Whatever you think of Hugo Chavez, whether you love him because of his left-wing populism or you despise him because you think that Latin America should be ruled by right-wing dictators who betray and murder their own people in order to satisfy their American paymasters/ the fact that he cozy`s up to some despicable regimes in order to boost his own standing (anyone seen Brian Cowen lately?), you have to be able to admit that he knows a good putdown when he sees it. See below his dismissal of the criticism of the renowned American traveller and intellectual, Sarah Palin. I`m going to miss both of these when they`re gone.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhidmheykfmh/

That's a cracker!
If even a third of our 'western' leaders were half as well motivated as Chavez the world would not now be in the sorry mess it is in. Incidentally, what 'despicable regimes' does he cosy up to? Don't all the western countries cosy up to the utterly despicable and murderous US regime - the worst of the lot. Doesn't the US cosy up to dictatorships in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Shah's Iran, Uribe in Columbia - who has just murdered 69 innocent protestors without a murmur from the world's press?

Iran and China, Aragon. Their behaviour bothers some people who have no problem with Saudi oil. You`re spot on about the Western countries`hypocrisy. That`s the point I was making with the remark about Brian Cowen.

I think he's got great comic value. He's also a great populist and democrat. He's certainly more democratic than Bush, and while I dislike his instinctive anti-americanism, I think its great that, unlike Castro's Cuba, A Latin American country is standing on its own two feet -democratically.

I have to commend him for instituting democratic mechanisms such as Recall and Referendum. Venezuela is now theoretically probably more democratic than any european country with the exception of Switzerland. In the america's its up there with California and Oregan. I say ctheoretically because I'm not sure how well the new democratic institutions are allowed to run without some illegal interferance. How transparent is that democracy?

Remember that the USSR started off in 1917 with some grand democratic ideas of rule by the workers through the soviets. However then they needed a commission to study when they could implement real democracy and the reforms were put off conveniently until certain issues were dealt with, which in reality meant eternity. I dont think Chaezwill ever be as bad as Lenin, but I do have my doubts about his sincerity sometimes.
Still for all my doubts he's a damm sight better in a democratic sense than some of the supposed democratic leaders of the western world.

I am just wondering what Ireland would be like if we had been governed by Chavez for the last ten years and what Venezuela would be like if it had had Cowen?

Suggestions please....?

We`d still be wet, IBEC would be complaining about wage costs and how the poor impoverished big house owning, holiday home in the West owning, BMW driving businessmen were struggling to make ends meet and Venezuela would own no oil.

In my role as the anti-Chavezian of the site, I'd like to point out that Sarah Palin is waaay to easy a target. Personally I think anmajornarthainig's mention of the renowned intellectual and traveller was much better.

cactus flower wrote:

I am just wondering what Ireland would be like if we had been governed by Chavez for the last ten years and what Venezuela would be like if it had had Cowen?

Suggestions please....?

The oil and gas would all have been given away, for starters.

The jury is still out on Chavez. It' easy to give it loads on the rhetorical side when the black gold is pumpimg. How he is going about building a long term sustainable economy for all the population? Does the fella even have an economic framework or is he winging it on some social programs and anti-American rhetoric? Is he ready to step aside when the electorate tell him to go? I also believe his record regarding opposition opinion has alot to be desired.

As for yank bashing, I'm coming across it more often on many different forums. He/she who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Can anyone name me one political TV program in this country that is mildly satirical in nature or an expose that doesn't rely on the same tired bunch of "experts" who have been spouting the same tired shite for the last decade?

It seems that when things go against us in Ireland we quickly look for external scapegoats or revert to tired cliches in order to deflect from our own collective short-comings. Maybe it's time we turned the spotlight on ourselves in a meaningful way.

An anti-American topic should really merit its own thread.

rockyracoon wrote:

The jury is still out on Chavez. It' easy to give it loads on the rhetorical side when the black gold is pumpimg. How he is going about building a long term sustainable economy for all the population? Does the fella even have an economic framework or is he winging it on some social programs and anti-American rhetoric? Is he ready to step aside when the electorate tell him to go? I also believe his record regarding opposition opinion has alot to be desired.

As for yank bashing, I'm coming across it more often on many different forums. He/she who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Can anyone name me one political program in this country that is mildly satirical in nature or an expose that doesn't rely on the same tired bunch of "experts" who have been spouting the same tired shite for the last decade?

It seems that when things go against us in Ireland we quickly look for external scapegoats or revert to tired cliches in order to deflect from our own collective short-comings. Maybe it's time we turned the spotlight on ourselves in a meaningful way.

An anti-American topic should really merit its own thread.

Go for it, rockyracoon. I for one would contribute, to bash some yanks and celebrate others.

Aragon wrote:

Doesn't the US cosy up to dictatorships in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Shah's Iran, Uribe in Columbia - who has just murdered 69 innocent protestors without a murmur from the world's press?

Did you hear this one about Colombia, the military have been going around shooting innocent young men and presenting the corpses as rebels killed in fighting, all to boost the body-count of rebels?
Al Jazeera - Colombia troops sacked over deaths

Twenty-five officers have been dismissed (arrested? charged with murder?), but these are just the ones we know about.

905 wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Doesn't the US cosy up to dictatorships in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Shah's Iran, Uribe in Columbia - who has just murdered 69 innocent protestors without a murmur from the world's press?

Did you hear this one about Colombia, the military have been going around shooting innocent young men and presenting the corpses as rebels killed in fighting, all to boost the body-count of rebels?
Al Jazeera - Colombia troops sacked over deaths

Twenty-five officers have been dismissed (arrested? charged with murder?), but these are just the ones we know about.

That is so horrible.

The bauld Hugo likes dictators too.

Economist July 17th

Quote :

Presidents Chávez and Uribe agree to bury the hatchet—for now





IT WAS the first meeting between Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe and
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez since relations between the two presidents
turned sour last November. Forgotten, apparently, were the past
recriminations and tensions that at one point had almost brought the
two neighbours to the brink of war. (Mr Chávez ordered tanks to the
border in March after Colombia bombed a Farc rebel camp just inside
Ecuador.) Now it was all smiles and avowals of mutual love as the two
presidents agreed to kiss and make up.

Even before their pow-wow on July 11th in the Venezuelan town of
Punto Fijo, Mr Chávez was vowing to welcome “like a brother” the man he
had recently accused of being “a mafia leader…unfit to govern Colombia”
and an American pawn. In his turn, Mr Uribe had accused his neighbour
of “financing genocide” because of his alleged support for Colombia’s
leftist rebels. But it was time, Mr Chávez declared after the talks, to
“turn the page on the stormy past”. A “new era” was beginning, he
gushed: “We’re destined to be together always.” The two countries
(which used to be just one) were indeed “brothers throughout history”,
rejoiced Mr Uribe.

The main difference between the two perhaps is their respective supporters.

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Chavez has ceded a little ground to the opposition.Chávez's opponents make gains in elections

905 wrote:

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Maybe when he is President again. For the time being he is in the Cheney role, without being half as offensive.

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Maybe when he is President again. For the time being he is in the Cheney role, without being half as offensive.

Tell that to the Georgians.

If he's popularly elected (as Uribe and Chavez were) then can he really be a dictator? I know Putin fiddles the books, the question is why?

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Maybe when he is President again. For the time being he is in the Cheney role, without being half as offensive.

Tell that to the Georgians.

If he's popularly elected (as Uribe and Chavez were) then can he really be a dictator? I know Putin fiddles the books, the question is why?

The Georgians have an idiot of a President who picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. At America's behest.

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Maybe when he is President again. For the time being he is in the Cheney role, without being half as offensive.

Tell that to the Georgians.

If he's popularly elected (as Uribe and Chavez were) then can he really be a dictator? I know Putin fiddles the books, the question is why?

The Georgians have an idiot of a President who picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. At America's behest.

Off-topic but at America's behest?! I would have thought the last thing they needed was trouble with Russia. Didn't they need Russia support for sanctions at the time?

Saakashvili has called for an impartial investigation into how the war started as he's pretty adamant he didn't do it.

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Maybe when he is President again. For the time being he is in the Cheney role, without being half as offensive.

Tell that to the Georgians.

If he's popularly elected (as Uribe and Chavez were) then can he really be a dictator? I know Putin fiddles the books, the question is why?

The Georgians have an idiot of a President who picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. At America's behest.

Off-topic but at America's behest?! I would have thought the last thing they needed was trouble with Russia. Didn't they need Russia support for sanctions at the time?

Saakashvili has called for an impartial investigation into how the war started as he's pretty adamant he didn't do it.

I read that too and in my view it was gamesmanship of the brass necked variety. A report had come out saying that the stories from Georgia about heavy shelling in the run up to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia could not be substantiated. Didn't both the US and France acknowledge Georgia's probable responsibility for the attack? Sorry for the lack of sources.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-strikes-as-%20georgia-moves-against-rebels-888487.html

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

905 wrote:

I don't think either qualify as dictators. When will Putin be regarded as a dictator, when's the cut-off point?

Maybe when he is President again. For the time being he is in the Cheney role, without being half as offensive.

Tell that to the Georgians.

If he's popularly elected (as Uribe and Chavez were) then can he really be a dictator? I know Putin fiddles the books, the question is why?

The Georgians have an idiot of a President who picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. At America's behest.

Off-topic but at America's behest?! I would have thought the last thing they needed was trouble with Russia. Didn't they need Russia support for sanctions at the time?

Saakashvili has called for an impartial investigation into how the war started as he's pretty adamant he didn't do it.

Well, he would, wouldn't he? America has for years been encircling Russia with missiles on the territory of compliant countries whose anti-Russian leadership made it easy for them. Poland, the Baltics and the Czech Republic are examples. Georgia also fell into this trap. Saakashvili timed this for the opening ceremony of the Olxmpics when Putin was in the Birds Nest Stadium reckoning that Putin would be distracted and Russia would be unprepared. The sight of Putin directing military traffic on his mobile while waving to Russian athletes as they carried the flag was an interesting one. From Putin's point of view, this was a wonderful opportunity to draw a line and say "Enough, and no further". I am quite sure the Ukraine took note of Putin's actions.

So, it all worked out in Russia's favour and made the West look weak? And we still think the Americans were behind it?

The US has been putting up missiles and the like but have been bending over backwards to convince the Russians they're not the reason. There are better ways of showing your power. And Georgia was given very little support by the West, the Americans specifically siad they weren't sending in troops. I'd say myself that Georgia started the war (or at least it's latest phase) but I doubt the Americans had anything to do with it.

One of my links showed that the Georgian army was being trained by US army trainers up to a month before the attack.

It is anyone's guess whether S'vili was given the nod by anyone in the US - as happened over Kuwait, if you remember, when Sadam was given to understand they would let him away with it.

A quiet nod, and then when it all goes horribly wrong, deny all knowledge. Could that happen?

Well, if Georgia did start the war, and I am convinced they did, they would not be so stupid as to take on Putin without some reasonable expectation of "support". It is debatable what form such "support" was supposed to take but the Americans, regardless to what extent they tacitly gave such "support", walked away when they saw the nature of Putin's response.

It is yet another sign of the weakness the neocons in Bush's White House suffered in Bush's second term. The ongoing problems in Iraq which became all too apparent in 2005, the resignation of many of the hawks in the White House, the reigning in of Cheney's people, the arrest of Scooter Libby, the losing control of the Senate, Hurrican Katrina and so on all contributed to the malaise which afflicted the White House over the past 4 years. Putin can calculate political odds better than most. He won big time here.

Chavez is doing business with the Russians and much as it annoys many people, his government has as much legitimacy as any other and more than many others. The Bush Doctrine has failed. And failed to such an extent that the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee couldn't explain what it was.