Chavez completes his Hitlerian takeover of Venezuela...

[K Frame]

Chimpeachment any day now.

Then we'll all get free healthcare and a pony.

Can I eat the pony?

[Twycross]

Can I eat the pony?

Only if you promise to do it at a public barbeque. By a petting zoo. 

[wingnutx]

Inject it with Cheeze Wiz and flash fry the whole thing.

[Perd Hapley]

  Ponies, rainbows and butterflies, yah!   

[RevDisk]

The Venezuela legislature just granted him power to rule by decree for 18 months.

Yeah, right. I bet he's still there 18 years from now.

To give due credit, Chavez was elected by a landslide in December.  The Nazi party never had gotten a majority in any election, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg.  Ergo, it was not a "Hitlerian takeover".

Sorry to nitpick, but way too many people make Hitler/WWII analogies that frankly are awfully inaccurate. That said, "rule by decree" does have dictatorial overtones that can't be ignored.  Politicians are loath to give up power of their own accord.

[K Frame]

I'll have to remember to make every analogy from now on 100% parallel in every way, shape, or form.

Oh, wait, if it was 100% parallel, then it wouldn't be an analogy!

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Nazi rise to power. European history had something minor to do with my college education. Oh wait, it was the subconcentration in my degree in history...

Hitlerian means Hitler-like, and Hitler-like is the best way to describe how Chavez has manipulated his way into his current position of power.

Yes, there are significant differences, but consider...

Both men tried to overthrow the established governments, failed, and spent time in prison.

Both men, during their time in prison, realized it was better to work inside that outside the goverment.

Both men rose to power by mobilizing a significant portion of the population to back them.

Hitler socialized much of German industry and the economy, Chavez has a solid plan for doing so - both blamed big, foreign businesses for draining the ability of the people to make better lives for themselves.

Both men have cemented their public popularity by demonizing very public figures and assessing to them the blame for society's ills - in Hitler's case, the Jews, in Chavez's case, America.

Both men convinced freely elected legislative bodies to grant them virtual dictatorial powers.

Those are just the major similarities. There are a lot more, but again, there are a lot of differences, hence... Hitlerian.

In any event, I stand by my assessment that Chavez has completed his takeover of Venezuela using many of the same tactics that Adolf Hitler used to assume dictatorial powers in Germany.

Time will only tell how similar their fates are.

[Lee]

I'm certainly no supporter of Chavez...but people support people like Chavez (or Hitler for that matter) when their own lives are bleak, and someone offers them a promise for a better day-to-day existance.   Starving, unemployed, hopeless, people don't give a rat's behind if they live in a so-called democracy if it is run by a small minority of the extemely wealthy.   A foot on the neck is a foot on the neck, regardless if it is a Castro black boot, or a Gucci. If I lived in a hell hole third world country, ruled by a handfull of millionaires, who own the politicians, military and police, I'd probably take a chance on Chavez as well.

[Furious Styles]

Both men have cemented their public popularity by demonizing very public figures and assessing to them the blame for society's ills - in Hitler's case, the Jews, in Chavez's case, America.

Heartwarming, as an American, to be held in such high regard for simply being what I am. Similarly, it's just as comforting to know that Chavez lacks the wherewithal that was available to Hitler to let fly with his paranoia and his genocidal hatred.

Nevertheless, I'd be more than happy to shoulder my part, should he attempt to live even a small portion of his dreams.

[Matthew Carberry]

Both men have cemented their public popularity by demonizing very public figures and assessing to them the blame for society's ills - in Hitler's case, the Jews, in Chavez's case, America.

Heartwarming, as an American, to be held in such high regard for simply being what I am. Similarly, it's just as comforting to know that Chavez lacks the wherewithal that was available to Hitler to let fly with his paranoia and his genocidal hatred.

Nevertheless, I'd be more than happy to shoulder my part, should he attempt to live even a small portion of his dreams.

He's got petrodollars and plans to nationalize industry.  He can build into a regional power quickly enough, especially with his Axis of E buddies supplying the gear.

[CAnnoneer]

CIA, I know you are reading this, so go ahead and assassinate the little commie bastard already!

[French G.]

CAnnoneer, I agree. Sad day when I agree with Pat Robertson on something. Pat was apparently ahead of the curve when he recommended the CIA bump Chavez off last year.

[Perd Hapley]

It's a revival!!   

[Iapetus]

CIA, I know you are reading this, so go ahead and assassinate the little commie bastard already!

Surely you should wait before he actually starts (or is on the verge of) attacking you before assassinating the legitimate leader of a sovereign state?

If the Venezuelans vote for an authoritarian socialist egomaniac, then the Venezuelans should have to live with an authoritarian socialist egomaniac.  Just because he is an abrasive authoritarian with a political/economic ideology you think is bad, doesn't mean you have the right to take him out.

I mean, if Hilary won a landslide in 2008, would you be happy with a foreign government deciding to assassinate her for you?

[CAnnoneer]

Surely you should wait before he actually starts (or is on the verge of) attacking you before assassinating the legitimate leader of a sovereign state?

Do you wait for the gangrene to spread before treating it? Why is the assassination of "a legitimate leader of a sovereign state" a bad thing if it serves our national interests?

doesn't mean you have the right to take him out.

We have the right to protect our national interests. If Venezuela lived in a vacuum and did not affect us in any way, certainly, let them drink what they brewed. But, an anti-American commie dictator sitting on oil supplies and potentially financing our enemies is not acceptable.

I mean, if Hilary won a landslide in 2008, would you be happy with a foreign government deciding to assassinate her for you?

Why, sir, I am appauled! What kind of wretched decadent bouregois treacheries are you insinuating?! No, I would never condone the assassination of any of our Fearless Leaders. We all love the Leader! Long live the Communist Party of the North American Union! Soyuz Nerushimyi Svobodnyh Narodov, Da Zdrastvuet Velikaia Moguchaia Amerika...

[Manedwolf]

Chavez' rise, IMO, more strongly mirrors the rise of the Soviet Union than Nazism. He's made the same promises, created the same "community groups" (soviets), and is pretty much following the same exact course supported by all those workers and commoners back then. The pogroms of dissenters and labels of "counterrevolutionary" come later, as do the secret police.

[Art Eatman]

Remember his "100,000 AK47s"?  One news article from a few months back said he's negotiating with Russia for a dozen or so of the latest Mig design.  (Dunno who's gonna fly 'em.)

He's certainly not doing things in a vacuum.  He's openly cozied up with Cuba, has aimed into Mexico, politically, and has been working with Bolivia and Nicaragua among others.  He's working busily to create as much of a Central and South American socialist alliance as he can.

In the meantime, a large percentage of the Venezuelan people are in an ever-worsening economic condition...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/19/wchavez19.xml&page=4

Art

[Perd Hapley]

Just because he is an abrasive authoritarian with a political/economic ideology you think is bad, doesn't mean you have the right to take him out.

Assassinating a head of state is an act of war.  It is meaningless to speak of a right to make war with another nation. 

[Iapetus]

Just because he is an abrasive authoritarian with a political/economic ideology you think is bad, doesn't mean you have the right to take him out.

Assassinating a head of state is an act of war.  It is meaningless to speak of a right to make war with another nation. 

But what moral right do you have to declare war on another nation, when it has not made, threatened or is intending to make war on yours?

Do you wait for the gangrene to spread before treating it?

If you want to use gangrene as an analogy, if I have gangrene, then I shouldn't wait for it to spread before treating it.  But if I don't treat it, then you have no right to cut my limb off for me. 

Why is the assassination of "a legitimate leader of a sovereign state" a bad thing if it serves our national interests?

So "we would benefit" is a sufficient reason to commit an act of war?

What if another nation decided it would serve their national interest to assassinate your president?

If Venezuela lived in a vacuum and did not affect us in any way, certainly, let them drink what they brewed. But, an anti-American commie dictator sitting on oil supplies...

But they're their oil supplies.  They have no obligation to sell them to you.  If I owned an oil well, and if I developed an irrational hatred towards you, then I would be quite within my rights to not sell you oil, even if I was doing myself no good.  (And if you were suggesting assassinating me if I didn't, then I'm not sure it would be such an "irrational" hatred).

[/quote]...and potentially financing our enemies is not acceptable.[/quote]

Anyone with wealth has the potential to finance your (or anyone else's) enemies.  That doesn't mean they are, and it doesn't justify killing them "just in case".

Why, sir, I am appauled! What kind of wretched decadent bouregois treacheries are you insinuating?! No, I would never condone the assassination of any of our Fearless Leaders. We all love the Leader! Long live the Communist Party of the North American Union! Soyuz Nerushimyi Svobodnyh Narodov, Da Zdrastvuet Velikaia Svobodnaia Amerika...

Not insinuating anything.  Just saying that if the US puts someone in the role of POTUS, then (IMO), it is up to the US to remove them from the role, not another nation.  I assumed you would agree, even if the president in question was someone you particularly despised.


Given the number of posts here and on THR, I got the impression that people here don't like the idea of foreigners meddling in the affairs of other countries.  Or is it just non-Americans meddling in US affairs that  is bad, and America has the right to meddle as much as it likes in other countries?

I also gathered there was a general belief in the belief that people shouldn't be compelled to do things for the benefit of others.  Does that not apply in the case of other nations not wanting to sell their resources to the US?

Non-Initiation of Violence also seems to be quite a popular philosophy here as well, but does that not apply in regards to foreign governments who don't run their countries for the benefit of the US?



Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Chavez (and in light of his recent grab for power, my opinion is far lower than when I made an earlier "Are you sure he is as bad as you say?" post).  But until he attacks (not merely doesn't act in the interests of) another country, I see no moral justification for any act of war against him.

Nor can I see launching an act of war against another nation on such grounds to be in anyone's long-term interests.  If you re-establish the principle that "it's better for us" is grounds for war, then sooner or later it will come back to haunt you.  Do you really want a return to the days of everyone attacking anyone because they can and feel like it?

[Matthew Carberry]

Do you really want a return to the days of everyone attacking anyone because they can and feel like it?

Had we stopped?  Cause I didn't get the memo. 

I agree, let the Venezuelans handle Venezuela.  If their elected president wants to act across other borders, then we can intervene.  (assuming we are invited)

We can get oil somewhere else.

[Ezekiel]

Or is it just non-Americans meddling in US affairs that  is bad, and America has the right to meddle as much as it likes in other countries?

It's, clearly, both.  Hence the double-standard, hence the hypocrisy, hence many countries' hatred of America.

It is not-- or ever was -- because they are "jealous" of our freedoms, it's because we (as a nation) are self-righteous asses. 

We can get oil somewhere else.

Could be applied to the Middle East, too, but there's something there -- strategically -- that we want (forward bases for Imperialism), so we don't consider it.

When do we begin claiming stockpiles of weapons, and aggressive associations, under Chavez?  Oh, wait.  That stuff has already begun in THIS very thread...

[The Rabbi]

But what moral right do you have to declare war on another nation, when it has not made, threatened or is intending to make war on yours?

You've got to be a Libertarian with those views.
The moral right is that the U.S.'s primary responsibility is the welfare of its own citizens.  That welfare will suffer with the continued existence of someone who is obviously intent on doing us harm.  The U.S. has effected change throughout this hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine, and getting rid of Chavez will be one more example.

[CAnnoneer]

But what moral right do you have to declare war on another nation, when it has not made, threatened or is intending to make war on yours?

I believe in realpolitik. Everything else is for college students and rich old ladies - they can afford the idealism.

If you want to use gangrene as an analogy, if I have gangrene, then I shouldn't wait for it to spread before treating it.  But if I don't treat it, then you have no right to cut my limb off for me. 

Bull. If your gangrene is guaranteed to be limited to yourself, you are welcomed to it. If on the other hand, as is the case here, your gangrene will most certainly spread to me, then you are making it my business as well.

So "we would benefit" is a sufficient reason to commit an act of war?

Always has been. Which planet were you on for the past 5,000 years??

What if another nation decided it would serve their national interest to assassinate your president?

It is their choice to try.

But they're their oil supplies. 

Sure, and we are willing to pay a good price for them. But, if they turn off the spiggot and cripple us, then it becomes a matter of national security for us to ...ahem... "reestablish communication in the interest of trade and world peace".

Anyone with wealth has the potential to finance your (or anyone else's) enemies.  That doesn't mean they are, and it doesn't justify killing them "just in case".

Preemptive strike has always been a legitimate strategy. To dismiss it offhand is potentially fatally self-limiting.

it is up to the US to remove them from the role, not another nation. 

Doing something is up to whomever can do it. Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it.

Given the number of posts here and on THR, I got the impression that people here don't like the idea of foreigners meddling in the affairs of other countries.  Or is it just non-Americans meddling in US affairs that  is bad, and America has the right to meddle as much as it likes in other countries?

Your understanding and logic are flawed. Keep reading.

But until he attacks (not merely doesn't act in the interests of) another country, I see no moral justification for any act of war against him.

He's done much more against America than Hitler ever did before Dec 1941.

Do you really want a return to the days of everyone attacking anyone because they can and feel like it?

You are from K-Pax, aren't you. Hehe.

[Ezekiel]

But, if they turn off the spiggot and cripple us, then it becomes a matter of national security for us to ...ahem... "reestablish communication in the interest of trade and world peace".

Otherwise known as "take all their stuff."

Don't you just adore Manifest Destiny, implemented on a global scale?

We're all about Capitalism, until someone, for whatever reason -- which is their RIGHT -- determines that they don't desire to sell to us: then we just take it.

Wasn't the entire idea of this nation something about abolishing Divine Right and taxations?

"Pitiful."

Chavez is not a threat.

[CAnnoneer]

Don't you just adore Manifest Destiny, implemented on a global scale? We're all about Capitalism, until someone, for whatever reason -- which is their RIGHT -- determines that they don't desire to sell to us: then we just take it.
Wasn't the entire idea of this nation something about abolishing Divine Right and taxations?

Manifest Destiny has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I got no interest in managing any toilets, or being their spiritual leader,  or pointing the way for them to hell or heaven, or telling them what to do, so long as their idiocies do not place limitations on me. When they do, my reaction to them is in self-defense and limited to the extent of restoration of trade in strategic resources. ( e.g. Desert Storm).

What has that to do with kicking the Brits out? Unlike H.I.M. Crazy George, I got no interest in colonies, managing them, taxing them, or doing anything with them but trade.

[Perd Hapley]

Iapetus,

My point is that nations do not have rights.  If they did, who would arbitrate?  There is no "controlling legal authority" between one nation and another, as there is no real government that transcends national sovereignty.