Post by: Iapetus on November 18, 2007, 07:28:48 AM
And only a few days ago, I heard about another amusing incident that he'd been involved in, and went looking for a link so I could sahre it with you (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2855521.ece).
But from there, I found an altogether more worrying case of him mouthing off: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece
Apparently, the "socialist" Chavez wants to help the anti-imperialist cause by declaring his support for actions of a (then) fascist regime to invade and occupy another land against the will of it's people. Not only that, but he thinks that it should be attempted again, and that he would be prepared to go to war against the UK in support of the attempt.
Quote
Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war
Martin Arostegui, Santa Cruz
IN a new outburst of antiwestern sabre-rattling, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has threatened Britain with revenge for the Falklands war of 1982. The belligerent Latin American leftist warned last week that his recent build-up of sophisticated Russian and Iranian weapons would be used to destroy the British fleet if it attempted to return to the South Atlantic.
Speaking on his weekly television show Alo Presidente (Hello, Mr President), Chavez denounced what he described as Britains illegal occupation of the Falklands and repeated his call for a regional military alliance against Britain and the United States.
If we had been united in the last war, we could have stopped the old empire, Chavez said, as he gesticulated to maps showing how Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would intercept British warships. Today we could sink the British fleet.
Chavez has often expressed support for Argentinas claim to the Falklands, but his latest broadside was notable for both its antiBritish vitriol and its unprecedented threats. He declared that British history was stained with the blood of South Americas indigenous people and demanded revenge for the cowardly sinking of the General Belgrano, the Argentine cruiser.
Western diplomats have long grown used to harangues from Chavez, who announced this weekend that he would negotiate with guerrillas holding dozens of hostages in Colombia, including three US contractors and Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian abducted as she campaigned for president in 2002. But US and British officials have recently become more concerned by his willingness to lavish billions of dollars from Venezuelas soaring oil income on military capabilities.
On his TV programme, Chavez introduced a group of 30 Venezuelan pilots who were trained in Russia to fly a squadron of 24 Sukhoi SU-30 multi-role fighters. The aircraft were part of a $3 billion armaments deal with Moscow.
Chavez has also bought 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and negotiated to set up a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He has reportedly ordered nine Russian diesel submarines, including the cruise missile-carrying 677E Amur-class vessel.
The Venezuelan pilots told him they would soon be training with medium-range BrahMos missiles, a supersonic antiship cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia.
US officials also fear that Chavez may be seeking nuclear technology from his contacts with Iran and North Korea. He is discussing a possible joint programme with Tehran to build an unmanned drone aircraft similar to the American Predator and has long been engaged in a regional attempt to promote military cooperation against the US.
So far most of his neighbours have shied away from confrontation with Washington, but Chavez is continuing to press for the creation of a single South American army .
His outspoken attacks on Britain and his support for Buenos Aires have gone down well in Argentina, where President Nestor Kirchners wife, Cristina, is the favourite to succeed her husband in elections next month.
While there is no indication that either of the Kirchners wants to precipitate a new crisis over the Falklands, military analysts say Venezuelas lengthening military reach might seriously impede any British attempt to dispatch a new task force.
Martin Arostegui, Santa Cruz
IN a new outburst of antiwestern sabre-rattling, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has threatened Britain with revenge for the Falklands war of 1982. The belligerent Latin American leftist warned last week that his recent build-up of sophisticated Russian and Iranian weapons would be used to destroy the British fleet if it attempted to return to the South Atlantic.
Speaking on his weekly television show Alo Presidente (Hello, Mr President), Chavez denounced what he described as Britains illegal occupation of the Falklands and repeated his call for a regional military alliance against Britain and the United States.
If we had been united in the last war, we could have stopped the old empire, Chavez said, as he gesticulated to maps showing how Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would intercept British warships. Today we could sink the British fleet.
Chavez has often expressed support for Argentinas claim to the Falklands, but his latest broadside was notable for both its antiBritish vitriol and its unprecedented threats. He declared that British history was stained with the blood of South Americas indigenous people and demanded revenge for the cowardly sinking of the General Belgrano, the Argentine cruiser.
Western diplomats have long grown used to harangues from Chavez, who announced this weekend that he would negotiate with guerrillas holding dozens of hostages in Colombia, including three US contractors and Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian abducted as she campaigned for president in 2002. But US and British officials have recently become more concerned by his willingness to lavish billions of dollars from Venezuelas soaring oil income on military capabilities.
On his TV programme, Chavez introduced a group of 30 Venezuelan pilots who were trained in Russia to fly a squadron of 24 Sukhoi SU-30 multi-role fighters. The aircraft were part of a $3 billion armaments deal with Moscow.
Chavez has also bought 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and negotiated to set up a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He has reportedly ordered nine Russian diesel submarines, including the cruise missile-carrying 677E Amur-class vessel.
The Venezuelan pilots told him they would soon be training with medium-range BrahMos missiles, a supersonic antiship cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia.
US officials also fear that Chavez may be seeking nuclear technology from his contacts with Iran and North Korea. He is discussing a possible joint programme with Tehran to build an unmanned drone aircraft similar to the American Predator and has long been engaged in a regional attempt to promote military cooperation against the US.
So far most of his neighbours have shied away from confrontation with Washington, but Chavez is continuing to press for the creation of a single South American army .
His outspoken attacks on Britain and his support for Buenos Aires have gone down well in Argentina, where President Nestor Kirchners wife, Cristina, is the favourite to succeed her husband in elections next month.
While there is no indication that either of the Kirchners wants to precipitate a new crisis over the Falklands, military analysts say Venezuelas lengthening military reach might seriously impede any British attempt to dispatch a new task force.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2007, 07:32:09 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 18, 2007, 07:46:32 AM
Eh, he's either irrelevant, or one of the extremely wealthy and dangerous people he's annoying will put a bounty on him, and he'll accidentally run into a bullet with his head.
I don't think you're taking the Chavezorrist threat seriously. We need to fight him down there so we don't have to fight him up here. Invade now.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2007, 07:50:18 AM
He's seizing assets worth billions from very powerful people. Eventually, one will have had enough and will offer a bounty on him below the table. Someone will go for it and collect.
Such problems solve themselves.
Post by: Len Budney on November 18, 2007, 07:54:59 AM
We don't need to invade to deal with a tinpot dictator with a big mouth.
Homeland security had better check you out. Oh, whoops! You're talking about Chavez, not Hussein. I guess sometimes we do have to invade to deal with a tinpot dictator with a big mouth.
--Len.
Post by: Gewehr98 on November 18, 2007, 09:37:50 AM
Post by: jefnvk on November 18, 2007, 09:50:21 AM
Quote
If we had been united in the last war, we could have stopped the old empire, Chavez said, as he gesticulated to maps showing how Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would intercept British warships. Today we could sink the British fleet.
Isn't it ill-advised to tell your enemy your battle plans?
I think Chavez is neglecting a huge variable here: how the US will respond if he fires on a British naval vessel.
Post by: roo_ster on November 18, 2007, 11:00:03 AM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on November 18, 2007, 03:38:44 PM
Quote
Chavez has also bought 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and negotiated to set up a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela.
So how long before we will be able to import Argentine AKs?
Post by: Waitone on November 18, 2007, 03:46:55 PM
I would love for some egghead scholar historian type to do a postmortem and identify what factors were present which led said people to do the highly stoopid. Surely there is a lesson in there for us. And as an added feature we may get a better idea what really happened as opposed to what our media said happened.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 03:50:29 PM
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 18, 2007, 04:17:36 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2007, 04:25:48 PM
This is so gonna suck if while we are screwing around in the middle east he forms some sort of Hispanic Alliance and we end up with a Hispanic Red Dawn situation. Not to mention the potential number of infiltrators into this country. We need to get that border secure now.
Look at the map of South America.
Look at the size of Brazil.
Brazil is our ally, and a strong ally. Their GDP is going nuts, investment there is great right now. Their economy is growing at a record pace, and it's a capitalistic economy...that money is not only from resources, but from manufacturing and high-tech. There's still income disparity among classes, but prosperity is spreading, their business center cities are as comfortable and modern as any in the US. No other nation in South America has that level of first-world culture yet.
All we have to do is make sure we support them and sell them the latest military toys, (perhaps in return for an ethanol contract, instead of messing up our own corn supply!), and they should be able to deal with the surrounding socialist pestholes.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 18, 2007, 05:50:54 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 09:46:03 AM
Quote
At the summit's opening ceremony on Saturday, Chavez sought to bring OPEC back to its militant and revolutionary roots.
"OPEC should set itself up as an active political agent," Chavez said.
"OPEC should set itself up as an active political agent," Chavez said.
Which got a reply of:
Quote
"OPEC has made a point, from its establishment, to work for the stability of the oil markets," said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal, at a news conference after the close of the summit on Sunday. "Oil should be a tool of construction and development, not one of dispute."
They're not going to tolerate him trying to wreck their money train, which depends on stability.
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 09:47:41 AM
I would love for some egghead scholar historian type to do a postmortem and identify what factors were present which led said people to do the highly stoopid.
Homeland security will decide that's a bit close to home, and the HS men will arrest him.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 19, 2007, 02:18:02 PM
They're not going to tolerate him trying to wreck their money train, which depends on stability.
They make more money from instability, not less.
Post by: jefnvk on November 19, 2007, 02:31:41 PM
Post by: wooderson on November 19, 2007, 03:58:41 PM
Quote
No other nation in South America has that level of first-world culture yet.
You mean aside from Chile and Argentina, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Quote
No other nation in South America has that level of first-world culture yet.
You mean aside from Chile and Argentina, right?
Not even close. Sao Paolo looks just like LA or the like, right down to the number of malls and big-box stores and chain restaurants. Argentina and Chile won't be there for decades yet.
Post by: Bigjake on November 19, 2007, 06:05:31 PM
Post by: HankB on November 20, 2007, 09:15:15 AM
Quote
. . . demanded revenge for the cowardly sinking of the General Belgrano, the Argentine cruiser.
Again? They whined about this at the time . . . NEWS FLASH: the cruiser was a WARSHIP, not a hospital ship or cruise ship . . . when you're at war, all enemy military assets are legitimate targets.Period.
Post by: wooderson on November 20, 2007, 10:17:55 AM
Quote
Not even close. Sao Paolo looks just like LA or the like, right down to the number of malls and big-box stores and chain restaurants.
Sao Paolo looks "just like LA" (a first-world metropolis) with massive amounts of retail and corporate food (like every other part of the first-world). And yet is not first-world...Quote
Argentina and Chile won't be there for decades yet.
Argentina and Chile - despite juntas of their own - have already been there for decades.
Post by: Phyphor on November 20, 2007, 12:51:49 PM
Someone ought to send him a photo of Saddam hanging from the gallows with the caption (in spanish, of course) "Thinking of you....."
or perhaps "Wishing you were here.... "
Maybe he'd get the hint and shut his damned yap before he does have the Kevorkian Rope Trick demonstrated upon his person.
Post by: wooderson on November 20, 2007, 01:04:14 PM
One might think some of y'all were reacting emotionally...
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 01:10:25 PM
An awful lot of anger directed at a man who's done nothing to you, and must, by any measure, rank in the top half of heads of state in terms of "not an evil bastard"-ness.
One might think some of y'all were reacting emotionally...
One might think some of y'all were reacting emotionally...
So you becoming a Chavista, now?
The guy is a tinpot dictator who has seized private property from rich and poor alike, from oil companies and poor farmers, nationalizing it all. He's suppressed dissent, destroyed free speech, and has his people beat up anyone who objects. The pogroms are next.
He's entered into large-scale production of AK-103's, and is buying military hardware of the sort that would let him be an aggressor.
Funny, leftists always think leftist dictators aren't so bad, until they find out years later about the secret prisons, executions and mass graves. Useful-idiot leftists helped enable Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro...
Post by: wooderson on November 20, 2007, 01:59:04 PM
It's absurd to call him a "dictator," tinpot or otherwise and assert your ability to foretell the future - this belies your emotional investment. "Saddam is a Hitler" redux.
Quote
He's entered into large-scale production of AK-103's, and is buying military hardware of the sort that would let him be an aggressor.
You mean... a nation-state is providing for both its offensive and defensive capability? Why, whoever heard of such a crazy thing? Just out of curiosity, how do Venezuelan 'defense' expenditures compare to those of the good old USA?
Quote
Funny, leftists always think leftist dictators aren't so bad, until they find out years later about the secret prisons, executions and mass graves. Useful-idiot leftists helped enable Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro...
Your ignorance of 20th century 'leftist' politics is astounding.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 03:56:32 PM
Funny, leftists always think leftist dictators aren't so bad, until they find out years later about the secret prisons, executions and mass graves. Useful-idiot leftists helped enable Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro...
And even then, they still do not dislike them, because, as you know, "It is always America's fault anyway."
Post by: Phyphor on November 20, 2007, 05:01:21 PM
An awful lot of anger directed at a man who's done nothing to you, and must, by any measure, rank in the top half of heads of state in terms of "not an evil bastard"-ness.
One might think some of y'all were reacting emotionally...
One might think some of y'all were reacting emotionally...
Not an evil bastard? Wanting to practically restart a war with Britain isn't 'evil?'
How about how he'd like the Saudis to screw with us?
I don't feel anger or hatred for this guy, I primarily feel contempt
Post by: wooderson on November 20, 2007, 05:12:49 PM
Quote
Not an evil bastard? Wanting to practically restart a war with Britain isn't 'evil?'
Can't say that it is. Stupid, probably. Hot air, most certainly.Guy's a nationalist. He's posturing, trying to assert his own mini-Monroe Doctrine in his 'sphere of influence.' He's not actually going to attack the British fleet.
Quote
How about how he'd like the Saudis to screw with us?
Well, gosh, he's all alone in the world thinking that. And I'm sure he has great influence over Saudi policy...I do think he has some value in the world - and if not Chavez, then a strong state in Central or South America that stands as a counterpoint to US "interests" (coughcoughsnicker). I have no interest in our state being the only 'swinging cod' in this hemisphere.
Post by: Phyphor on November 20, 2007, 06:06:24 PM
Quote
Not an evil bastard? Wanting to practically restart a war with Britain isn't 'evil?'
Can't say that it is. Stupid, probably. Hot air, most certainly.Doesn't matter. He's getting his nation in hot water with a much more powerful nation. This is not the act of a leader whom is concerned with the welfare of his people, as he damned well should be.
Quote
Guy's a nationalist. He's posturing, trying to assert his own mini-Monroe Doctrine in his 'sphere of influence.' He's not actually going to attack the British fleet.
Really? So, the Brits should just figure he's bullshitting and just ignore him?
Quote
I do think he has some value in the world - and if not Chavez, then a strong state in Central or South America that stands as a counterpoint to US "interests" (coughcoughsnicker). I have no interest in our state being the only 'swinging cod' in this hemisphere.
Oh, I don't mind someone disagreeing with us, but the vitriol he displays towards our nation on a constant basis gets rather damned old, especially when he's only doing it to keep his vict-er..... people focused outwards against false threats.
Post by: wooderson on November 20, 2007, 06:58:43 PM
Quote
Doesn't matter. He's getting his nation in hot water with a much more powerful nation. This is not the act of a leader whom is concerned with the welfare of his people, as he damned well should be.
He's been getting his nation "in hot water" for years - to no apparent ill effect.Insofar as the United States will never invade and conquer his people, pissing off the US really doesn't harm them in any way. What are we gonna do, stop buying their oil?
Quote
Really? So, the Brits should just figure he's bullshitting and just ignore him?
Yes.Quote
Oh, I don't mind someone disagreeing with us, but the vitriol he displays towards our nation on a constant basis gets rather damned old,
Strange that his 'vitriol' essentially mirrors what is said about him at every turn.Post by: roo_ster on November 20, 2007, 08:11:54 PM
Quote
Not even close. Sao Paolo looks just like LA or the like, right down to the number of malls and big-box stores and chain restaurants.
Sao Paolo looks "just like LA" (a first-world metropolis) with massive amounts of retail and corporate food (like every other part of the first-world). And yet is not first-world...Quote
Argentina and Chile won't be there for decades yet.
Argentina and Chile - despite juntas of their own - have already been there for decades.We can't get engineers with upper middle class incomes to move to LA to do much-needed work due to the cost of non-crime-ridden housing.
Chile has done consistently well since Pinochet took the helm over for the damnfool leftists...who'll never forgive him for it.
Post by: roo_ster on November 20, 2007, 08:16:05 PM
Heck, the country I'd really like to see him tick off into smacking him down is France. I would get a warm & fuzzy seeing Froggie hardware working over Chavista supporters.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 08:54:34 PM
I would pay good money to see any Western power slap him around a bit.
Heck, the country I'd really like to see him tick off into smacking him down is France. I would get a warm & fuzzy seeing Froggie hardware working over Chavista supporters.
Heck, the country I'd really like to see him tick off into smacking him down is France. I would get a warm & fuzzy seeing Froggie hardware working over Chavista supporters.
Whatever one thinks of the French, they make damned good helicopters especially. It's why the Coast Guard uses the Aerospatiale Dauphins and other models. I've heard of incidents of the top of a wave literally hitting them, and they recover and stay airborne.
Post by: Phyphor on November 20, 2007, 10:23:06 PM
Quote
Doesn't matter. He's getting his nation in hot water with a much more powerful nation. This is not the act of a leader whom is concerned with the welfare of his people, as he damned well should be.
He's been getting his nation "in hot water" for years - to no apparent ill effect.Quote
Insofar as the United States will never invade and conquer his people, pissing off the US really doesn't harm them in any way. What are we gonna do, stop buying their oil?
Weren't you recently pretty much accusing Bush of being a war monger? So, Bush'll invade ME nations but the hell with closer ones? Right.
Quote
Quote
Really? So, the Brits should just figure he's bullshitting and just ignore him?
Yes.Quote
Oh, I don't mind someone disagreeing with us, but the vitriol he displays towards our nation on a constant basis gets rather damned old,
Strange that his 'vitriol' essentially mirrors what is said about him at every turn.vitriol
noun
1. (H2SO4) a highly corrosive acid made from sulfur dioxide; widely used in the chemical industry
2. abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will [syn: vituperation]
And I usually see nothing about him in the news unless he's running his mouth or oppressing his people, whereas he's constantly bitching about the US and our allies.
For what reason? What have we done to him, ever?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 21, 2007, 04:53:11 AM
For what reason? What have we done to him, ever?
Be successful under a capitalistic system. Socialism only rises if the people can be convinced that a more successful system is evil and mean to the poor, etc.
Post by: wooderson on November 21, 2007, 09:47:44 AM
Quote
LA isn't first-world anymore, either, demographically.
Bo-ring.Quote
We can't get engineers with upper middle class incomes to move to LA to do much-needed work due to the cost of non-crime-ridden housing.
What you mean to say is that engineers with 'upper middle class' incomes can't live the lifestyle they're accustomed to in LA, because real estate prices are nuts.Quote
Chile has done consistently well since Pinochet took the helm over for the damnfool leftists...who'll never forgive him for it.
This isn't exactly true. Chile has done consistently well since the early '80s, when Pinochet began to relax his grip, fired the Chicago boys and began to run the state like every other mixed-economy known to mankind. Pinochet's early years, splitting the difference between Franco and Friedman, would not be described as 'successful' (unless you're referring to the ability to disappear union leaders and such).Chile began to thrive on the ascent of democracy - and has been led, for the last seventeen years, by anti-poverty centrists and social democrats.
Post by: wooderson on November 21, 2007, 09:53:08 AM
Quote
Yet.
So you think the United States will 'punish' the people of Venezuela for Chavez's statements?How do you think we'll go about this?
Quote
Weren't you recently pretty much accusing Bush of being a war monger? So, Bush'll invade ME nations but the hell with closer ones? Right.
Don't recall ever stating that Bush would consider the invasion of another state (barring Iran) - even a fool and a thug needs some basic kind of pretext.As bad as Iraq has been, imagine 'pacifying' a nation where a majority actually support the leader you've deposed and have a historical resentment of your meddling dating back 220 years?
Quote
Really? So, the Brits should just figure he's bullshitting and just ignore him?
Yes.Quote
And I usually see nothing about him in the news unless he's running his mouth or oppressing his people, whereas he's constantly bitching about the US and our allies.
I didn't specify the news. He's a rather popular topic among right-wingers - pundits and civilians.Quote
For what reason? What have we done to him, ever?
You mean, apart from that nasty little business with the coup?
Post by: doczinn on November 22, 2007, 08:27:40 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 22, 2007, 08:50:48 AM
Por que no te callas?
Touche! Juan Carlos said what everybody thought.
Post by: roo_ster on November 23, 2007, 01:33:26 PM
Quote
Chile has done consistently well since Pinochet took the helm over for the damnfool leftists...who'll never forgive him for it.
This isn't exactly true. Chile has done consistently well since the early '80s, when Pinochet began to relax his grip, fired the Chicago boys and began to run the state like every other mixed-economy known to mankind. Pinochet's early years, splitting the difference between Franco and Friedman, would not be described as 'successful' (unless you're referring to the ability to disappear union leaders and such).Chile began to thrive on the ascent of democracy - and has been led, for the last seventeen years, by anti-poverty centrists and social democrats.
The GDP data does not agree with your analysis of a moribund economy under the early reforms (1975-1982). The general understanding is that the early, radical market-oriented reforms had immediate, drastic, & positive results and set the Chilean economy up for more success in the later 1980s afte tthe international monetary crisis in 1982.
http://www.econstats.com/IMF/IFS_Chi1_99B__.htm#Year
Code:
,,Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [ IFS code : 99B.. ]
,,Chile
,, Units: Billions of National Currency (1E-09)
,, From: National Accounts
,, ES Source: International Financial Statistics
, Year , 1948 to 2003 , Percent Change
1 , 2003 , 49819.301 , 7.3%
2 , 2002 , 46411.299 , 6.8%
3 , 2001 , 43441.401 , 7.1%
4 , 2000 , 40575.298 , 9.3%
5 , 1999 , 37138.498 , 1.7%
6 , 1998 , 36534.900 , 5.2%
7 , 1997 , 34722.600 , 11.2%
8 , 1996 , 31237.299 , 10.3%
9 , 1995 , 28309.199 , 19.4%
10 , 1994 , 23714.700 , 23.0%
11 , 1993 , 19276.499 , 19.6%
12 , 1992 , 16123.200 , 26.8%
13 , 1991 , 12720.000 , 37.6%
14 , 1990 , 9245.500 , 25.7%
15 , 1989 , 7353.700 , 24.3%
16 , 1988 , 5917.880 , 30.3%
17 , 1987 , 4540.560 , 32.8%
18 , 1986 , 3419.210 , 28.9%
19 , 1985 , 2651.940 , 40.1%
20 , 1984 , 1893.390 , 21.5%
21 , 1983 , 1557.710 , 25.7%
22 , 1982 , 1239.120 , -2.7%
23 , 1981 , 1273.120 , 18.4%
24 , 1980 , 1075.270 , 39.2%
25 , 1979 , 772.200 , 58.4%
26 , 1978 , 487.506 , 69.4%
27 , 1977 , 287.770 , 123.6%
28 , 1976 , 128.676 , 263.0%
29 , 1975 , 35.447 , 285.3%
30 , 1974 , 9.199 , 702.1%
31 , 1973 , 1.147 , 389.1%
32 , 1972 , 0.234 , 84.7%
33 , 1971 , 0.127 , 29.0%
34 , 1970 , 0.098
35 , 1969 , 0.069
36 , 1968 , 0.047
37 , 1967 , 0.034
38 , 1966 , 0.026
39 , 1965 , 0.018
40 , 1964 , 0.013
41 , 1963 , 0.009
42 , 1962 , 0.006
43 , 1961 , 0.005
44 , 1960 , 0.004
45 , 1959 , 0.004
46 , 1958 , 0.003
47 , 1957 , 0.002
48 , 1956 , 0.002
49 , 1955 , 0.001
50 , 1954 , 0.001
51 , 1953 , 0.000
52 , 1952 , 0.000
53 , 1951 , 0.000
54 , 1950 , 0.000
55 , 1949 , 0.000
56 , 1948 , 0.000
,,Chile
,, Units: Billions of National Currency (1E-09)
,, From: National Accounts
,, ES Source: International Financial Statistics
, Year , 1948 to 2003 , Percent Change
1 , 2003 , 49819.301 , 7.3%
2 , 2002 , 46411.299 , 6.8%
3 , 2001 , 43441.401 , 7.1%
4 , 2000 , 40575.298 , 9.3%
5 , 1999 , 37138.498 , 1.7%
6 , 1998 , 36534.900 , 5.2%
7 , 1997 , 34722.600 , 11.2%
8 , 1996 , 31237.299 , 10.3%
9 , 1995 , 28309.199 , 19.4%
10 , 1994 , 23714.700 , 23.0%
11 , 1993 , 19276.499 , 19.6%
12 , 1992 , 16123.200 , 26.8%
13 , 1991 , 12720.000 , 37.6%
14 , 1990 , 9245.500 , 25.7%
15 , 1989 , 7353.700 , 24.3%
16 , 1988 , 5917.880 , 30.3%
17 , 1987 , 4540.560 , 32.8%
18 , 1986 , 3419.210 , 28.9%
19 , 1985 , 2651.940 , 40.1%
20 , 1984 , 1893.390 , 21.5%
21 , 1983 , 1557.710 , 25.7%
22 , 1982 , 1239.120 , -2.7%
23 , 1981 , 1273.120 , 18.4%
24 , 1980 , 1075.270 , 39.2%
25 , 1979 , 772.200 , 58.4%
26 , 1978 , 487.506 , 69.4%
27 , 1977 , 287.770 , 123.6%
28 , 1976 , 128.676 , 263.0%
29 , 1975 , 35.447 , 285.3%
30 , 1974 , 9.199 , 702.1%
31 , 1973 , 1.147 , 389.1%
32 , 1972 , 0.234 , 84.7%
33 , 1971 , 0.127 , 29.0%
34 , 1970 , 0.098
35 , 1969 , 0.069
36 , 1968 , 0.047
37 , 1967 , 0.034
38 , 1966 , 0.026
39 , 1965 , 0.018
40 , 1964 , 0.013
41 , 1963 , 0.009
42 , 1962 , 0.006
43 , 1961 , 0.005
44 , 1960 , 0.004
45 , 1959 , 0.004
46 , 1958 , 0.003
47 , 1957 , 0.002
48 , 1956 , 0.002
49 , 1955 , 0.001
50 , 1954 , 0.001
51 , 1953 , 0.000
52 , 1952 , 0.000
53 , 1951 , 0.000
54 , 1950 , 0.000
55 , 1949 , 0.000
56 , 1948 , 0.000
When Allende took office in November 1970, his UP government faced a stagnant economy weakened by inflation, which hit a rate of 35 percent in 1970. Between 1967 and 1970, real GDP per capita had grown only 1.2 percent per annum, a rate significantly below the Latin American average.
...
During 1972 the macroeconomic problems continued to mount. Inflation surpassed 200 percent, and the fiscal deficit surpassed 13 percent of GDP. Domestic credit to the public sector grew at almost 300 percent, and international reserves dipped below US$77 million. Real wages fell 25 percent in 1972
...
During the first quarter of 1973, Chile's economic problems became extremely serious. Inflation reached an annual rate of more than 120 percent, industrial output declined by almost 6 percent, and foreign-exchange reserves held by the Central Bank were barely above US$40 million. The black market by then covered a widening range of transactions in foreign exchange. The fiscal deficit continued to climb as a result of spiraling expenditures and of rapidly disappearing sources of taxation. For that year, the fiscal deficit ended up exceeding 23 percent of GDP.
...
After the military took over the government in September 1973, there was a year and a half of benign neglect of the economy as the regime consolidated its power. When in April 1975, the so called "Chicago Boys" took control of economic policy, a period of dramatic economic changes began. Chile was transformed gradually from an economy isolated from the rest of the world, with strong government intervention, into a liberalized, worldintegrated economy, where market forces were left free to guide most of the economy's decisions. This period was characterized by several important economic achievements: inflation was reduced greatly, the government deficit was virtually eliminated, the economy went through a dramatic liberalization of its foreign sector, and a strong market system was established.
From an economic point of view, the era of General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte (1973-90) can be divided into two periods. The first, from 1975 to 1981, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the collapse of the Chilean economy. At that point, unemployment was extremely high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become bankrupt. During this period, a pragmatic economic policy that emphasized export expansion and growth was implemented. The second period, from 1982 to 1990, is characterized by economic recovery and a further movement towards a free market economy, although at a slower pace than that of the early 1980s.
...
Post by: geronimotwo on November 23, 2007, 03:25:46 PM
Quote
He (chavez) declared that British history was stained with the blood of South Americas indigenous people
i guess history is not my strong suit. i thought it was the spaniards who destroyed the early indigenous civilizations.
Post by: wooderson on November 23, 2007, 05:04:20 PM
And, as usual, pointing to GDP tells very little of any economic story.
Post by: De Selby on November 23, 2007, 11:56:25 PM
His major project now isn't weapons or a secret police, it's sending cuban doctors to rural areas in order to bring medical care to the poorest segments of his population.
Citing Pinochet as an example of the kind of "democracy" that some of you would like to see in Latin America is simply beyond belief. Whether or not the economy benefitted from his brutal dictatorship is an open question (Chicago Boy is a dirty word throughout latin america-their policies were hated, across the board), but whether or not he was a brutal tyrant who makes Chavez look like the most principled of the American founding fathers in comparison is fairly clear.
A brutal dictatoship that tortures thousands of people to institute an economic policy crafted in Washington DC is not a "democracy" anymore than an elected president who implements popular economic reforms with the full support of his electorate and a coalition of elected representatives is a dictator (note that the former is Pinochet, the latter is Chavez.)
Hatred for Hugo Chavez here in America simply confirms the conspiracy theories widely held by Latin Americans-that the US doesn't want democracy, but actually just wants them to do whatever Washington says, their own rights to soveriegnty and national security be darned.
Post by: doczinn on November 24, 2007, 04:34:31 AM
Post by: Scout26 on November 24, 2007, 06:37:36 AM
It's amazing that a country with such excellent natural resources will become a economic basket case.
Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, was the breadbasket of Africa. Now there's food shortages and potential starvation and famine.
But not to worry, socialism will work in Venezula this time !!!!
Post by: De Selby on November 24, 2007, 06:05:23 PM
Can someone explain to me why democracy is so damn important? It happens to be the most reliable way to ensure that rights are protected, but when it doesn't do that, I say throw it out and start over.
With what? A military dictator who we can hope will just "do the right thing" even though he's accountable to no one but himself?
How do you "throw out democracy" and start over in any way that is more likely to protect rights than democracy itself?
Post by: doczinn on November 24, 2007, 08:15:02 PM
Post by: De Selby on November 24, 2007, 10:18:54 PM
I dunno, could just be a different democratic system.
That's why they have elections. Using force to uproot the results of an election is not "a different democratic system".
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 06:07:15 AM
Post by: wooderson on November 25, 2007, 07:32:59 AM
Right?
Right?
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 08:01:16 AM
And frankly, if the people were stupid enough to re-elect Chavez (which may or may not have actually happened), maybe they don't deserve democracy.
Yes, I said that. And I'm in good company, because our founding fathers had similar sentiments. That's why they built protections into our Constitution to make it damn difficult (they hoped impossible) for a dictator to arise.
If you have enough limits on Government, then it really doesn't matter who's in charge or how they got there, because they can't do anything to hurt you.
Of course, you have to be willing to back up those protections....
Post by: wooderson on November 25, 2007, 09:33:33 AM
Quote
Please show me where I said that any time a government is overthrown, elections are then held.
So you agree, then, that when elected governments are overthrown, what follows is generally not an immediate democratic election?Why, then, did you suggest that the outcome of 'removing' Chavez could be a "few wealthy individuals (or a few powerful generals) overthrowing him and holding new elections"?
Quote
And frankly, if the people were stupid enough to re-elect Chavez (which may or may not have actually happened), maybe they don't deserve democracy.
I think that says it all.
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 11:27:00 AM
Quote
So you agree, then, that when elected governments are overthrown, what follows is generally not an immediate democratic election?
I never denied it.Quote
Why, then, did you suggest that the outcome of 'removing' Chavez could be a "few wealthy individuals (or a few powerful generals) overthrowing him and holding new elections"?
It's one possible scenario, which I would be in favor of. On the other hand, if they instituted a comprehensive set of civil, political, and economic rights protections and said "To Hell with democracy," would that be so bad?Give me an autocrat who leaves me alone over a democratically elected meddler who wants to hep any day.
Post by: wooderson on November 25, 2007, 11:54:42 AM
Quote
It's one possible scenario, which I would be in favor of.
Are you in favor of leprechauns handing out pots of gold as well?Quote
On the other hand, if they instituted a comprehensive set of civil, political, and economic rights protections and said "To Hell with democracy," would that be so bad?
Can you have "civil, political and economic rights" (I'll even skip adding scare quotes to economic) rights without democracy? If the people have no say in their state, how can there be and protections outside the whims of the dictator or ruling oligarchy?
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 12:04:33 PM
Quote
Are you in favor of leprechauns handing out pots of gold as well?
Is it your position, then, that a coup cannot be followed by a free and fair election? Anyway, I've tried to make it clear that what matters is not who decides, but what they decide.
Post by: wooderson on November 25, 2007, 12:57:58 PM
Quote
Is it your position, then, that a coup cannot be followed by a free and fair election?
Is it my position that coups overthrowing governments with recent elections will not be followed by a "free and fair election"? Yes. Quote
Anyway, I've tried to make it clear that what matters is not who decides, but what they decide.
Except, by advocating that democracy be thrown by the wayside when it suits you, "who decides" is exactly what your concern is.
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 01:49:00 PM
Quote
Is it my position that coups overthrowing governments with recent elections will not be followed by a "free and fair election"? Yes.
You may be trying to be clever, but that's not what I asked.Quote
by advocating that democracy be thrown by the wayside when it suits you
Again you misrepresent my position. This gets tiresome.
Post by: De Selby on November 25, 2007, 02:26:52 PM
Give me an autocrat who leaves me alone over a democratically elected meddler who wants to hep any day.
Except that, when the autocrat doesn't answer to you or anyone except his own circle of elites, what makes you think he's going to leave you alone?
If this imaginary "rights protecting coup" follows the Latin American pattern, it will mean substantial risk of you being tortured and killed simply because you aren't reliable enough for the dictator's tastes.
I hate to point out the obvious, but military coups resulting in autocrats virtually never result in a government that just leaves people alone and respects their rights.
Can you think of a scenario which might, somehow, make a plausible case for a dictatorship respecting rights better than a democracy it overthrows?
Post by: roo_ster on November 25, 2007, 04:56:04 PM
I recall the Islamic Salvation Front's unofficial motto, "One man, one vote. Once."
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 05:19:10 PM
Quote
when the autocrat doesn't answer to you or anyone except his own circle of elites, what makes you think he's going to leave you alone?
I can't recall claiming it was very likely. My point is that what matters is liberty. It really doesn't matter at all how it's achieved. As I said, democracy happens to be the best way to achieve that, but it doesn't always work.
Post by: De Selby on November 25, 2007, 05:22:14 PM
Quote
when the autocrat doesn't answer to you or anyone except his own circle of elites, what makes you think he's going to leave you alone?
I can't recall claiming it was very likely. My point is that what matters is liberty. It really doesn't matter at all how it's achieved. As I said, democracy happens to be the best way to achieve that, but it doesn't always work.Yes, we all know that democracy doesn't always work. What is your critique here then? I clearly didn't understand the point you were making. What I thought you were saying was that having a military coup overthrow and kill chavez would be better than just waiting for the next election to let Venezuelans vote on his performance. And if they elected Chavez again, you said "they don't deserve democracy."
So I thought you were saying that in this case, a military dictatorship would actually be better than democracy. Is that wrong? Or are you actually agreeing with me that Venezuela should continue to practice democracy, and that's the most likely way that people's rights will be protected (if imperfectly)?
Post by: doczinn on November 25, 2007, 06:18:03 PM
I don't pretend it's likely. My entire point is that the important things is not democracy itself, but the protection of liberty, and if that liberty can be provided in any other way, it's just as good.
Post by: De Selby on November 25, 2007, 08:41:34 PM
What I'm saying is that if the Venezuelan people are stupid enough to re-elect Chavez (or if they don't but he makes it look like they did), a coup would be justified if it would install a government more respectful of the people's rights.
In other words, you don't think respect for people's right to government by consent is important? Or even primary?
What I'm interested in is how you can justify such a breach of civil society when there is another election coming up. Maybe if there was, as jfruser described, "one man, one vote, once", that would make sense. But if you really think democracy is the most likely way to secure liberty in the long run, why not just wait for the next election???
Quote
I don't pretend it's likely. My entire point is that the important things is not democracy itself, but the protection of liberty, and if that liberty can be provided in any other way, it's just as good.
This is an interesting idea. How does one "protect liberty" independent of any consent or control on the part of the protected? Doesn't that strike you as a bit contradictory, to say "I'll protect your liberty-whether you want me to or not"?
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 04:30:15 AM
In other words, you don't think respect for people's right to government by consent is important? Or even primary?
He's saying that freedom matters, and the form of government is secondary. Democracy is not "government by consent"; that's just propaganda. And democracy is not especially good at preserving freedom. The Palestinians had an election, and put dictatorial terrorists in power. The Germans democratically elected the Nazis to a plurality in the Reichstag, and then democratically granted Hitler the "emergency powers" in the enabling act. Israel's two most powerful parties are the socialists and the Orthodox. In the US it's barely any better. Democrats favor authoritarian domestic policy (at our expense), and Republicans favor authoritarian foreign policy (at our expense).
Quote
This is an interesting idea. How does one "protect liberty" independent of any consent or control on the part of the protected? Doesn't that strike you as a bit contradictory, to say "I'll protect your liberty-whether you want me to or not"?
Actually, it's not contradictory. Since "liberty" is nothing more than the absence of force against one's person or property, the statement amounts to, "I'll keep my mitts to myself whether you want me to or not." If someone insists on being coerced, he can hire a dominatrix.
--Len.
Post by: doczinn on November 26, 2007, 04:38:00 AM
Quote
In other words, you don't think respect for people's right to government by consent is important? Or even primary?
Unless you mean that every individual has a right not to consent to that particular government, then no. If by "government by consent" you mean that 50% +1 have a right to decide how the rest should live and how much of their money they will be allowed to keep, then no.Quote
Doesn't that strike you as a bit contradictory, to say "I'll protect your liberty-whether you want me to or not"?
Not surprising, but you're showing an utter lack of understanding of what I mean by "protect liberty." Let's paraphrase: "I'll leave you alone, whether you want me to or not." Hmmm... sounds good to me.Edit: You beat me to the punch, Len.
Quote
the statement amounts to, "I'll keep my mitts to myself whether you want me to or not."
Great minds think alike.
Post by: wooderson on November 26, 2007, 10:46:06 AM
Quote
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis to a plurality in the Reichstag, and then democratically granted Hitler the "emergency powers" in the enabling act.
This is a common line - but not exactly true.
The Nazis did receive a plurality - but only after the Reichstag fire and first round of Bolsheviks were arrested. And they only passed the Enabling Act by arresting the entirety of the KPD delegation and either a quarter or a third of the socialist SPD.
Which is to say that democracy can become a dictatorship - if you throw out that 'democracy' stuff. A strongman took power as all strongmen take power - through violence and intimidation, not because of 'legal wrangling' or 'democracy.'
Post by: doczinn on November 26, 2007, 03:58:16 PM
Quote
Which is to say that democracy can become a dictatorship - if you throw out that 'democracy' stuff.
Or if you don't.
Post by: De Selby on November 26, 2007, 05:24:25 PM
Unless you mean that every individual has a right not to consent to that particular government, then no. If by "government by consent" you mean that 50% +1 have a right to decide how the rest should live and how much of their money they will be allowed to keep, then no.
So it's better in this particular case if a general shoots the elected leader and decides on his own? Or not? I'm trying to get a clear answer from you on the Chavez situation, because you seem to want to criticize what I'm saying about respecting elected leadership, but at the same time don't seem to commit to a position on the subject.
Quote
the statement amounts to, "I'll keep my mitts to myself whether you want me to or not."
Great minds think alike.[/quote]
This would be nice, but unfortunately, neither military dictators nor anyone else respects this principle. How would having a coup that topples Chavez in any realistic world provide something better?
Post by: De Selby on November 26, 2007, 05:30:52 PM
He's saying that freedom matters, and the form of government is secondary. Democracy is not "government by consent"; that's just propaganda. And democracy is not especially good at preserving freedom. The Palestinians had an election, and put dictatorial terrorists in power. The Germans democratically elected the Nazis to a plurality in the Reichstag, and then democratically granted Hitler the "emergency powers" in the enabling act. Israel's two most powerful parties are the socialists and the Orthodox. In the US it's barely any better. Democrats favor authoritarian domestic policy (at our expense), and Republicans favor authoritarian foreign policy (at our expense).
An interesting point about those democracies you cite is how consistently they fail to reflect public opinion-one might conclude that the problem isn't democracy, but a lack of it. Your opinion that the government infringes on freedoms and uses state money for improper purposes is widely shared by a public that generally doesn't approve of either party-yet things do not change, and no alternative is realistically available in elections. This is a count for more accountability to the voters, not a count against it.
Quote
Actually, it's not contradictory. Since "liberty" is nothing more than the absence of force against one's person or property, the statement amounts to, "I'll keep my mitts to myself whether you want me to or not." If someone insists on being coerced, he can hire a dominatrix.
--Len.
--Len.
Here's the problem: What if a big part of your population thinks "liberty" means "the right to decent medical care and the right to a good job" (that's the case in venezuela)? How come all institutions of power are required to agree with your own vision of what liberty constitutes and what it doesn't?
Realizing that there is wide debate even over what constitutes a liberty and what are rights, I think democracy is the best system because it gives a medium for representing those different views and arbitrating disputes between them in a somewhat rational environment. If you really don't agree that some things demanded by voters are rights, try to convince them; but if you can't, using a dictator who will refuse to institute their vision of "personal freedoms" and instead will institute yours is a recipe for disaster. Large segments of the population will not respect the government, and bitterness over not having their own ideas of what constitutes "essential liberty" protected will only grow. Witness the hatred of liberal (classical liberal) economic policies in Latin America, largely instituted by dictators. Beneficial or not, they are widely hated...and their proponents are in serious political trouble because of the systems that implemented them.
I actually do think that your basic idea, of being left alone and not being robbed by state officials, is something most people do support and would like-absent the politics that come along with it. Perhaps more democracy is what the anarcho-capitalists and libertarians need, not less.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 26, 2007, 05:55:06 PM
So far, the best mechanism mankind has devised for protecting liberty is a set of constitutional restraints imposed on government. In order for this to work the constitution must be sound and be backed up by the population. If those criteria are met, it doesn't really matter if the government is chosen by election or otherwise. Eventually this system also might fail, but odds are good that it'll produce more liberty for more people for a longer period of time than will a pure democracy.
As for overthrowing Chavez, why not? It's becoming more and more obvious that Chavez is setting himself up as a commie dictator. Coups don't always improve the political landscape, but they do sometimes. Worst case scenario with a coup is that one dictator gets replaced by another, which isn't much of a loss to the people. It seems to me that in the case of overthrowing Chavez, the people have nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain.
Post by: wooderson on November 26, 2007, 06:27:54 PM
Some of y'all need to learn to differentiate between 'democracy' and 'direct democracy.'
Post by: doczinn on November 26, 2007, 08:02:38 PM
Quote
So it's better in this particular case if a general shoots the elected leader and decides on his own?
If he's less oppressive, then yes. If he's more oppressive, then no. See how this works? More liberty= good. Less liberty= bad. Simple.Quote
What if a big part of your population thinks "liberty" means "the right to decent medical care and the right to a good job" (that's the case in venezuela)?
If a big part of the population thinks "apple" means" orange," that doesn't make it so. No definition of liberty includes things being given to you. Only a very twisted definition of rights includes such.Let me try stating this one again: You don't have a right to anything that must be provided by someone else.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 08:14:05 PM
Quote
Let me try stating this one again: You don't have a right to anything that must be provided by someone else.
Tell that to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr., who all ripped off our social security payments and squandered them.
Post by: De Selby on November 26, 2007, 10:45:03 PM
Quote
If he's less oppressive, then yes. If he's more oppressive, then no. See how this works? More liberty= good. Less liberty= bad. Simple.
So do you actually think it's reasonably likely, or even possible, for a dictator that overthrows a very popular government to be "less oppressive"? How do you think any such dictator would deal with the majority of the population that elected the government in the first place? Would he be able to just leave the majority political bloc alone, and still rule?
I think if you question your beliefs about dictators overthrowing democracies, you will quickly find that the idea is simple-simply unworkable. Maybe in some fantasy land a supreme leader could oust a popular government and then avoid instituting harsh repression to shut the majority up, but not in this world.
Quote
If a big part of the population thinks "apple" means" orange," that doesn't make it so. No definition of liberty includes things being given to you. Only a very twisted definition of rights includes such.
Wait a second here-what makes this a "very twisted definition of rights"? Because you say so? Or does that just go without saying? Because it looks like a large majority of the people in Venezuela clearly do not agree with you on this point...so how did we decide that they all are wrong and you personally are without error on this subject?
Simply asserting that you don't have this or that right doesn't constitute final authority on the question. Why, for example, should Venezuelans automatically accept what you say, and reject what the vast majority of their own population believes is/is not a right?
Post by: doczinn on November 27, 2007, 04:46:57 AM
Quote
So do you actually think it's reasonably likely, or even possible, for a dictator that overthrows a very popular government to be "less oppressive"?
Hmmm... reasonably likely? Maybe not, but I never said it was. Possible? Of course, and the more oppressive Chavez gets, the more likely any alternative is to be at least a little bit better. And I notice you use the term "very popular," as if to describe Chavez. Interesting.Quote
Why, for example, should Venezuelans automatically accept what you say, and reject what the vast majority of their own population believes is/is not a right?
Venezuelans, like anyone else in the world, should simply refrain from asking a strongman (even if he's elected, yes, even if he's "very popular") to confiscate their neighbors resources to finance their health care or anything else. Can you explain to me how it's possible, if property rights exist, for anyone to have a right to someone else's property?
Post by: roo_ster on November 27, 2007, 06:37:49 AM
Whenever Turks got a little too frisky with the franchise, the mucky-mucks in the military would grumble and get them back in line.
---------
I think I see a clash of paradigms:
1. The doczinns of the world care little for the means or process, as long as the result is one favorable to liberty. [caricature]An all-powerful dictator who refused to use his power to oppress or intrude, no matter how much the public demanded the yoke, would be hunky-dory.[/caricature]
2. The SSs & woodersons of the world are more focussed on the process and place a high value on democratic participation. [caricature]What comes out the other end is by definition legitimate, since the process was followed and is open to all.[/caricature]
I lean more towards #1, but give a begrudging nod to #2 as slightly more likely to result in liberty. Two cheers for universal suffrage.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
----H. L. Mencken
Post by: Len Budney on November 27, 2007, 06:43:58 AM
I think I see a clash of paradigms:
Well summed up! I agree with Doczinn and mostly with you: I lean toward #1 recognizing that a tyrant is unlikely to defend liberty. I'm more cynical than you are about the odds of democracy defending liberty either, though.
--Len.
Post by: Art Eatman on November 27, 2007, 10:06:44 AM
Those with money and skills have fled Venezuela. It's not just "The Rich", either. It's right on down to what little middle class existed.
Chavez promised a free lunch in order to get elected. He's been able to do that because of the rise in oil prices. That can't last, due to declining production. The remaining major body of oil is sour crude, and he lacks the technological know-how to deal with it--particularly after running off those companies which could. And his courting of the Chinese won't help, as they are years away from competency.
Mild proof of our own benevolence in the US is that Chavez ships crude oil to Corpus Christi, where it's refined into gasoline which is then shipped back to Venezuela. He ran off too many skilled workers, and the infrastructure there is decaying.
Chavez has gotten the laws/constitution re-written such that he can now be president for life. While he would make a pro forma run for re-election, it's his people who will count the votes. He looks benevolent on paper as to "democracy", but he's become an all-powerful tyrant.
His economic policies are such that the poorest can no longer afford food. There are shortages of energy for both electrical and transportation needs.
Chavez has long been a disciple of Castro, and recently has been buddying up to the communist guerillas of Colombia and with the narcotrafficantes.
FWIW, back during the Clinton era when we, Europe and OPEC all agreed that $25/bbl oil meant stability for both buyers and sellers, Chavez was calling for $40 and more as an economic weapon agains the US in particular and the west in general.
He knows damned well he'll never need those 100,000 AKs for combat with a foreign enemy who invades, but they'll be damned handy for his own police force. He'll need them to maintain order when his failing economic system falls farther on down the ladder to Yuck!. There's even less justification for buying fighter jets from Russia--particularly given the comparative expertise at combat flying and for the disparity of electronics with the USAF. 'Scuse me, but why spend money on stuff that you'd never get to use if the US did get hostile? He's an equally great military strategist with Saddam Hussein.
But he makes the right PR noises, so the Hollywood idiots and other idiots work to find apologic rationale for his nonsense...
Art
Post by: Manedwolf on November 27, 2007, 10:11:24 AM
There's even less justification for buying fighter jets from Russia--particularly given the comparative expertise at combat flying and for the disparity of electronics with the USAF. 'Scuse me, but why spend money on stuff that you'd never get to use if the US did get hostile?
If he ever got outwardly hostile, all of his fighters would be destroyed on the ground by our semi-autonomous weapons systems before they even got the "remove before flight" tags off them. One thing we're very, very good at is quickly nailing military assets we know the location of.
Post by: Balog on November 27, 2007, 01:26:14 PM
One thing I'd like to touch on is this statement by SS.
Quote
Simply asserting that you don't have this or that right doesn't constitute final authority on the question. Why, for example, should Venezuelans automatically accept what you say, and reject what the vast majority of their own population believes is/is not a right?
I believe it's called "natural law." The idea that some things are mala in se; not only that, but they are so obviously wrong that everyone is born knowing that they are wrong. Excluding the very rare cases of psychopathy.... err antisocial personality disorder as the DSM IV apparently calls it.
Anyway, rape, murder, theft; all inherently evil, all concepts glorified at one time or another in various cultures. Just because a culture says something is a right doesn't make it so. And yes, I'm ok with depriving the poor little guys of their democratic rights to define that. "Democracy" isn't some magic system that we must be adhered to in order to prevent evil. It's a good system, but not an end in and of itself.
Post by: wooderson on November 27, 2007, 03:25:50 PM
Quote
Just because a culture says something is a right doesn't make it so.
... and conversely...
Post by: wooderson on November 29, 2007, 10:00:13 AM
Quote
The SSs & woodersons of the world are more focussed on the process and place a high value on democratic participation.
This is not exactly true. I do value democratic participation (though have a rather low opinion of voting, in and of itself), but my argument is that 'liberty' (as we know it) cannot exist without some form of 'democracy.' This hypothetical benign autocracy that 'gives' you liberty can, of course, take it away at any time, and since you have no democratic recourse, you're screwed. So the idea fails on two points - this, and the fact that in human history, there are zero instances in which an autocracy 'protected' freedom to a greater degree than modern democracies.
And one point of delicious irony - in my ideological neck of the woods, we have a word for people who claim to know better than the people how to protect liberty: Leninist. Isn't that the argument here? That a 'vanguard' of liberty is preferable than the 'tyranny of the majority' that might impede one's utopia? Some y'all might disagree with the Bolshies on what constitutes freedom and liberty, but your methods of reaching it don't differ greatly.
Turkey was mentioned earlier - Ataturk's revolution was, essentially, the replacement of a reactionary caliphate with the quasi-authoritarian state that survives today. That's not really comparable to the removal of a democratic (but flawed) state.
Post by: Len Budney on November 29, 2007, 10:03:02 AM
...my argument is that 'liberty' (as we know it) cannot exist without some form of 'democracy.'
Why do you believe that majority rule will protect the minority from aggression? I.e., when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner, why do you believe they can be trusted to vote for tofurkey?
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 29, 2007, 10:07:13 AM
Without democracy, the wolves need only convince the boss.
Which is easier?
Post by: Len Budney on November 29, 2007, 10:22:26 AM
In a nation of 350 million wolves and sheep, the wolves have to convince at least 50%+1 that it's okay for them to eat the sheep.
The wolves are a majority, though. Remember all the rhetoric about the "top 1% of wage earners"? Let's call them "sheep." Apparently "wolves" make up about 99% of the population. Hopefully, lots of those wolves are vegetarians. But a quick look around certainly suggests otherwise.
Quote
Without democracy, the wolves need only convince the boss.
Well, is it easier to find one good man who believes in liberty, or a majority of the freaking population? The latter is apparently almost impossible. An interesting experiment is underway to prove it, called the "Ron Paul presidential campaign."
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 29, 2007, 10:35:27 AM
Quote
The wolves are a majority, though. Remember all the rhetoric about the "top 1% of wage earners"? Let's call them "sheep." Apparently "wolves" make up about 99% of the population. Hopefully, lots of those wolves are vegetarians. But a quick look around certainly suggests otherwise.
I hadn't realized that the "top 1% of wage earners" were being turned into soylent green. They are still the "top 1% of wage earners," right? Still free to vote? Marry? Have kids? Spend their money?Quote
Well, is it easier to find one good man who believes in liberty, or a majority of the freaking population?
So what you're saying is that we need a vanguard of the bourgeois.
Post by: doczinn on November 30, 2007, 04:39:34 AM
Quote
And one point of delicious irony - in my ideological neck of the woods, we have a word for people who claim to know better than the people how to protect liberty: Leninist. Isn't that the argument here? That a 'vanguard' of liberty is preferable than the 'tyranny of the majority' that might impede one's utopia? Some y'all might disagree with the Bolshies on what constitutes freedom and liberty, but your methods of reaching it don't differ greatly.
1. Are you actually flinging the term "Leninist" at libertarians?2. You seem still to be under the very mistaken impression that liberty is something that would be (or even could be) "imposed" on people. Liberty is the state of not being imposed upon.
3. Bolsheviks never had liberty as their aim.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 05:28:34 AM
Quote
The wolves are a majority, though. Remember all the rhetoric about the "top 1% of wage earners"? Let's call them "sheep." Apparently "wolves" make up about 99% of the population...
I hadn't realized that the "top 1% of wage earners" were being turned into soylent green.
Nope--they're just being sheared of the bulk of all tax revenue. A democracy is civilized, see: we don't slaughter the sheep. We shear them.
Quote
Quote
Well, is it easier to find one good man who believes in liberty, or a majority of the freaking population?
So what you're saying is that we need a vanguard of the bourgeois.
No, I'm just pointing out that a majority can always be counted on to oppress a minority. That's why this country was NOT designed as a democracy in the first place. The founders thought they could get the benefits of democracy while avoiding the pitfalls, by creating a constitutional republic. The "constitutional" part of that is already gone. The "republic" part is next.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 06:36:21 AM
Quote
1. Are you actually flinging the term "Leninist" at libertarians?
No, I'm revelling in the irony of methodologies.Quote
2. You seem still to be under the very mistaken impression that liberty is something that would be (or even could be) "imposed" on people. Liberty is the state of not being imposed upon.
heheQuote
3. Bolsheviks never had liberty as their aim.
They would, of course, have disagreed.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 06:39:36 AM
Quote
Nope--they're just being sheared of the bulk of all tax revenue. A democracy is civilized, see: we don't slaughter the sheep. We shear them.
A top 1% wage earner, "being sheared" of his income... still takes home more than someone in the "top 5%," "top 20%," et al., does he not?Quote
That's why this country was NOT designed as a democracy in the first place.
Which is simply nonsense. This country was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - a democratic republic. Certainly less democratic than our current state, which is coincidentally less oppressive in every way than the 'democratic republic' that refused basic rights to anyone but land-owning males.But for its time, as democratic as possible.
There simply is no contradiction between "constitutional" "republic" and "democracy."
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 06:45:11 AM
Quote
Nope--they're just being sheared of the bulk of all tax revenue. A democracy is civilized, see: we don't slaughter the sheep. We shear them.
A top 1% wage earner, "being sheared" of his income... still takes home more than someone in the "top 5%," "top 20%," et al., does he not?You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?
Quote
Quote
That's why this country was NOT designed as a democracy in the first place.
Which is simply nonsense. This country was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - a democratic republic.
You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get. THAT'S nonsense. They were perfectly aware of the concept of direct democracy, and they consciously rejected it. They had plenty to say about the tyranny of the majority and other shortcomings of pure democracy.
Quote
There simply is no contradiction between "constitutional" "republic" and "democracy."
"Constitutional" means that some things are off limits even if a majority want them. A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.
"Republic" means that the people do not create laws directly: they choose men who then create laws on their behalf. This doesn't stop them from picking evil men. Nor does it stop the representatives from letting polls dictate their every action. But it's a layer between the people and the laws, and it was put there on purpose.
--Len.
Post by: doczinn on November 30, 2007, 07:03:33 AM
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 07:04:07 AM
Quote
hehe? WTF is that supposed to mean? You don't get the distinction?
What distinction would that be?
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 07:10:30 AM
Quote
hehe? WTF is that supposed to mean? You don't get the distinction?
What distinction would that be?
I think he means "contradiction." As in, it would be an oxymoron to impose non-imposition.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 07:15:06 AM
You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?
"injustice"I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.
Quote
You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get.
No, I'm not. I said it was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - granting control over the state to a revolutionarily large number of individuals, while still being bound in by the mores of the time. ie women as chattel, Africans as property, etc..Quote
THAT'S nonsense. They were perfectly aware of the concept of direct democracy, and they consciously rejected it. They had plenty to say about the tyranny of the majority and other shortcomings of pure democracy.
All a non-sequitur, because I said nothing about "pure democracy" or "direct democracy." I've seen no one advocate, here, a form of "pure democracy."What I said was that the country has been, since its inception, both a 'democracy' and a 'republic.' It is only by willfully misunderstanding those words that people can whine about the evils of 'democracy.'
Quote
"Constitutional" means that some things are off limits even if a majority want them.
Laws only offer protection insofar as enough people choose to follow them.Quote
A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.
And yet not incompatible with 'democracy' - as we've seen in the US for over 225 years.A bill of rights supported by a majority, as ours is, also acts as a check on the power of those who would take and abuse their own power - the autocrats certain people think might not be so bad for liberty.
Quote
"Republic" means that the people do not create laws directly: they choose men who then create laws on their behalf.
That last clause defines a republic as a 'democracy.'Which, again, feeds back into what I've repeatedly said: democracy, constitutional and republic are in no way contradictions.
It is only when arguing against a strawman of 'direct democracy' without any respect for rule of law that any of the anti-democratic arguments here make a lick of sense.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 07:29:48 AM
You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?
I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.
I see. They've been robbed of millions of dollars, but they haven't been "put...at any disadvantage" because they didn't lose everything. So if I rob you, but I don't take everything, you haven't been harmed in any way, shape or form. Good to know. Where do you live, and where do you keep your family jewels?
Quote
Quote
You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get.
No, I'm not. I said it was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - granting control over the state to a revolutionarily large number of individuals, while still being bound in by the mores of the time. ie women as chattel, Africans as property, etc..
They had plenty to say against direct democracy. Did you read any of it?
Quote
Quote
A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.
And yet not incompatible with 'democracy' - as we've seen in the US for over 225 years.
So a "mixed" democracy, with some things voted on, other things socialized, etc., is "democracy enough for wooderson." Subject to that sort of sloppy terminology, anarcho-capitalism is also a flavor of democracy. All "voting" takes place on the market, and people are constitutionally forbidden to do anything to anyone without their consent, but that doesn't make it any less a democracy.
Quote
It is only when arguing against a strawman of 'direct democracy' without any respect for rule of law that any of the anti-democratic arguments here make a lick of sense.
I agree that there will be confusion if everyone isn't using the same definition of "democracy." Your definition is not the best choice, because it conflates completely different things. The Soviet Union was a one-party socialist democracy, in which property ownership was constitutionally forbidden. Sweden, Canada--practically every nation in the world is "democratic" by your definition. Which makes it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
--Len.
Post by: Ben on November 30, 2007, 08:04:29 AM
Quote
I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.
Hokey smokes. I'm with Len on this one. Tell us where you live. A group of APS'rs will come by to take everything you don't need to live comfortably or that we feel wouldn't put you at a disadvantage in any way. We will redistribute among ourselves and other groups that we feel would benefit. We will be the ones who define "comfort" and "disadvantage".
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 08:34:20 AM
Quote
They've been robbed of millions of dollars
"robbed"Quote
They had plenty to say against direct democracy. Did you read any of it?
Again, 'direct democracy' is a red herring in this thread. No one has championed it, or even discussed it at any length.Quote
So a "mixed" democracy, with some things voted on, other things socialized, etc., is "democracy enough for wooderson."
I've said nothing about my desires - what constitutes 'enough democracy' or how an ideal democracy might function. I'm merely trying to get across that 'democracy' and 'republicanism' aren't inherently in competition with each other.Quote
Subject to that sort of sloppy terminology, anarcho-capitalism is also a flavor of democracy.
Anarcho-capitalism is, potentially, a "flavor of democracy," yes.I see no 'sloppy terminology' - outside of certain individuals' desire to redefine all of 'democracy' to fit into the 'direct democracy' box.
Quote
I agree that there will be confusion if everyone isn't using the same definition of "democracy." Your definition is not the best choice, because it conflates completely different things.
Democracy, per the OED: 'a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.'per Random House: 'government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.'
per M-W: 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections'
Quote
The Soviet Union was a one-party socialist democracy, in which property ownership was constitutionally forbidden.
Property rights are irrelevant, of course. And, of course, as with the Enabling Acts, the only way you can define the CCCP as a 'democracy' is if you want to use it as a stick with which to beat the concept.Quote
Sweden, Canada--practically every nation in the world is "democratic" by your definition.
Given that each is a parliamentary democracy... um, yeah.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 08:48:24 AM
Quote
They've been robbed of millions of dollars
"robbed"
"Expropriated without their consent, upon threat of imprisonment."
Quote
Quote
Sweden, Canada--practically every nation in the world is "democratic" by your definition.
Given that each is a parliamentary democracy... um, yeah.
And thus the world's "democracies" contradict your theory that "democracy" tends to protect freedom. I'd rather live under a monarch devoted to protecting freedom than under, say, the socialist Swedish "democracy."
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 09:09:44 AM
Quote
And thus the world's "democracies" contradict your theory that "democracy" tends to protect freedom.
Yes, Sweden is noticeably less "free" than such noted non-democratic states as...uh...
gimme a sec...
nope, I got nothin'.
Quote
I'd rather live under a monarch devoted to protecting freedom than under, say, the socialist Swedish "democracy."
And I'd like to marry a mermaid and live under the sea.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 09:28:00 AM
Quote
And thus the world's "democracies" contradict your theory that "democracy" tends to protect freedom.
Yes, Sweden is noticeably less "free" than such noted non-democratic states as... nope, I got nothin'.
You need to get out more. Liechtenstein beats the pants off Sweden. But your demand isn't entirely fair, though, since pretty much the entire western world is "democratic" these days. So the choice is between democracies, all of which basically suck--and (more than just titular) monarchies, few of which exist anymore.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 09:44:41 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 09:48:42 AM
Um, Lichtenstein is also a parliamentary democracy with some authority vested in the monarchy.
There is no autocracy left in the universe. Thus reinforcing my point.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 10:00:09 AM
Quote
There is no autocracy left in the universe. Thus reinforcing my point.
There is no 'autocracy' left in the democratic west, at least. We got together and decided that letting everyone have input on the way the state is run (or at least pretending that's the case) is a better deal than hoping our kings and priests have our best interests at heart.But your point, then, seems to be that you have zero examples in which leadership-from-on-high 'protects freedom' to a greater degree than modern democracy.
Huh. I think I might have noted that at some point.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 10:02:00 AM
But your point, then, seems to be that you have zero examples in which leadership-from-on-high 'protects freedom' to a greater degree than modern democracy.
Which doesn't change the fact that "modern democracy" does a notably poor job of protecting freedom, which makes the debate somewhat moot. You're trying to prove that "terrible" is the best we can do?
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 10:15:10 AM
Quote
You're trying to prove that "terrible" is the best we can do?
There's really not much room for discussion if you're just going to say "yeah, well, fine, whatever IT'S STILL TERRIBLE."The questions, way back yonder, were about the value of democracy and how it might compare to certain individuals' idealized autocracies (and where we might find these states). Not "is democracy perfect" or anything of the sort.
I think you have to go this route because it's all but impossible to argue that any non-democratic state has been superior in the 'liberty and freedom' race to a contemporary democratic state.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 10:17:39 AM
Quote
You're trying to prove that "terrible" is the best we can do?
There's really not much room for discussion if you're just going to say "yeah, well, fine, whatever IT'S STILL TERRIBLE."
The upshot is that anarcho-capitalism is better than ALL the alternatives, including democracy. Illusions concerning the value of democracy for preserving liberty inhibits awareness of the need for a change.
Quote
The questions, way back yonder, were about the value of democracy and how it might compare to certain individuals' idealized autocracies (and where we might find these states). Not "is democracy perfect" or anything of the sort.
I look forward to the self-contradiction in which you argue that anarcho-capitalism isn't perfect.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 10:39:06 AM
Quote
The upshot is that anarcho-capitalism is better than ALL the alternatives, including democracy.
If you want to call anarcho-capitalism un-democratic, feel free. But I see no reason to argue that the two concepts are incompatible.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 10:41:23 AM
Quote
The upshot is that anarcho-capitalism is better than ALL the alternatives, including democracy.
If you want to call anarcho-capitalism un-democratic, feel free. But I see no reason to argue that the two concepts are incompatible.
The problem is that you're going to confuse the hell out of people saying, "I support democracy, which is why we should shut down the government entirely." When one word means everything, it means nothing.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 10:45:29 AM
Whether that comes in the form of elected intermediaries, direct input from the citizenry, a combination of the two, etc. etc. etc. - doesn't color the basic idea.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 10:54:58 AM
I've seen no suggestion that the "one word" in question means "everything" - the working definition is both broad and specific. A democratic society is one in which [SOME] power is vested in the people.
That includes Russia and Nazi Germany. It includes every nation in history except an honest-to-goodness full-blown autocracy.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 11:50:51 AM
But once again, you're going to have a helluva time finding the democratic workings of Nazi Germany or the USSR, or North Korea, or any similar state. But you're going to keep trotting out those particular canards because you can't think of another way to bash democracy - all because you can't really locate any meaningful examples of 'free' non-democratic societies.
Post by: grampster on November 30, 2007, 11:57:00 AM
Cough, ahem. I predict a landslide by Chavez the Southern Hemisphere's great humanitarian democratic socialist.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 12:02:20 PM
Ultimate power then, if you want to try to play semantics.
ULTIMATE power? Now the US isn't a democracy either.
Quote
But once again, you're going to have a helluva time finding the democratic workings of Nazi Germany...
Excuse me? The democratic institutions of Germany were kept in place throughout the third Reich. Sure, Hitler had emergency war powers, but then again we have the same provisions for our President in this country. When some President activates them, will we suddenly not be a democracy anymore? Pah.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 12:03:32 PM
She went on to say "If this govenment cannot get me milk or asphalt for our roads, how is it going to give my mother a pension?"
What's scary is that she expects government to give her those things.
Post by: grampster on November 30, 2007, 12:13:52 PM
Post by: wooderson on November 30, 2007, 01:18:39 PM
Quote
ULTIMATE power? Now the US isn't a democracy either.
Of course it is. Ultimate power rests with the people of the United States. It does not reside in the courts or in caselaw, it does not reside in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which can be amended by the people), it does not reside in Congress (who can be thrown out by the people), it does not exist in fictions like 'natural law.'On a day to day basis the people exert a good deal of control, and the workings are in place for them to exert far, far more if they so chose.
There is no higher authority in the good old US of A than the people themselves. We have no kings, no high priests, no religious pamphlets to decide for us.
Quote
The democratic institutions of Germany were kept in place throughout the third Reich.
No, in fact, they weren't.All opposition parties were outlawed. Left-wing opposition was jailed (and later executed). (this, of course, mirrors other one-party states)
Now, how can the power of the state rest with the people - when they aren't in control of their government?
Post by: doczinn on November 30, 2007, 04:01:18 PM
http://www.vcrisis.com/
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-more-last-poll.html
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 01, 2007, 12:41:57 PM
Our red-shirted friend is at it again. This, and the resulting speculative jump in crude prices, should come as no surprise:
Quote
CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) -- President Hugo Chavez on Friday wrapped up his campaign to push through broad constitutional changes with a broadside attack against adversaries at home and abroad -- including a threat to cut off oil exports to the United States.
Chavez told a crowd gathered in the center of Caracas that if the referendum was approved and the result was questioned -- "if the 'yes' vote wins on Sunday and the Venezuelan oligarchy, playing the [U.S.] empire's game, comes with their little stories of fraud" -- then he would order oil shipments to the United States halted Monday.
Chavez spoke after tens of thousands, brought on buses from throughout the country, marched down the capital's principal boulevard to rally support for Sunday's referendum, which would free Chavez from term-limit restrictions and move the country toward institutionalized socialism.
Friday's rally acted as a counterpoint to an opposition march down the same streets Thursday that brought out tens of thousands who fear the 69 constitutional changes would serve to undermine basic democratic freedoms.
Chavez, 53, warmed the crowd up by serenading them with holiday "gaitas" and other traditional songs before turning his attention to a litany of enemies and perceived enemies: internal critics, the United States, Spain's King Juan Carlos, Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe and domestic and international media.
"We're not really confronting those peons of imperialism," Chavez said, alluding to his Venezuelan opponents. "Our true enemy is called the North American empire, and ... we're going to give another knockout to Bush."
He renewed his harsh criticisms of Juan Carlos and Uribe, with whom he has had recent high-profile disputes, and threatened to take independent Venezuela television network Globovision off the air if it broadcast partial results during the voting. He also threatened to take action against international networks, accusing CNN in particular of overstating the strength of the opposition's numbers.
"If any international channel comes here to take part in an operation from the imperialist against Venezuela, your reporters will be thrown out of the country, they will not be able to work here," Chavez said. "People at CNN, listen carefully: This is just a warning."
At stake in Sunday's vote is whether the leftist leader should have full authority over the now autonomous Central Bank and with it the nation's economic policy, changes Chavez has said he needs to move the economy further toward socialism.
The most controversial amendment would do away with term limits, allowing Chavez, who has served almost eight years in power, to hold his post indefinitely as long as he is re-elected.
Chavez, a former paratrooper, said the majority of the country's 26 million people back him. He has garnered overwhelming support from the country's poorer neighborhoods, who have benefited from his policies -- paid for by skyrocketing oil prices. Oil accounts for roughly 90 percent of the country's export earnings, according to the CIA World Factbook.
Despite the animosity that Chavez routinely aims at the United States, the two countries remain closely tied economically -- the United States is Venezuela's biggest oil customer and one of the few countries that can refine its low-quality crude. Venezuela accounts for up to 15 percent of U.S. crude imports.
Chavez told a crowd gathered in the center of Caracas that if the referendum was approved and the result was questioned -- "if the 'yes' vote wins on Sunday and the Venezuelan oligarchy, playing the [U.S.] empire's game, comes with their little stories of fraud" -- then he would order oil shipments to the United States halted Monday.
Chavez spoke after tens of thousands, brought on buses from throughout the country, marched down the capital's principal boulevard to rally support for Sunday's referendum, which would free Chavez from term-limit restrictions and move the country toward institutionalized socialism.
Friday's rally acted as a counterpoint to an opposition march down the same streets Thursday that brought out tens of thousands who fear the 69 constitutional changes would serve to undermine basic democratic freedoms.
Chavez, 53, warmed the crowd up by serenading them with holiday "gaitas" and other traditional songs before turning his attention to a litany of enemies and perceived enemies: internal critics, the United States, Spain's King Juan Carlos, Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe and domestic and international media.
"We're not really confronting those peons of imperialism," Chavez said, alluding to his Venezuelan opponents. "Our true enemy is called the North American empire, and ... we're going to give another knockout to Bush."
He renewed his harsh criticisms of Juan Carlos and Uribe, with whom he has had recent high-profile disputes, and threatened to take independent Venezuela television network Globovision off the air if it broadcast partial results during the voting. He also threatened to take action against international networks, accusing CNN in particular of overstating the strength of the opposition's numbers.
"If any international channel comes here to take part in an operation from the imperialist against Venezuela, your reporters will be thrown out of the country, they will not be able to work here," Chavez said. "People at CNN, listen carefully: This is just a warning."
At stake in Sunday's vote is whether the leftist leader should have full authority over the now autonomous Central Bank and with it the nation's economic policy, changes Chavez has said he needs to move the economy further toward socialism.
The most controversial amendment would do away with term limits, allowing Chavez, who has served almost eight years in power, to hold his post indefinitely as long as he is re-elected.
Chavez, a former paratrooper, said the majority of the country's 26 million people back him. He has garnered overwhelming support from the country's poorer neighborhoods, who have benefited from his policies -- paid for by skyrocketing oil prices. Oil accounts for roughly 90 percent of the country's export earnings, according to the CIA World Factbook.
Despite the animosity that Chavez routinely aims at the United States, the two countries remain closely tied economically -- the United States is Venezuela's biggest oil customer and one of the few countries that can refine its low-quality crude. Venezuela accounts for up to 15 percent of U.S. crude imports.
Post by: Scout26 on December 01, 2007, 04:35:00 PM
Quote
including a threat to cut off oil exports to the United States.
Let's open up ANWR and every other place we know or suspect might have oil in the US to drilling, including off-shore and then tell this tin-horn dictator to take his oil and go piss up a rope. Oh and while your at it, No more refined products from us. Find someone else to do it for you, A-hole.
We'll see how long the people continue to support him once the money gets shut off and he can no longer buy their "love".
Post by: doczinn on December 02, 2007, 06:25:03 AM
Quote
It does not matter if the result tomorrow is 90% SI and that I am given access to everything that will prove to me without the shade of a doubt that the Venezuelan people voted massively for the SI. I still will not accept it. I cannot accept that my life will be forever subjected to the whimsy of a now certifiable man, I cannot accept that some of my basic human rights such as my right to be informed at all time, the right to own my home and business, my right to work in any morally acceptable pursuit, my right to seek redress for injustice, my right to organize people to seek referendum for changing the opprobrious, my right to have a local ruler elected by my community at all times, my right to keep my private life away from the queries of a militia, and more rights that I still do not know of will be diminished when not eliminated.
I will not accept and even less recognize as legitimate such a vote result because voting on such things is profoundly undemocratic. In fact, it is ademocratic, a word that needs to be coined for the occasion. All those who support such result are themselves ademocrat, and probably amoral. They should get ready for the consequences of their actions as bloodshed always follows such exercises in rights restriction. It is just a matter of time. Grab any history book to find the examples you need to get convinced of my words.
I will not accept and even less recognize as legitimate such a vote result because voting on such things is profoundly undemocratic. In fact, it is ademocratic, a word that needs to be coined for the occasion. All those who support such result are themselves ademocrat, and probably amoral. They should get ready for the consequences of their actions as bloodshed always follows such exercises in rights restriction. It is just a matter of time. Grab any history book to find the examples you need to get convinced of my words.
Post by: roo_ster on December 02, 2007, 07:28:17 AM
Post by: Scout26 on December 02, 2007, 11:44:22 AM
I think the left would be out in the streets with torches, pitchforks and GUNS.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 02, 2007, 11:48:52 AM
Imagine the hue and cry if GWB tried to make the same consititutional "changes" that Chavez is pushing.
I think the left would be out in the streets with torches, pitchforks and GUNS.
I think the left would be out in the streets with torches, pitchforks and GUNS.
Nah, they'd just post angrily on blogs.
Post by: Ron on December 02, 2007, 07:51:00 PM
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lost a tight vote on Sunday in a referendum on giving him new powers and scrapping term limits on his left-wing rule.
The national electoral authority said early on Monday the "No" camp won 51 percent of the vote compared to the pro-Chavez "Yes" camp's 49 percent.
It said the trend could not be reserved and declared Chavez the loser.
The referendum vote on a raft of reforms would have allowed Chavez to run for reelection indefinitely, control Venezuela's foreign currency reserves, appoint loyalists over regional elected officials and censor the media if he declares an emergency.
Chavez has said he wants to rule for life and turn Venezuela into a socialist state. But defeat will likely put the Cuba ally under intense pressure to slow or halt his self-declared socialist revolution and step down when his term ends in 2013.
Chavez called the referendum vote "a photo finish."
(Additional reporting by Fabian Andres Cambero, Patricia Rondon and Jorge Silva, Writing by Saul Hudson; Editing by Kieran Murray)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/venezuela_referendum_dc_23
Post by: doczinn on December 02, 2007, 08:00:34 PM
Post by: RocketMan on December 02, 2007, 11:57:25 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 03, 2007, 07:59:45 AM
I guess the facts will settle the debate better than lots of posting. Seems to have worked so far.
Post by: RocketMan on December 03, 2007, 08:25:27 AM
Quote
And he suggested he hasnt given up on his vision of permanently leaving his mark. Echoing words he spoke when as an army officer he was captured leading a failed 1992 coup, he said: For now, we couldnt.
Somehow I doubt we have heard the last about his "reforms". See the whole story that supplies the quote at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22066948/
Post by: yesitsloaded on December 03, 2007, 08:53:28 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 03, 2007, 06:38:23 PM
All the same, I doubt this'll change the final outcome. Chavez still has 6 more years before those term limits matter. Somehow I don't expect him to accept an early (in his mind) retirement.
He barely lost the vote this time. I'm sure he'll try again. And this is the sort of election he only has win once...
Post by: De Selby on December 07, 2007, 12:00:52 AM
He barely lost the vote this time. I'm sure he'll try again. And this is the sort of election he only has win once...
Wait, why would he only have to win it once? The amendments he wanted don't end elections-so what about this referendum would mean "he only has to win once"?
Post by: roo_ster on December 07, 2007, 05:12:22 AM
He barely lost the vote this time. I'm sure he'll try again. And this is the sort of election he only has win once...
Wait, why would he only have to win it once? The amendments he wanted don't end elections-so what about this referendum would mean "he only has to win once"?
Kind of like the "tax increase/bond issue for <some_purpose>" initiatives. Supporters can present votes on it as many times as they like and only need to win once to get what they want. A similar state exists with illegal alien amnesty. They can lose innumerable times, but if they succeed only once, it is done & pretty much irreversible.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 07, 2007, 06:36:20 AM
PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - Wealthy Venezuelans are emigrating to Panama in increasing numbers, snapping up luxury homes as they fear their leftist President Hugo Chavez will hold onto power for life and rebuild the country in the image of Communist Cuba.
With a shining new skyline, Panama is starting to rival Miami as a center for Venezuelan expatriates, who are attracted by the Central American country's booming economy and a lively Caribbean culture like their own.
The exodus is compounded by U.S. foe Chavez pushing constitutional changes that would scrap presidential term limits and limit press freedom during political crises.
Some worry that Chavez, who is a tight ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro and promises a socialist revolution, will one day copy Cuba's one-party system that sharply restricts personal freedoms.
"I love Venezuela. I feel happy to have been born in a country that has everything, but there is one important thing called liberty," said Maria Alejandra Chacon, who used to work as a journalist in Venezuela.
Panamanian government statistics show a surge in Venezuelans entering the country, and one Venezuelan expatriate group estimated about 15,000 of them have settled in Panama over the last year.
VENEZUELAN DIASPORA
After arriving in Panama City, Chacon and her husband, an architect, headed to the Cafe Le Brioche, a Venezuelan bakery in the trendy Cangrejo district that has become a meeting spot for the Venezuelan diaspora.
There, newbies hit up seasoned expatriates for tips on where to live and shop as they munch on cachitos, the meat-filled pastries that are Venezuela's national snack.
Restaurateur Freddy Marquez, 32, had thought about opening a new eatery in Miami, but he said Panama City had a more familiar vibe.
"It is just like a Venezuelan city. In Miami the people are a little colder," he said.
Soon, Marquez will open a modish French bistro that will serve dishes like duck breast on sauteed couscous in one of Panama City's ritziest shopping districts.
He said he was also attracted by Panama's business environment, with little red tape for setting up a company.
Chavez, who calls U.S. President George W. Bush the devil, is overwhelming popular in Venezuela for spending the country's huge oil wealth on the poor majority.
But well-heeled Venezuelans are put off by his socialist vision, and want out of a country battered by rising crime rates, periodic food shortages and a persistently depreciating currency.
One of Chacon's friends was recently shot dead.
According to Panama's migration authorities, some 10,000 more Venezuelans came to Panama in the first eight months of this year than during the whole of last year. Many come on tourist cards but end up putting down roots.
Roberto Arias, one of Cafe Le Brioche's owners and a former Venezuelan government official, said a new arrival from Venezuela used to come into the cafe every month.
"Now it is a stampede," he said.
Separated by a two-hour flight across the southern Caribbean, Panama and Venezuela have close cultural and historical ties.
Both were part of Greater Colombia -- the republic founded in the 19th century by Simon Bolivar, who led the South American fight for independence from Spain.
For Panama, the influx of wealthy Venezuelans has helped fuel a real estate boom that has been a big factor in the economy's growth rate this year of more than 9 percent.
Real estate salesman Jorge Blaisdell is selling 500 houses on the outskirts of Panama City that will go for between $300,000 and $800,, and have been advertised extensively in Venezuela.
"Some 80 percent of our clients are foreigners, and 75 percent are Venezuelan," Blaisdell said. "They are looking for a plan B."
(Editing by Jason Lange and Vicki Allen)
Post by: doczinn on December 10, 2007, 09:16:08 PM
Post by: Volt on December 11, 2007, 07:09:46 PM
It will be so cool to watch the Dutch military (yes that's right the Dutch) give them a good ole whomping.
Post by: wooderson on December 11, 2007, 07:29:11 PM