Before action starts

[Sass]

We are in the precursor of any type of action from either the UN or the USA. Yes, I'm talking about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and his new order over the people of that country.

 

Apparently Chavez has moved into power over the past decade after first attempting to overthrow democracy existing in the country for over 50 years via a coup. Imprisoned for two years, he went through the political system and got elected afterwards by catering to the poor people of Venezuela.

 

As it stands now, Chavez has put his people in charge of the Supreme Court of Venezuela and over policing and military authority there as well. With this authority, he has taken war with large land owners and international interest by allowing peasants to stake claim to any land that they can grab regardless of whom the rightful owners are. Peasants are setting up bamboo huts on wealthy land owners property and they are being defended by the Venezuelan national guard controlled in large by Chavez himself.

 

Being the 5th largest exporter of oil to the US, Chavez has used his $50 per barrel lottery to purchase numerous munitions from the Russians including several MiG jets with unknown reason.

 

Now, before we see anyone take action I urge you to help me understand what you think should happen.

 

Do you think nothing should change and let the country move away from the 50 year democratic system that was in place by giving totalitarian rule to Chavez to oppress the rich?

 

Should the UN investigate the actions of Chavez in the possibility that he is committing active genocide against land owners?

 

Should the US intervene by creating sanctions on Chavez to stop the influx of cash riding into Venezuela through oil?

 

Should support be given to the Columbians to prevent Chavez from using Russian purchased munitions against that country and building an inner-Columbian coup which could distrupt trade throughout that region? Columbia government is fighting internally as it stands.

 

PLEASE DO NOT POST URL LINKS. They serve no purpose. Go out to sources on the web, newspapers, etc, and create an opinion and back it with your understanding of the situation. Thanks.

[A Soldier]

as it has been said here before, your government attempted to remove Chavez out of power twice. First time in 2002, by supporting a right-wing party who tried to topple him militarly (coup failed). Second time in 2004 by democratic mean, a referendum, and financing it (failed again).

 

Where do you see totalitarism? Hugo Chavez said he'd help the poorest part of the population to get healthcare, food, etc. The richs are pissed because they don't get as much as they had with the last government. If he's trying to bring more social equality in his country, what's wrong with that?

 

I don't get the genocide part?

 

Please prove me that there is a link between Chavez's government and the FARC

[Yupa]

Umm...wikipedia says he's pretty cool. In fact most of what you're saying sounds completely wrong (the word 'propoganda' comes to mind).

 

Just out of curiousity: whose side were you on during the most recent US presidential election? I bet I can guess.

[Sass]

As I said, I'm not relying on links. I have presented the facts. The Columbian government and several neighboring countries have accused Chavez of supporting the FARC.

 

Genocide part is simple. When land owners feel like they are getting screwed by other military, they will use force to protect their land. In retaliation, Chavez may order his military to take action. When that happens, people die. Surely he's not doing it through rallies and commoner protests.

 

What would you like to call his form of government. Thanks for that link Akai where it states that he set up his own "emergency committe" to preside over the existing congress whom he then evicted from office. He set up things his way and did not use the existing legistlative system in place. Now, if you saw Bush do that, surely you would jump to the conclusion that he was a totalitarialist.

 

You can see it for what you want, however, what do you think will happen?

[»nintendo64]

S!@#$%^&*, can you back those claims? where are your sources?

 

Suggestions:

1) If you are asked to prove what you said as a fact, please include your sources, so we can avoid the flaming.

[Lupper]

S!@#$%^&*, can you back those claims? where are your sources?

 

Suggestions:

1) If you are asked to prove what you said as a fact, please include your sources, so we can avoid the flaming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no nintendo -- apparently s!@#$%^&* considers himself the new moderator, so we as the lowly peons must legitimize his claims. it's the rule.

 

but nintendo - fight for your rights.. you are still moderator. do what you can to end this

[Yupa]

What would you like to call his form of government.

He was elected. I'd probably call it a "representative democracy".

Thanks for that link Akai where it states that he set up his own "emergency committe" to preside over the existing congress whom he then evicted from office.  He set up things his way and did not use the existing legistlative system in place.

Yes...and? It's called reform. It doesn't say he forced them at gunpoint or without popular support.

Now, if you saw Bush do that, surely you would jump to the conclusion that he was a totalitarialist.

No, not really any more than I'd call the US government totalitarian. But, then, Bush doesn't really care about reform.

[Sass]

Ophie, do us a favor and stick to the subject. I've made no such claim of being new moderator. Thanks.

 

Yes, you will have to read your history and there it will be, black and white. I have stated that I read it directly from a link that Akai provided. Thanks Akai.

 

While Canadians are so quick to jump on this subject, perhaps they should consider that their country helped engineer a coup d'etat against Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. In fact, the topic of regime change in that impoverished Caribbean country was discussed at a January 2003 conference of la francophonie in Ottawa. The government of Haiti was not invited.

 

Regarding the 2002 campaign against Chavez, Canada had revealed no official statement against the coup, though the government in Ottawa did stop short of endorsing (the real naked emperor) Pedro Carmona, the big business leader and president for 48 hours

 

Now, I ask you to consider what might happen going forward. Or if you like we can just sit here and throw dirt at each other.

[Sass]

Now, if you saw Bush do that, surely you would jump to the conclusion that he was a totalitarialist.

No, not really any more than I'd call the US government totalitarian. But, then, Bush doesn't really care about reform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ROFL, Akai, you're joking right? Bush reformed Medicare for millions of Americans. In 2006 Bush's budget will provide $1.5 billion in funding for a education reform in high schools. He is actively trying to reform social security so younger people actually get a chunk of the money they are paying out to elders. Dude, just leave the forum please. I even used your own link to prove my statements.

[Yupa]

The context was governmental reform, but I wouldn't really call what he's done with Medicare, Social Security or public schools reform, either.

[Sass]

Yes yes, I'm aware that you wouldn't. Back to the topic please. But since you brought it up, what type of government would you like? Monarchy? Communism? Maybe we can just have martial law for those opposed to the new reigning reform? Got any more links for me?

[Yupa]

Yes yes, I'm aware that you wouldn't.  Back to the topic please.

I don't think it's our affair, so no, we don't need to have any special concern at the moment.

But since you brought it up, what type of government would you like?  Monarchy?  Communism?  Maybe we can just have martial law for those opposed to the new reigning reform?

I haven't given it lengthy consideration, but I imagine small independent communes with a large international body mostly for keeping people from killing each other over philosophical differences and of course to safeguard the environment would do. Supreme dictatorships are cool, too, though - just not a lot of security when a ruler is no more.

[Lupper]

People - don't look at communism in Russia and China as pure "communism."

 

Callincos and other political theorists have even said that they were the "totalitarian distortion of communism."

 

So lets not be too hasty to judge communism, ok? If you want to study communism, read up on Marx.

[Sass]

I'm not in need of a lesson on Stalin's or Marx's implementation of Communism and the effect it had on their successor Krushchev. Nor did I mention anything relating communism to a specific country. I've made no judgements, I've simply asked what style Akai would prefer. Thanks.

[Lupper]

Uhmm when I say "people," i did not mean JUST YOU.

[Sass]

Ok, at this point, I'm still hoping someone can provide any type of topic related discussion. What do you think should happen in Venezuela?

[Yupa]

It'd make a cool laser tag arena.

[Lupper]

It'd make a cool laser tag arena.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed.

 

*bang bang* i shot you. 100 points for me.

[Dav]

Im my book his "robin hood" actions are a benifit to all. Providing social equlity is a good way to ensure each and every person has the oppertunities in life they deserve and thus gives everone the ability to serve their place in sociaty to the best of their ability.

 

Think about it, Im a class sociaty often the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer as inflation drives up the cost of living. This devide is rather significant, it means that top level education is possible only for the rich meaning the best jobs are only for the rich and so the rich have a better quality of life. If you level the playing field everyting is much more fair, no matter who you are you will have the same oppertunitys from the day you are born to the day you die. Jobs will be bases on ability, the intelligant will rise to the top rather then the kid with the richest parents.

 

It goes further then that, everyone can have access to good healthcare, homes, entertainment and so on.

 

 

Now for the genocide issue. What you have describes is not genocide its apoplying the law by forse (prehaps exsessive forse but not genocide) If somone refuses to give up their land as demanded as part of leveling the playing field do you think the government will just say "ok keep it we will let you be exempt from the law".

 

 

I think america doesnt like it because its a step towards the communist side of things. Coomunists are not evil and are not the enamy. Communism is a great idea in theory, its always voted in and usualy breaks down and falls by natural means.

[Sass]

I'll try to read your ebonics dav. First off, please spare me the crap about a 'good life' - seems like you took that right out of a sci fi movie. In as much as you can say poor people are oppressed, many hard working and intelligent folks are equally opressed by the leeches of society - the poor. Yes, many people are poor and hard working and unfortunate cir!@#$%^&*stance rue their lives, but some are just plain lazy. Would you like to give up your hard earned paycheck to someone who has the capacity to work but doesn't? Are you even old enough to get a paycheck?

 

Let's pretend for a minute that whatever you have today, your living quarters, your clothing, etc will be confiscated by government and given to me, because I don't have clothing quite as nice. Maybe I haven't worked for it, maybe I don't know where to get clothing, but no matter, the government is going to come and take what you have and give it to me. If this is no problem to you, then I urge you to donate fruitfully everything you got, earned, and received to charities for the poor. You wont do it, hence your argument about fairness applies - but not to you. Doesn't it?

 

I really don't need to hear about theoretic government systems that have failed in reality. Good luck eating that bowl of lucky charms.

 

Just FYI -

1. Force. Not forse.

2. Excessive. Not Exsessive.

3. America. Not america.

[A Soldier]

While Canadians are so quick to jump on this subject, perhaps they should consider that their country helped engineer a coup d'etat against Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. In fact, the topic of regime change in that impoverished Caribbean country was discussed at a January 2003 conference of la francophonie in Ottawa. The government of Haiti was not invited.

We helped engineer a US-led coup? I don't see how this is revelant to the topic and it looks a lot like projection to me. If it can re!@#$%^&*ures you, our current government is having a lot of trouble having canadians' support and there is a good chance that it'll lose the next elections (not only because of Haiti, altough it is probably a factor).

 

To answer your question, Dav brought up some good points and I also believe nothing special should be done at the moment. It's not like there were massive human rights abuse or he was planning to invade a country. Your argument about the population being too lazy to get a job doesn't make sense. A good portion of africans and asiatics would be, using your logic, a lot lazier than we think?

[Dr Brain]

We all (we meaning intelligent people, not the average politics board poster) know that his actions will lead to chaos and revolt/subjugation. I say we wait and let the inevetable happen. If the government falls to revolt, then we don't need to do anything. If it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship, we can use subtle force through the CIA to "take care of the situation".

 

Either way, no direct action is required.

[Dav]

exactly, the action of the US takjing forseful action was prmature and lacking in motive.

 

Secondly give me a disadvantage of making a classless sociaty that outweighs the previous situation.

[Dr Brain]

A socialist system leads to an exponential decay in the production level of a system. Eventually, this levels out at a baseline that is below the requirements for sustaining the population and something drastic happens to destroy the system.

 

Just look at what has happened to any collectivist country in history. They're an unstable equlibrium. Positive reinforcement soceities are stable equlibriums.

[Yupa]

nah, there's nothing wrong with socialism