target: venezuela?

[bishop]

nono... the interesting thing about the media in venezuela is that it isn't much different than it is here - the various outlets are owned and run by the elite. as with ALL media outlets, those in venezuela also have their own biases. in their case, the elite do not benefit from chavez's policies - the poor do. even worse, the venezuelan media has outright called for people to overthrow chavez (violently if necessary). that sort of behavior would never be accepted here, i find it amusing that some think it should be different in another country.

good article about the venezuelan media: http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

[Gorgo]

Thanks for all the info, Bishop.

[bishop]

no problem.

it's amazing how a little p.r. and lies spewed as facts can distort the truth - and equally amazing how so many people will readily believe it.

in retrospect, it's worrisome that this failed coup wasn't even mentioned during the presidential campaign. reading statements from both republicans AND democrats, it seems that both sides are against chavez and would like to see him lose power. "plan columbia" was enacted under the clinton administration. as it is, chavez has decided to form alliances with countries that we oppose, and it instituting policies that hurt u.s. businesses. if you're an imperial power, you can't tolerate such insubordination.

since bush has continued to increase foreign aid to columbia, i'd expect our meddling to continue for the foreseeable future. until chavez is either assassinated or overthrown in some way.

[Gorgo]

Wherever democracy is threatened, there you'll find it's the NED threatening it:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...45&ItemID=6745

[Mr.Vicchio]

OMG the Zmag rag attack. Good ole Gorgo, always falling abck on propoganda and lies!

Hugo Chavez, is not out for the little guy bishop in the face of the "elite" he IS the elite, or thinks he is and he is setting himself up as dictator. Put hey, support him, go ahead. Just shows how blind you are to reality.

[bishop]

vic.. if you have something meaningful to contribute, then by all means do so.. what you are doing, however, is ripe with ad hominem statements and doesn't contribute to DEBATE in any way. this "you're blind, you believe propaganda and lies and i'm right!" stuff you've been giving us isn't very impressive.

[Samildanach]

Im afraid you don't have much choice in the matter as stated in this article, when you moved against Iraq for switching to the Euro for its oil payments in 2001, the other countries have seen what you did to Iraq for doing that. This however does not act as a deterrent as you might think it does, it actually does the opposite and actively pushes countries to switch to the Euro as a world currency sooner because they know that if they switch faster they push your economy to the point where you will start to have trouble supporting you own military budget and hence they are much less likely to be invaded.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm

[Gorgo]

Meaningful to contribute? Did you remember who you're talking to? What were you thinking?

[bishop]

thanks for the articles samil and gorgo.. i definitely agree that moving away from dollars will cramp out ability to invade opposition countries. however, we would still be able to do what many countries do on a daily basis - fund and arm opposition groups and use them to fight your battles for you in exchange for political power and recognition. costs a whole lot less than an invasion, and arguably, we'd end up with less dirt on our hands.

heh... and gorgo, there's always hope - i hope.

[Nono]

G.Adams, calling Lula a "lackey" from the comfort of the UK strikes me as a trifle over-judgemental of you, not to say too easy. For one thing, it dishonours the personal courage he's shown throughout his life.

And breezily off-hand condemnations don't take into account what it must be like to try to run a place like Brazil. Being booed in Sao Paulo -- his own turf -- isn't that surprising: he's the government "in power" (whatever that may mean in a country like Brazil).

I don't like all the compromises he's made either, and maybe he'll ultimately be a solid disappointment. In the meantime, I understand that he's trying to get along with Big Brother and am glad I'm not in his shoes.

[G. Adams]

Lula ran on a socialist platform, and has done nothing as far as I can see to take brazil in that direction. I am not trying to deny the efforts he made as a Union leader, and I admire the man as a person, but he is betraying his electorate in favour of bankers. The left is full of people who had noble beginnings but end up doing an about turn once they reach office, and it appears he is joining this list of disappointing failures.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Hugo Chavez, is not out for the little guy bishop in the face of the "elite" he IS the elite, or thinks he is and he is setting himself up as dictator. Put hey, support him, go ahead. Just shows how blind you are to reality.

Is it just me, or do we only seem to call them "dictators" when they don't support U.S. policy. What do we call complicit dictators?

Like Noriega before he declared war on the U.S. Or Saddam for that reason. I can rest a lot more easily with a complicit dictator running things in developing countries than with an irascible one.

[bishop]

What do we call complicit dictators?

heh.. that's easy - allies. when you're a dictator on our side, you're certain to get all sorts of benefits.. some have even received wmd in the past. i wonder if "we" will succeed in assassinating him, or will he live on and become another castro - except under much different circumstances.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Human Rights Watch on Venezula

Maybe some of you Chavez appologist will answer these?

Or is that too much to ask

[Nono]

Quote by: V Or is that too much to ask

Not at all, though I'm certainly not an apologist for Chavez. See Human Rights Watch on Venezula

[fushigi]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Human Rights Watch on Venezula Maybe some of you Chavez appologist will answer these? Or is that too much to ask

I'm not standing up for Chavez. That silly red beret really grates my cheese.

The point is that there are many, many rightist, authoritarian, even dictatorial regimes still roaming the earth, so why specifically target Venezuela? The media and courts have been controlled in the PRC since before you were born and I don't see Condi Rice out there condemning it! And why aren't we calling for the overthrow of Islam Karimov? Don't know who he is? I'm not surprised, because Condi's not condemning Uzbekistan either, despite the fact that it's "media is tightly controlled by the state" and "a UN report has described the use of torture in Uzbekistan as 'systematic'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...es/1238242.stm

Now do you get my point? My problem is not with the way Chavez is being demonized. It's the double-standard. I mean, you're a Reagan fan V! Whatever happened to "morality in politics"?

[bishop]

i'm not standing up for him either.. but the bush statements, and coup attempts, are bullshit and evil. and, the man has been democratically elected numerous times (including referendum).. meanwhile, we've worked with the opposition to depose him, assassinate him, etc..

[Matt W]

Indeed. Can we say 'hypocrisy', anyone?

[Nono]

Quote by: fushigi My problem is not with the way Chavez is being demonized.

Mine is, to the extent that demonizing someone amounts, by definition, to portraying them as worse than they actually are, and this is a grand -- and damn dangerous -- tradition in the US media: you either wear a white hat or a black hat -- no shades of grey.

Chavez deserves criticism, but not demonization.