Yet more Chavez nonsense...

[danzig]

Hugo Chavez efforts to unite South America in an anti-american block got a bit of a hit yesterday as Peru rejected the heavily backed Chavez endorsed Humala. Now here is the funny part, today Venezuelan is threatening diplomatic ties with Peru because of the election.

"On May 28th, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez once again warned he would severe diplomatic ties with Lima if García won the presidency.

García "is a bandit, an irresponsible person, and he is torpedoing relations with a friendly country. How can anyone have diplomatic relations or anything with a government headed by such a tramp like him," Chávez said during an official visit to Bolivia."

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/...5A717281.shtml

So if US meddling in South American countries is bad (and historically it HAS been) and imperialistic in Chavez's eyes...why is his meddling "ok"? US has used its strength to do alot of harm in South/Central American countries even if it wasnt their intention but now Chavez thinks it is ok to use his own reigional power to do the very same thing? He was successful in Bolivia with the election of a person who probably isnt even qualified to ask me if I want fries with that order but not in Peru and is now threatening to cut off diplomatic ties because of it? Chavez has always recently made some rumblings that Colombia is 'threatening' to stability of the region. Chavez has also engaged in inteference with elections in Nicaragua and even Mexico. Doesnt all this sound rather familiar? As Ive said in previous post Chavez is nothing but a dictator in kindler, gentler clothing who presents a nice caring image to the people who are in poverty all while engaging in the SAME exact acts that supposely opposes. So for Chavez fans...how can you continue to support this guy? If Bush is guilty of everything people accuse him of it appears Chavez is cut from the same cloth...just he is on the left.

[Bwaho]

clothing who presents a nice caring image to the people who are in poverty all while engaging in the SAME exact acts that supposely opposes

he hasn't done anything for the poor?

[Red Harvest]

It's best to sit back and let Chavez rant. The less we react the more ridiculous he looks. He can't really get very far painting us as villains if we ignore him. Reacting to him is counterproductive.

[danzig]

It's best to sit back and let Chavez rant. The less we react the more ridiculous he looks. He can't really get very far painting us as villains if we ignore him. Reacting to him is counterproductive.

Problem is he is doing more then ranting, he is interfering in other countries internal politics and trying to influence election of people who he views as allies. Not much different then what the US has been accused of (and rightfully so) in central/south american countries.

[Last Roman]

Problem is he is doing more then ranting, he is interfering in other countries internal politics and trying to influence election of people who he views as allies. Not much different then what the US has been accused of (and rightfully so) in central/south american countries.

I agree with red harvest. Eventually the other South American countries will wake up and smell the hypocricy.

[Red Harvest]

Various countries (certainly not just the U.S.) and their corporate entities have historically gotten good deals for themselves at the expense of the South American population . The South American govts and business interests have been complicit in this cutting their own people out of the deal, and they are being swept out of power. It's a demographic/economic move by democracies. There is a backlash against the foreign concerns that profited. Strongmen like Chavez are capitalizing off of it, but unless they attack someone, they are paper tigers.

If you and I were poor in Venezuela, we probably would have elected Chavez too, even if his militantism or revolutionary persona didn't appeal to us. It's a matter of voting the pocketbook.

[Garbarsardar]

There are many ways to look into it, and that depends on your historical perspective. It is of course anyone's prerogative to think of Chavez as the obsolescent type of third world small time (or big time) crook gone very succesfull. This approach is bound to ignore some realities of the field that brought Chavez to power and most importantly, ensured that he remains there by attempting a coup ( http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/arti...hp?artno=1321).

To cut a long story short, next time the US wants to cause a regime change it better go with the safe method of military ivasion as it did to oust the CIA agent Manuel Noriega in Panama and should not trst the locals that failed the US vision so many times.

Except if anyone seriously believes that 100 years of US overt and covert interventions in SA did not shape the ethics, politics and social reflexes of this continent...

If you need more:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49086

[RusskiSoldat]

He's smearing a candidate in an election.
How is that bad?
And the US did a lot more than "influence" elections in South America.
Pinochet being the prime example.

[Last Roman]

He's smearing a candidate in an election.
How is that bad?
And the US did a lot more than "influence" elections in South America.
Pinochet being the prime example.

no, he's threatining to cut off diplomacy. And the original poster stated that the US has a bad history with interfering in South America. But the point was that Chavez, who is against foreign intervention in SA, is now doing the same thing, making him a......say it with me.....hypocrite.

though on the other hand, he hasn't sent in secret agents to interfer with elections.....yet

[danzig]

There are many ways to look into it, and that depends on your historical perspective. It is of course anyone's prerogative to think of Chavez as the obsolescent type of third world small time (or big time) crook gone very succesfull. This approach is bound to ignore some realities of the field that brought Chavez to power and most importantly, ensured that he remains there by attempting a coup (

Well what Venezuela does is their business, its obvious Chavez is popular there given as you said the outcome of the coup attempt on him but, the issue is he is going beyond that and his own borders and trying to basically help 'install' leaders thru out the region that share his view on things. So I fail to see how what he is attempting to do is any different then what people accused the US of doing and of course as I said rightfully so since the US IS guilty of that. No doubt central/south american countries have no desire to be lead by US 'backed' goverments are we to assume how Chavez backed goverments would be any better?

He's smearing a candidate in an election.
How is that bad?
And the US did a lot more than "influence" elections in South America.
Pinochet being the prime example.

Because it isnt his country? He is attempting to influence the election of people in other countries that would be more favorable/allies with him...something that is generally considered taboo especially when the US has engaged in it. Im not comparing US action to his action, wrong action is wrong action regardless who is doing it but there seems amoung some to turn a blind eye when Chavez is doing it.

[akanoez]

Because it isnt his country? He is attempting to influence the election of people in other countries that would be more favorable/allies with him...something that is generally considered taboo especially when the US has engaged in it. Im not comparing US action to his action, wrong action is wrong action regardless who is doing it but there seems amoung some to turn a blind eye when Chavez is doing it.

well here's the main difference: it's not the same to have a US sec of state say that your country is falling out of favor... this would be on a whole different level than chavez critisizing and kicking up dust against your gov. because
when the US says it it means something concrete, usually that your gov couold be getting hit with pretty significant decreases in aid or, in extreme cases, economic sanctions..
peru and venezuela have been having diplomatic scuffles for a while now, it's only natural when peru has a neo-liberal in power... but what's gonna happen? someone withdraws a diplomat here, someone calls someone a US puppet there. I dopnt feel its that big a deal because it's almost business as usual. And if chavez is being a loudmouth it's probably because there is little else he can do about the situation. now Kissinger in the 70's, that was scary for latin america...
so unless we start hearing about venezuelan-sponsored death squads or venezuelan CIA training peru's paramilitaries I think this is not much to worry about.

[RusskiSoldat]

Because when the US is doing it, it is attempting to acquire colonies in the region.
Chavez, on the other hand, is not powerful enough colonize places for profit, and must make do with gaining political allies.
Politics is dirty, but influencing the opinion of voters in an underhanded manner is better than coups IMO.

[Farnan]

Because when the US is doing it, it is attempting to acquire colonies in the region.
Chavez, on the other hand, is not powerful enough colonize places for profit, and must make do with gaining political allies.
Politics is dirty, but influencing the opinion of voters in an underhanded manner is better than coups IMO.

What colonies? The US hasn't had unwilling colonies since '46 when we let the Phillipines go (they were on their path to independence since pre-WWII, and our colony is doing ok). Anyways we don't want colonies in South America, can you imagine how much welfare alone would cost us?

[danzig]

Because when the US is doing it, it is attempting to acquire colonies in the region.
Chavez, on the other hand, is not powerful enough colonize places for profit, and must make do with gaining political allies.
Politics is dirty, but influencing the opinion of voters in an underhanded manner is better than coups IMO.

From a regional point of Chavez is indeed 'powerful' enough to basically setup puppet allies to his goverment, he sits on alot more wealth and power then many of his neighbors such as Bolivia. Influencing the outcome of an election in another country is little more then a coup because it basically achieves the same outcome.

[RusskiSoldat]

What colonies? The US hasn't had unwilling colonies since '46 when we let the Phillipines go (they were on their path to independence since pre-WWII, and our colony is doing ok). Anyways we don't want colonies in South America, can you imagine how much welfare alone would cost us?

I don't mean actual "take care of the people there"colonies, I mean "install a fascists who turns the country into a sweatshop" colonies.

From a regional point of Chavez is indeed 'powerful' enough to basically setup puppet allies to his goverment, he sits on alot more wealth and power then many of his neighbors such as Bolivia. Influencing the outcome of an election in another country is little more then a coup because it basically achieves the same outcome.

So it doesn't matter how the leader gets into power?
Good.
We can then have our presidents appointed by committees rather than elected.

[Red Harvest]

I don't mean actual "take care of the people there"colonies, I mean "install a fascists who turns the country into a sweatshop" colonies.

Nah, the reason for supporting the fascist types was to prevent communism. (Not that it was necessarily smart, effective, or moral.) Once the Cold War wound down there was no motivation for supporting strongmen. Doesn't really apply much since even in the late stages of the Cold War this was ending. The Shah of Iran was one of the last examples.

Facing the likes of Stalin made for strange bedfellows...

And modern Russia...which supports some truly oppressive types and mourns its lost empire. yckkkk.

[Garbarsardar]

Please stay on target.When exactly Modern Russia became the topic?-Garb.

[Red Harvest]

Please stay on target.When exactly Modern Russia became the topic?-Garb.

At the same time that colonialism came up

I don't mean actual "take care of the people there"colonies, I mean "install a fascists who turns the country into a sweatshop" colonies.

Since we are speaking of current events and the U.S. is getting slammed for stuff from several decades ago and farther, this seems fair game.