Hugo Chavez...

[Fred_Fury]

liberals like him conservatives hate him. politics is so complicated...

 

[Chauncey]

liberals like him conservatives hate him. politics is so complicated...

No, appearently they're incredibly simple. Perhaps you could treat us to some of the knowledge you undoubtedly posess, or are you just walking around with some false sense of intellectual accomplishment?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Chavez should focus more on his own country instead of his anti-US foreign policy.

He's wasted millions of his countries money in his failed attempt to gain a seat in the Security Council. And if he did get it, he would have used the seat to oppose the United States, which is not the purpose of the Security Council.

He wants to help the poor in his country yet he's devoting a lot of resources to people outside of his country. Crime is rising, unemployment and poverty is still a major problem.

 

[blind_fury]

Everybody who voted "bad guy" drank the kool-aid!

They've been watching too much Fox news.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Everybody who voted "bad guy" drank the kool-aid!

They've been watching too much Fox news.

He isn't a bad guy but he certainly isn't a good guy.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

i remain neutral on this matter

 

[blind_fury]

He isn't a bad guy but he certainly isn't a good guy.

Then they should have voted "can't say".

 

[Chauncey]

Chavez should focus more on his own country instead of his anti-US foreign policy.

He's wasted millions of his countries money in his failed attempt to gain a seat in the Security Council. And if he did get it, he would have used the seat to oppose the United States, which is not the purpose of the Security Council.

He wants to help the poor in his country yet he's devoting a lot of resources to people outside of his country. Crime is rising, unemployment and poverty is still a major problem.

You do know that opposing the United States has a lot to do with what's best for Chavez's country right?

 

[deemar325]

Not a fan of Chavez, he's no different than Castro.

 

[blind_fury]

Not a fan of Chavez, he's no different than Castro.

Yeah they both fight poverty and imperialism. Unlike most leaders of the world who would sooner allow their people to starve and fight over crumbs than share.

 

[Chauncey]

Yeah they both fight poverty and imperialism. Unlike most leaders of the world who would sooner allow their people to starve and fight over crumbs than share.

Or pacify their people with cheap goods made at the expense of the poor and starving in other countries.

 

[blind_fury]

Or pacify their people with cheap goods made at the expense of the poor and starving in other countries.

Not many leaders of oil rich countries would single handedly nationalize the oil industry so they can build schools, hospitals and give hope to the masses. Most leaders of oil rich countries would simply split that money with a couple of ultra-rich businessmen.

Maybe the populism and socialist rhetoric is a ploy but I prefer that than the majority of world leaders who have nothing to say or give to the poor. Hugo is a saint compared to them. He rally's the poor and gives them hope. How many world leaders do that? Look around, not many.

The people who demonize Hugo Chavez either don't understand what Chavez is trying to do or simply have no compassion for the poor.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You do know that opposing the United States has a lot to do with what's best for Chavez's country right?

What Chavez is doing is not in the best interests of Venezuela. Because of his opposition to the United States he is starting to ignore Venezuela's own domestic problems.

Allying with nations such as Iran and Syria is not in the best interests of Venezuela.

Supporting Iran's nuclear program is not in Venezuela's best interests.

Interfering in other nation's elections is not in Venezuela's best interests.

Giving other nations Venezuela's resources when Venezuela needs them is not in Venezuela's best interests.

He's just opposing the United States, simply because it's the United States. He's taking it a bit too far.

 

[Chauncey]

Not many leaders of oil rich countries would single handedly nationalize the oil industry so they can build schools, hospitals and give hope to the masses. Most leaders of oil rich countries would simply split that money with a couple of ultra-rich businessmen.

Maybe the populism and socialist rhetoric is a ploy but I prefer that than the majority of world leaders who have nothing to say or give to the poor. Hugo is a saint compared to them. He rally's the poor and gives them hope. How many world leaders do that? Look around, not many.

The people who demonize Hugo Chavez either don't understand what Chavez is trying to do or simply have no compassion for the poor.

I was talking about the US and many other rich western nations. I'm in agreement with you.

 

[Chauncey]

What Chavez is doing is not in the best interests of Venezuela. Because of his opposition to the United States he is starting to ignore Venezuela's own domestic problems.

Allying with nations such as Iran and Syria is not in the best interests of Venezuela.

Supporting Iran's nuclear program is not in Venezuela's best interests.

Interfering in other nation's elections is not in Venezuela's best interests.

Giving other nations Venezuela's resources when Venezuela needs them is not in Venezuela's best interests.

He's just opposing the United States, simply because it's the United States. He's taking it a bit too far.

Actualy he's opposing the United States because of the FTAA agreement, their practical ownership of the WTO, World Bank and IMF (as well as the way they use that influence), their acts of global extortion, etc. You are right that Venevuela should not be siding with Iran though, but much like the US, Venezuela may have an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy. Also, the US government's biggest fear is not the threat of physical attack by either Iran or Venezuela, but the fact that should the US lose Iraq (which is a looking pretty likely) and Iran and Venezuela are allied then Saudi Arabia would lose the giant controlling hand that it has in OPEC to an Iran/Venezuela/Possible Iraq alliance. If Saudi Arabia no longer has the power to control the world's oil flow then the US is ****ed.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Actualy he's opposing the United States because of the FTAA agreement, their practical ownership of the WTO, World Bank and IMF (as well as the way they use that influence), their acts of global extortion, etc. You are right that Venevuela should not be siding with Iran though, but much like the US, Venezuela may have an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy. Also, the US government's biggest fear is not the threat of physical attack by either Iran or Venezuela, but the fact that should the US lose Iraq (which is a looking pretty likely) and Iran and Venezuela are allied then Saudi Arabia would lose the giant controlling hand that it has in OPEC to an Iran/Venezuela/Possible Iraq alliance. If Saudi Arabia no longer has the power to control the world's oil flow then the US is ****ed.

No, he opposes the United States because the government of the United States is politically the opposite of what he stands for and he wants to be a major world leader. He overblows the faults of the United States and ignores the faults of his country.

The developing world does not want him as their leader. They know that blaming the United States will not solve their problems. The United States does not want him as a leader because he's mostly a big mouth and has vast oil deposits that he could cut off from the United States at any moment.

 

[Chauncey]

No, he opposes the United States because the government of the United States is politically the opposite of what he stands for and he wants to be a major world leader. He overblows the faults of the United States and ignores the faults of his country.

The developing world does not want him as their leader. They know that blaming the United States will not solve their problems. The United States does not want him as a leader because he's mostly a big mouth and has vast oil deposits that he could cut off from the United States at any moment.

It's the US's economic policy that is his problem. And he's right. The developing world doesn't want him as a leader any more than they want the US as their leader. But Chavez would atleast give the developing world a chance as opposed to robbing them blind under the guise of a "free-market wonder plan".

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's the US's economic policy that is his problem. And he's right. The developing world doesn't want him as a leader any more than they want the US as their leader. But Chavez would atleast give the developing world a chance as opposed to robbing them blind under the guise of a "free-market wonder plan".

I take it that you are not a big fan of capitalism.

The free market allows cheaper goods from the United States to be sold which is what the United States needs to combat its trade deficit and cheaper goods from other countries makes it good for the consumer. It's a win-win situation.

And the United States is not the leader of the developing world. It can't be, it's too rich to do so. The United States is the leader of the developed world at the moment.

Chavez would just use the position as the leader of the poor to combat the United States. He doesn't do enough to focus on the problem.

 

[Chauncey]

I take it that you are not a big fan of capitalism.

The free market allows cheaper goods from the United States to be sold which is what the United States needs to combat its trade deficit and cheaper goods from other countries makes it good for the consumer. It's a win-win situation.

And the United States is not the leader of the developing world. It can't be, it's too rich to do so. The United States is the leader of the developed world at the moment.

Chavez would just use the position as the leader of the poor to combat the United States. He doesn't do enough to focus on the problem.

The developing world will remain in a stationary position or fall further into poverty under the free-market plan the way it is currently established. They have no chance to develop due to export processing zones, etc. which do nothing to help the economy of the nations from which products are being exported. As the developing world continues to toil, the policies defined by the developed world, the US primarily, continualy work to keep these countries under their thumbs in order to further benefit from their misery. I'm not a fan of losely regulated capitalism. I feel that the capitalist system which is currently being practiced is flawed and that we have a lot of work to do in order to fix it. Chavez isn't in the right on a lot of matters but he does bring to attention much of the flaws in our current system. Also, I don't think you can deny that he is unfairly over-demonized much like Bush, etc. is from the other perspective.

 

[Matt]

The world isn't as black and white as "good guy and bad guy".

He has done some good, he has done some bad.

 

[Corinthian™]

The world isn't as black and white as "good guy and bad guy".

He has done some good, he has done some bad.

the guy has done a lot of bad, tho.

And seriously, Chavez's a radical leftist.. only Bolivia supports him in all Latin America... So yeah, those idiots that say that Venezuela is the same as Argentina, Chile or Brazil just shot himself in the foot *cough*

 

[Man-Thing]

all commies/socialist are bad guys.

 

[The Overlord]

"If I feed the poor, they call me a saint; if I ask why there are poor, they call me a communist."

I can understand why rich people don't like Hugo but I can't understand why anyone else wouldn't like him.

The fact that he is curtailing civil rights in his country:
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

 

[The Overlord]

all commies/socialist are bad guys.

Isn't a Norway a social democracy, are they badguys? Also wasn't MLK a social democrat? Was MLK a badguy? Seems like your making a generalization.

 

[Addendum]

all commies/socialist are bad guys.

Even though neither is illegal in the US