always a target for his "democratic protectors."

- His close advisor is another dictator (Castro).

Venezuela is not as democratic as he has led the rest of the world to believe. Democratic leaders do not seek the advice of dictators. Chavez's contempt for the rule of law is astounding. Despite his praise for the constitution, he has already in his first four years broken more than half of its articles. The new "constitution" that he made after being elected in 1999 dissolved the senate, extended the president's term from five to six years, gave greater power to the military, tightened state control over the oil industry, and limited the central bank's autonomy. The people despise him, and for good reason. Many of his former supporters now consider him a dictator. He has lost a good part of his military high command, who are now in opposition as resisters, urging others to take a similar 'civil disobedience' stand. Chavez has indicated he will cling on to power no matter what. And his "Bolivarian circles," armed gangs modeled after his hero Fidel Castro's infamous Revolutionary Defense Committees, have begun reprisals. A country where the judicial system is not autonomous and must submit to the executive is not democratic.

Sounds like Hitler's beginnings to me.

1. Doesn't make him a dictator.

2. Doesn't make him a dictator.

3. Eminent domain anyone?

4. Murder? I find this extremely hard to believe. I know you don't want to provide a source, but this is the only one I will ask for.

5. Bush protestors are kept away from his speeches. Doesn't make him a dictator.

6. Doesn't make him a dictator. We're friends with the Saudis.

The people do not despise him. He won with a rediculous percentage of the votes. It would appear that they people that actually vote love him. And since the voting population is the same as it was in 2000, I see no descrepancy.

The judicial system is not autonomous in the UK.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Though I doubt Chavez is a dictator, I'm not sure if I would consider him a friend. I don't know very much about him though so its hard to make an informed decision on him.

 

[MSgt]

Errr.......no, I had not heard Bush was trying to change the law on term limits.

Anyway, this situation is only getting worse, now a representative from Maryland, is considering talking oil from this man. In return, I assume he is going to be praising the dictator as a man of honor, and a savior of the worlds poor.:roll:

Nations do not have friends—at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. Such is diplomacy and nation building. There are three choices:

1) Do what is necessary to prevent a future inevitable problem by utilizing our CIA and military. (The hard thing that people cry about.)

2) Do what is necessary to encourage stability and allow things to naturally occur while American interests are served. (The easy thing that people cry about.)

3) Do what is necessary to ignore the issue because it is none of our business and cut all diplomatic ties and interests.

America can never win in today's world. Not when the global left look for any reason to blame America.

 

[Kelzie]

Nations do not have friends—at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. Such is diplomacy and nation building. There are three choices:

1) Do what is necessary to prevent a future inevitable problem by utilizing our CIA and military. (The hard thing that people cry about.)

2) Do what is necessary to encourage stability and allow things to naturally occur while American interests are served. (The easy thing that people cry about.)

3) Do what is necessary to ignore the issue because it is none of our business and cut all diplomatic ties and interests.

America can never win in today's world. Not when the global left look for any reason to blame America.

I'm just curious as to what future problem you are talking about. Do you think Venezuela is going to invade the US?

 

[Deegan]

1. Doesn't make him a dictator.

2. Doesn't make him a dictator.

3. Eminent domain anyone?

4. Murder? I find this extremely hard to believe. I know you don't want to provide a source, but this is the only one I will ask for.

5. Bush protestors are kept away from his speeches. Doesn't make him a dictator.

6. Doesn't make him a dictator. We're friends with the Saudis.

The people do not despise him. He won with a rediculous percentage of the votes. It would appear that they people that actually vote love him. And since the voting population is the same as it was in 2000, I see no descrepancy.

The judicial system is not autonomous in the UK.

John Kerry thinks he is........
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1265

Is this not a dictatorship......

"Yesterday, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved the changes to the new penal code. These changes criminalize dissent, criticism and any activity against Government officials by individuals. In the case of criticism of President Chavez, it is a criminal offense to “offend” the President either publicly or in private.



What it means, once it gets published in the next few days and becomes law, is that the Government may go after anyone that tries to express any form of criticism against the Government or Government officials. This is in effect, a limitation of freedom of speech which will be diminished significantly going forward."

Oh my confused liberal friend, you have much to educate yourself about, shame on you, you refuse to even look for the truth.:roll:

 

[FinnMacCool]

John Kerry thinks he is........
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1265

Who cares what Kerry thinks?

 

[Kelzie]

John Kerry thinks he is........
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1265

Is this not a dictatorship......

"Yesterday, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved the changes to the new penal code. These changes criminalize dissent, criticism and any activity against Government officials by individuals. In the case of criticism of President Chavez, it is a criminal offense to “offend” the President either publicly or in private.



What it means, once it gets published in the next few days and becomes law, is that the Government may go after anyone that tries to express any form of criticism against the Government or Government officials. This is in effect, a limitation of freedom of speech which will be diminished significantly going forward."

Oh my confused liberal friend, you have much to educate yourself about, shame on you, you refuse to even look for the truth.:roll:

So let me get this straight. You posted an OP, which I responded to, and then you call me uneducated because I didn't look for another source that supports your OP? That's not how this game is played.

I don't care what John Kerry says, my conservative friend. Unlike some, I don't walk in lock step with my party.

I couldn't find that quote from the article. Is it in there, or is it from another source?

 

[MSgt]

1. Doesn't make him a dictator.

2. Doesn't make him a dictator.

3. Eminent domain anyone?

4. Murder? I find this extremely hard to believe. I know you don't want to provide a source, but this is the only one I will ask for.

5. Bush protestors are kept away from his speeches. Doesn't make him a dictator.

6. Doesn't make him a dictator. We're friends with the Saudis.

The people do not despise him. He won with a rediculous percentage of the votes. It would appear that they people that actually vote love him. And since the voting population is the same as it was in 2000, I see no descrepancy.

The judicial system is not autonomous in the UK.

Here is a link surrounding one contriversal incident......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1982275.stm

You're right. This is why I said "he doesn't quite fit" the definition, but he is reported on and he's being watched. Seperately those points are meaningless. All together, they begin to paint a picture we have seen enough times in our global history. There is a lot of contriversey surrounding him. The problem with a lot of the accusations about him is that they can't be backed up, because many of his accusers are opposers to his sense of change and coup supporters. One could easily argue that he has merely done what any government would do to enforce democracy and secure against coups. We've seen this before from his close friend Fidel. In any rate, he will reveal to everyone what he is in the years to come.

By the way...we are "friends" with the Sauds (The true lords of terror) out of necessity, but we know what they are. If Venezuela was giving us their oil...Chavez would also be a "friend." At the heart of our government dealings with Chavez is oil. Venezuela is very rich in oil. Right or wrong, American interests have always been in focus. This is why, the issue with Chavez is sketchy. You can't trust what our government is going to say about him from time to time. Base your knowledge on your own studies. My studies have him pointed down the road of Castro. Personally, I don't trust him. I wouldn't go as far as that gonad Pat Robertson did though.

 

[Deegan]

So let me get this straight. You posted an OP, which I responded to, and then you call me uneducated because I didn't look for another source that supports your OP? That's not how this game is played.

I don't care what John Kerry says, my conservative friend. Unlike some, I don't walk in lock step with my party.

I couldn't find that quote from the article. Is it in there, or is it from another source?

This game? Do you consider your reputation to be a game? This is indeed what is at stake, your reputation, and whether folks see you as a communist sympathizer, and a friend to the dictator. You continue to explain why he is not a dictator, but ignore the facts that I have presented. This tells me one thing, you don't want to acknowledge the truth, and that your loyalty lies with the liberal dictator. Some here may just choose to ignore your posts, after such a disgusting display of partisan nonsense, do you expect anything else?

 

[MSgt]

Who cares what Kerry thinks?

I don't. Kerry sucks.

 

[Kelzie]

Here is a link surrounding one contriversal incident......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1982275.stm

You're right. This is why I said "he doesn't quite fit" the definition, but he is reported on. Seperately those points are meaningless. All together, they begin to paint a picture we have seen enough times in our global history. There is a lot of contriversey surrounding him. The problem with a lot of the accusations about him is that they can't be backed up, because many of his accusers are opposers to his sense of change and coup supporters. One could easily argue that he has merely done what any government would do to enforce democracy and secure against coups. We've seen this before from his close friend Fidel. In any rate, he will reveal to everyone what he is in the years to come.

By the way...we are "friends" with the Sauds out of necessity, but we know what they are. If Venezuela was giving us their oil...Chavez would also be a "friend." At the heart of our government dealings with Chavez is oil. Venezuela is very rich in oil. Right or wrong, American interests have always been in focus. This is why, the issue with Chavez is sketchy. You can't trust what our government is going to say about him from time to time.

You said murder. That's not fair of you at all. Don't play the "let's pick the most inflamatory word we can find" game. Some people died at an anti-government rally. There is nothing to suggest that Chavez ordered their killings, or even had a part in it.

I thought Venuezela sold us most of their oil already. Did they stop?

 

[Kelzie]

This game? Do you consider your reputation to be a game? This is indeed what is at stake, your reputation, and whether folks see you as a communist sympathizer, and a friend to the dictator. You continue to explain why he is not a dictator, but ignore the facts that I have presented. This tells me one thing, you don't want to acknowledge the truth, and that your loyalty lies with the liberal dictator. Some here may just choose to ignore your posts, after such a disgusting display of partisan nonsense, do you expect anything else?

You're joking right? I didn't respond to an article I didn't know existed and my reputation is at stake? That is the weirdest thing I have ever heard. You haven't presented any facts recently (other than a quote that wasn't from the source you provided...I'm still waiting) and I already addressed the issues raised in the OP. If you have a problem with that, I invite you to take it up. I'm not too worried about people ignoring my posts. If they do, I'll still sleep at night. I'm not going to believe he's a dictator just cause somebody from my side of the fence thinks he is. I will analyze the evidence, and form my own opinion. I'd advise you do the same.

 

[Deegan]

You're joking right? I didn't respond to an article I didn't know existed and my reputation is at stake? That is the weirdest thing I have ever heard. You haven't presented any facts recently (other than a quote that wasn't from the source you provided...I'm still waiting) and I already addressed the issues raised in the OP. If you have a problem with that, I invite you to take it up. I'm not too worried about people ignoring my posts. If they do, I'll still sleep at night. I'm not going to believe he's a dictator just cause somebody from my side of the fence thinks he is. I will analyze the evidence, and form my own opinion. I'd advise you do the same.

You never addressed my question, Do you believe that making dissent against the government, a crime, is that a dictatorship? Or put another way, is even bringing this law to a vote, would you consider that a road to a dictatorship, passed or not? I wouldn't think that was a very difficult question, and not one that would take me long to decide, how about you?

 

[Inuyasha]

You said murder. That's not fair of you at all. Don't play the "let's pick the most inflamatory word we can find" game. Some people died at an anti-government rally. There is nothing to suggest that Chavez ordered their killings, or even had a part in it.

I thought Venuezela sold us most of their oil already. Did they stop?

I think that Kelzie has hit on a very important point..."inflammatory language". We probably all use it too much. It gives way to emotional posts that are often one sided and demagogic. When we try to push our point across with inflammatory language we usually wind up in a flame war that serves no useful purpose except to satisfy our base instinct. We gain nothing by it nor to are we successful in informing others. maybe we should all stop and think about that. There is a section for flaming so we should probably use it more especially when we find ourselves letting our emotions run wild. opinions are good but emotional opinions lead to very little constructively.

 

[MSgt]

I'm just curious as to what future problem you are talking about. Do you think Venezuela is going to invade the US?

Of course not. Invading the US is suicide for any nation and they all know it (pumps up chest).

SA is full of governments that are run by Cartels and dictators. Personally, I believe that South America can become a problem like we have in the Middle East. The difference would be that they aren't ruled by a dominating religion, but oppression, poverty, and a lack of education gives rise to extremists of all kinds. One of the reasons that Islamic extremism has spread beyond Arab borders is that it grows in these types of areas (Sudan, Balkans, Checnya, India, Indonesia, etc.) Everytime a democracy is threatened, we should do our damnest to hold it up.

If we had instilled a democracy in Iraq in 1991 when we had the chance, who knows what the Middle East would look like today. If we had dealt with Iran in 1979, who knows what the Middle East would look like today.

Likewise, what can we deny the future, if we allow a democracy like Venezuela's in SA to fall to a dictator? The problem currently is to figure out what this guy is doing. If we judge it right and act or don't act...good for us. If we judge it wrong and don't act or act erronously...we are screwing up.

 

[Kelzie]

Of course not. Invading the US is suicide for any nation and they all know it (pumps up chest).

SA is full of governments that are run by Cartels and dictators. Personally, I believe that South America can become a problem like we have in the Middle East. The difference would be that they aren't ruled by a dominating religion, but oppression, poverty, and a lack of education gives rise to extremists of all kinds. One of the reasons that Islamic extremism has spread beyond Arab borders is that it grows in these types of areas (Sudan, Balkans, Checnya, India, Indonesia, etc.) Everytime a democracy is threatened, we should do our damnest to hold it up.

If we had instilled a democracy in Iraq in 1991 when we had the chance, who knows what the Middle East would look like today. If we had dealt with Iran in 1979, who knows what the Middle East would look like today.

Likewise, what can we deny the future, if we allow a democracy like Venezuela's in SA to fall to a dictator? The problem currently is to figure out what this guy is doing. If we judge it right and act or don't act...good for us. If we judge it wrong and don't act or act erronously...we are screwing up.

Saywhoseawhat? Protecting democracy in Latin America? Let's just take Venezuela for example. If I remember correctly, the CIA sponsored a coup that removed a democratically elected president and propped up a military dictator that ruled for almost 40 years. Cause over 200,000 deaths.

I see no evidence that Chavez is acting un-democratically. That he doesn't like some of our government is no reason to condemn him.

 

[MSgt]

You said murder. That's not fair of you at all. Don't play the "let's pick the most inflamatory word we can find" game. Some people died at an anti-government rally. There is nothing to suggest that Chavez ordered their killings, or even had a part in it.

I thought Venuezela sold us most of their oil already. Did they stop?

You're absolutely, categorically, conclusively, and decidedly accurate. Oops, there I go again with the most extreme words I can find. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he personally or called upon the "murder" of his people. That was very "reporter" of me. I try not to do that. There is too much contriversey and accusations being thrown around regarding him.

I don't know about percentages of oil, but I'm sure we get a substantial amount. Getting much more would be better. This is why our government has to be careful. We could find ourselves on the same path as the Sauds. We "support" the Saudi Government (elite) all these years, because we need their oil and we've looked the other way as they mistreated their people and gave rise to Islamic terrorism throughout the region. They've used us as the scapegoat. If we have learned from history, the people in Venezuela must be at our focus....not the government that MAY turn out to dictate them while we receive our oil.

 

[Kelzie]

You're absolutely, categorically, conclusively, and decidedly accurate. Oops, there I go again with the most extreme words I can find. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he personally or called upon the "murder" of his people. That was very "reporter" of me. I try not to do that. There is too much contriversey and accusations being thrown around regarding him.

I don't know about percentages of oil, but I'm sure we get a substantial amount. Getting much more would be better. This is why our government has to be careful. We could find ourselves on the same path as the Sauds. We "support" the Saudi Government (elite) all these years, because we need their oil and we've looked the other way as they mistreated their people and gave rise to Islamic terrorism throughout the region. They've used us as the scapegoat. If we have learned from history, the people in Venezuela must be at our focus....not the government that MAY turn out to dictate them while we receive our oil.

No worries. We all do it.

So I looked, and we get 2/3 of Venezuala's oil exports. That's a pretty substantial number.




On a different note, I think somebody should provide a working definition of a dictator so we can compare Chavez to it. I would do it, but I'm afraid it would be taken as me finding a definition that supports my points.

 

[Deegan]

You never addressed my question, Do you believe that making dissent against the government, a crime, is that a dictatorship? Or put another way, is even bringing this law to a vote, would you consider that a road to a dictatorship, passed or not? I wouldn't think that was a very difficult question, and not one that would take me long to decide, how about you?

Anyone else want to take a crack at this?:2wave:

 

[Kelzie]

Anyone else want to take a crack at this?:2wave:

How's about providing a source so I can look at the actual law, not your interpretation of it. I can say Chavez eats the eyes of his enemies on his cheerios every morning, but it doesn't mean anything unless people can varify it for themselves.