Printable View
Venezuela has made a formal complaint to the US authorities and the United Nations after its foreign minister was detained at a New York airport.
BBC
Got to laugh that the yanks questioned him about his part in a failed coup when the US quiet clearly supported the failed coup against Chavez a few years ago.
:rolleyes:
Deliberate provocation as a reaction to Chavez's bitchslapping both the country and Shrub, imho. He really rubbed it in the other day when he told people in Harlem he would follow through on his promise to ship discounted heating oil to them. I don't trust the guy 100%, he strikes me as someone that could slip into the dictator mold, but you can't deny that he's got balls and a kooky sense of humour.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
"Instigated" would be a better word. I don't think there's any doubt that the entire thing was pushed ahead by the US via the CIA.Quote:
Got to laugh that the yanks questioned him about his part in a failed coup when the US quiet clearly supported the failed coup against Chavez a few years ago.
adam
I agree. Watching CNN during the week & they did a big piece on Chavez in Harlem & also now he using oil profits for free healthcare in his country. I am sure Dubya loved that coverage...Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
RTE had a in depth fly on the wall documentary on the failed coup a while back. From memory 2 irish journalists were right at the heart of things (right time right place) as the coup began, took over power, arrested Chavez, seemed mightly pleased with themselves including 1 priest and then were toppled a few days later as the people came onto the streets. Showed how television footage was manipulated so show anti coup demonstrators firing on pro coup counter demonstrators when the reverse was the case. Very interesting
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Still haven't see that.
Was brilliant tv alright. As entertaining as any thriller movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newryrep
As with everything you have to judge the impartiality yourself. I see link above says its free on Google Video.
Superb documetary. Power to the people, huh? The military couldn't make up their mind as to whom they were loyal to. Goes to show how powerful the media can be and how events can be distorted. The private channels reminded me of watching Fox News.
I'm downloading it as we speak!
Well worth a gander. Gives a totally different perspective of Chavez.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Yip, saw it at the time riveting stuff.Could you blame the Irish journos for feeling like the cat that got the cream?
great documentary
just look at the anti chavez supporters..beautiful people, with their nice cars and fancy lifestyles, then look at the chavez fans...real people.....thats the best evidence you need really
reality is of course a lot more complicated than chavez's often simplistic and populist u.s.-baiting represents. large swathes of his country are still mired in poverty and he needs the perception of an 'evil' u.s. to retain power and respect among his supporters. i agree he can be very engaging and interesting, especially when he takes on bush and sells cheap oil to poorer americans (as he did last winter here in MA), but there is the other side, the very real poor in his own country that don't look like getting out of the sh!t anytime soon.
True. He needs to take the revolution forward and stop sitting on the fence. Having said that, the people you speak of are immesurably better off than they were before he came to power. Counter revolution would be a disaster for them.
I've always hated Chavez for supporting and protecting the military junta in Burma (SPDC). He makes this big deal about democracy and how the people instigating the coup had no right to do so (fair point) but then goes on to support and defend the only established military regime in the world and their human rights abuses including genocide. He does this because of his black-and-white 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality'. The Bush Administration has made huge moves for democractic reform in Burma (one of their best actions) -i.e respecting the results of the 1990 election where the NLD and allies won over 90% of the seats, so therefore Chavez decides to support the regime.
On another point- talking about distortions in the media by the pro-coup side; it's no worse than what Chavez does. Venuezala currently ranks 90 (out of 157) in the RWB Free Press Index. This puts his media control alongside that of the governments in Burundi, Cambodia, Qatar and Zambia, and below such bastions of democracy as Kuwait, the Congo and the Central African Republic. In terms of free press it is also worth noting thatg Chavex is over a full fourty places below both the USA and Israel -two of the states he criticises most.
Add on Venezuela's part in a coaltion (including Cuba, Venezuela, Burma Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Belarus, Vietnam, and Syria) to block reform of the UN Human Right Council (an action criticised heavily by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam), the extreme rigging of the justice system (through packing the supreme court with his allies), and the beating and torturing of 400 people detained during protests (more than a little hypocritical) by Chavez's national guard and you've got a pretty grim picture.
On human rights terms Chavez is closer to Hitler than any benevolent freedom fighter and the world should definatly be both cautious of him and forceful in pressuring him to respect human rights in both his own country and abroad.
Good post until you mentioned Hitler. I think any comparison with Hitler is grossly exaggerated, unless he has killed millions.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I do agree on his mistakes regarding the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy, which has aligned him with people like Ahmadinejad (though I do agree in Irans right to pursue peaceful nuclear ambitions).
I agree that supporting the Burmese junta is wrong, but many nations have "strategic support" of nations and never question issues which would damage the relationship.
Just today on CNN I saw Bush meeting and praising the president (read dictator) of Kazhakstan, who is rumoured to have boiled political opponents alive. Neither Blair or Bush (Blair fired the ambassador who brought it to light) have mentioned this.
While I agree with all of your above comments, apart from the Hitler comment, it would be naieve to think that he is the only one doing these kind of things.
Good post;Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Maybe the Hitler comment was an exageration but I was just using it to illustrate how Chavez is more a human rights abuser than a human rights defender (I never actually said that he was on a par with Hitler)
Re. the removal of the ambassador; I presume you are talking about Craig Murray (a personal hero of mine) who criticised the actions of the Karimov administration in Uzbekistan. I agree that the treatment of Murray and the UK/USA stance on Uzbekistan (and Kazhakstan) is a disgrace. It is similar to the co-operation of both countries (along with many others) with the Indonesian regime during their systamatic genocide of over 25% of the East Timorise population during the 90's. The UK and USA only changed their stance after much pressure at the UN (thanks in a large part to a coalition of Catholic countries led by the Vatican) and even then gave security of the independence referendum to the Indonesian's. The appeasement of the Indonesian regime and their genocide was mainly due to the vast profits which the UK and USA were making through arms and technolegy sales (including from a company located less than 20 minutes from my front door). This is a perfect example of the UK and USA appeasing one of the worlds most brutal regimes for financial gain just as Chavez appeases one of the worlds most brutal regimes on the basis of bizzare and somewhat misguided philiosophies that have no place in politics.
Similarly when it suited them the UK and USA were happy to co-operate with our good old friends the Northern Alliance -including one warlord who chained his oppoents to tank cattipilar treads and then had them driven around his courtyard whilst he watched-eating lunch. Of course to overthrow the human rights abusing Taliban the human rights abuses of UK/USA allies went conviniently un-noticed.
So as you say -Chavez is by no means the only world leader who appeases brutal regimes and it would indeed, as you say be naieve to think such. The examples of the UK government doing such can continue right through to Hu Jianto's parade down the Mall whilst London was bathed in Red Lights. Yet we still have to take into account Chavez's appeasement of such regimes as well as his own human rights abuses to maintain a balanced view. It's easy to present a beautiful picture of Chavez, Molares and Castro bringing free, effective health care and cheap fuel to the worlds poor but we must also look at the reporters rotting in jail, the torture and the executions before praising such leaders. Barely any country is perfect but I would rather live in the UK or USA (where I can walk down the street publicly slating Blairs treatment of Craig Murray or Bush's support for the Indonesian regime) than in Venuezala (where criticising Chavez's foreign policy regarding Burma would earn me a lengthy prison sentance and regular beatings from the national guard).
Fully agree, and yes of course it was Uzbekistan, not Kazhakstan.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
lima i agree with a lot of what you stand for, and post, but i think Chavez is fair enough when it comes to free speehc in his own country.the right have their own TV stations and media where he gets severe criticismQuote:
Originally Posted by liam88
i have to like any leader that calls Bush a devil
Chavez has only been in power for a short time so its likely he inherited the current media regime. I think his pwoblem is that he will look at hurting Bush so much that maybe he doesn't always serve the best interests of his country.
Do you have a problem pronouncing your 'R'?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete