Two dictatorships in the making

[Thomas Veil]

Dictatorship-in-the-making 1 (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/30/venezuela.protest/index.html?iref=newssearch):

CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) -- President Hugo Chavez on Friday wrapped up his campaign to push through broad constitutional changes with a broadside attack against adversaries at home and abroad -- including a threat to cut off oil exports to the United States.

Chavez told a crowd gathered in the center of Caracas that if the referendum was approved and the result was questioned -- "if the 'yes' vote wins on Sunday and the Venezuelan oligarchy, playing the [U.S.] empire's game, comes with their little stories of fraud" -- then he would order oil shipments to the United States halted Monday.

Chavez spoke after tens of thousands, brought on buses from throughout the country, marched down the capital's principal boulevard to rally support for Sunday's referendum, which would free Chavez from term-limit restrictions and move the country toward institutionalized socialism.

Friday's rally acted as a counterpoint to an opposition march down the same streets Thursday that brought out tens of thousands who fear the 69 constitutional changes would serve to undermine basic democratic freedoms.Dictatorship-in-the-making 2 (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/02/russia.vote/index.html):

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russians were going to the polls Sunday to choose a new State Duma -- the lower house of parliament -- in a vote that could give a tighter grip on power to President Vladimir Putin.

Putin's United Russia party has dominated the election campaign against 10 much weaker opposition parties.

Putin -- who cannot seek a third presidential term under Russia's constitution -- has said he would consider taking the prime minister's post if his party achieves a landslide victory in Sunday's voting but his future duties and powers are unclear....

But the election has been marred by controversy as opposition parties have accused the government of stifling their campaign efforts and independent election monitors have said their work has been hampered.

Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion who is now an outspoken opposition leader, called the election a "farce" Friday, a day after being released from jail following his arrest in weekend protests.

"This regime is entering a very dangerous phase that is turning it into a dictatorship," he told journalists....

There is still widespread speculation in the Russian media that Putin may stand for the presidential election, which is set for March 2. The Russian constitution currently forbids a third term and Putin has repeatedly denied he will run.

Criticism of the West has dominated the election. Putin described his opponents as "foreign-fed jackals" and said Russia would not tolerate meddling from abroad.Interesting, huh? Especially the parallels. If anyone in their countries dares to criticize Putin or Chavez, it's the fault of those damn interfering freedom-loving foreigners. :rolleyes:

If you paid attention to world politics, you could see all this coming a mile away. Still, not a nice trajectory for this to be taking. Like we don't already have enough problems in the world.

[walangij]

Have been reading about it for a while, saw it on the news finally and just had to laugh. It looks like it'll be a VERY INTERESTING 2008 in every respect.

[zap2]

Honestly, I fear Putin more then Chavez....Chavez's actions while some worry me, seem less evil, heck some of them seem good. Plus his country doesn't have nukes left over from the coldwar :eek:

[Luis]

Honestly, I fear Putin more then Chavez....Chavez's actions while some worry me, seem less evil, heck some of them seem good. Plus his country doesn't have nukes left over from the coldwar :eek:

Nah, Chavez worries me more. He has every intention to provoke the US at all costs, which is not comforting. Plus, he recently said he has plans to develop nuclear energy, which again worries me more. Also, one of the devoted allies to Venezuela other then Cuba and Iran is Nicaragua, which happens to be less than 500 miles from here :(.

[it5five]

Well, Chavez won't be a problem unless we keep voting for Cowboy Presidents who can't admit when they are wrong and like to provoke other leaders around the world.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, Chavez won't be a problem unless we keep voting for Cowboy Presidents who can't admit when they are wrong and like to provoke other leaders around the world.

I suppose, but I think we'll find that Chavez is going to thump on the US for his domestic political purposes, no matter who is president. Not as much perhaps without the easy target of Bush, but it should be pretty evident by now that he'll take advantage of every opportunity to nettle the US if it's in his interest to do so.

[skunk]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence of US backing for the attempted coup d'êtat, and continued US machinations both in Venezuela and elsewhere in South and Central America, I'd say he has every right to make life as difficult as he can.

[nbs2]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence of US backing for the attempted coup d'êtat, and continued US machinations both in Venezuela and elsewhere in South and Central America, I'd say he has every right to make life as difficult as he can.

At the cost of his people's liberty? If your neighbor tries to sucker punch you, you can arguable make his life difficult, but you don't lock your wife in the basement.

Frankly, all this shows is that the far left and far right aren't any different, and both should cause concern. No one is justified in trampling the rights of his people - but to create a situation where internal corrective action, outside of open revolt, is impossible is especially heinous.

[Peterkro]

Accusations are all very well,would you mind spelling out what these wife beating loss of liberties actually are. Whilst I'm not enamoured of all Chavez and Putin do it's a little odd to focus on those two given what's happening in the US and many other countries around the world.I guess a little "reds under the bed" hysteria takes interest away from the liberties being taken away from those of us living in "western democracies" every day.

[IJ Reilly]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence of US backing for the attempted coup d'êtat, and continued US machinations both in Venezuela and elsewhere in South and Central America, I'd say he has every right to make life as difficult as he can.

This "overwhelming evidence" came almost entirely from Chavez himself, and a couple of conspiracy theorists who could prove nothing. Frankly, we should not be reaching reasons to excuse his efforts to amass antidemocratic powers. I had no problem with Chavez when he was simply a left-wing populist who many in his country disliked for his politics. He is now moving beyond a line beyond which I think we should all agree is a Bad Thing™.

[Luis]

This "overwhelming evidence" came almost entirely from Chavez himself, and a couple of conspiracy theorists who could prove nothing. Frankly, we should not be reaching reasons to excuse his efforts to amass antidemocratic powers. I had no problem with Chavez when he was simply a left-wing populist who many in his country disliked for his politics. He is now moving beyond a line beyond which I think we should all agree is a Bad Thing™.

Exactly. Before he was just a left-wing leader, just as there are many others in the world; however, now he is making the jump to something more extremist, and that will lead to intense political tensions, both inside and outside of Venezuela, which again, is a Bad Thing. A clear example of this being the "¿Porque no te callas?"

[nbs2]

Accusations are all very well,would you mind spelling out what these wife beating loss of liberties actually are. Whilst I'm not enamoured of all Chavez and Putin do it's a little odd to focus on those two given what's happening in the US and many other countries around the world.I guess a little "reds under the bed" hysteria takes interest away from the liberties being taken away from those of us living in "western democracies" every day.

I wouldn't call Putin all that red. His policies seem more right than left.

But, I do think that recognizing the transformation of democratic states into dictatorial institutions, especially when the leadership seems so brazen about it is important. Whatever rights Westerners feel are being taken away from their own governments (it seems like both the left and right feel that the other is intent on taking away their rights), they still retain the power to change their leadership through the democratic process. Even when voter fraud is alleged, there are checks and balances. Chavez and Putin are both working dilligently to remove and checks on their power and are seeking to make those removals permanent.

So yes, western governments may not bring flowers home, but they aren't wife-beaters. And they certainly aren't doing what they do because their mad at their neighbors.

[Sayhey]

Pardon me, but why is an amendment to the constitution allowing the President to be elected more than twice evidence of "dictatorship-in-training"? There are an awful lot of people in this country who don't like term limits and I wouldn't call them dictators or sympathetic to dictators. While I like the conservative idea of term limits for Presidents (pushed to prevent another FDR) I don't think those who opposed it are authoritarian lunatics. The idea is that such amendments limit the ability of the people to choose their leaders and therefore such limits are anti-democratic.

And anyone who doesn't think the US has been trying to overthrow Chavez hasn't been paying attention to the history of US relations with Latin America or the Bush administration's activities since he came to power. At this point, Bush has no right to lecture anyone on democracy.

[Peterkro]

So you think being sneaky about it (Bush,Brown et al) is better than doing it via the ballot box as both Chavez and Putin are doing. I was referring to the effort to take attention away from what's happening in the "western democracies" rather than whether Putin was actually "red" or not.

[Luis]

Pardon me, but why is an amendment to the constitution allowing the President to be elected more than twice evidence of "dictatorship-in-training"? There are an awful lot of people in this country who don't like term limits and I wouldn't call them dictators or sympathetic to dictators. While I like the conservative idea of term limits for Presidents (pushed to prevent another FDR) I don't think those who opposed it are authoritarian lunatics. The idea is that such amendments limit the ability of the people to choose their leaders and therefore such limits are anti-democratic.


The problem with Chavez is not only his unlimited re-election proposal, if you read the whole document (I can send it to you but I have it in spanish) there are other things that are worse (to me atleast), like such clauses that say that Venezuela shall support "revolutionary fights" in allied countries, such as the one that lies next to me.

[Sayhey]

The problem with Chavez is not only his unlimited re-election proposal, if you read the whole document (I can send it to you but I have it in spanish) there are other things that are worse (to me atleast), like such clauses that say that Venezuela shall support "revolutionary fights" in allied countries, such as the one that lies next to me.

I think one can be concerned about centralization of power in many countries, Venezuela and the United States included. I just think one has to take all the propaganda against Chavez with a very large grain of salt. For decades upon decades power was held by a very few in the oligarchies of Venezuela. Now, that someone has come into power, elected by those who never had any power in Venezuela, I'm very, very skeptical about the motives of those who never supported real democracy before - while it was to their advantage not to do so - and now spew endless columns about the danger to democracy.

If you have lived through the coups in Chile, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, etc. etc. this all sounds very familiar. And the hand of CIA and the Bush administration is most definitely involved - even if there are legitimate reasons to question what Chavez is doing. Certainly, I don't read crap like the use of the "danger of socialism" as anything but a bogey man raised for North American audiences. Even if it is true, if the Venezuelan people want socialism, that is their right and the US needs to stay the hell away from interfering in internal Venezuelan politics.

[Macky-Mac]

from the BBC;

...Speaking on Friday, Mr Chavez said: "If God gives me life and help, I will be at the head of the government until 2050."...

looks like we'll have plenty of opportunities to talk about Chavez in the future

[it5five]

Assuming he is elected into office each term, as he has been overwhelmingly in the past.

[mactastic]

He is now moving beyond a line beyond which I think we should all agree is a Bad Thing™.
Of course he is, but it's all about how you handle someone like that. I would submit that you, nor your surrogates, do not antagonize someone like that. The Bush administration has taken delight in antagonizing Chavez deliberately and publicly; as they have with other leaders and nations.

Tone the rhetoric down, and talk in good faith with him. I suspect any danger Chavez poses to the US could be contained with relative ease.

And really, how much of a threat is Chavez to US national security? Particularly when compared to some of the other threats out there. Some perspective on that issue is in order as well.

[Luis]

I think one can be concerned about centralization of power in many countries, Venezuela and the United States included. I just think one has to take all the propaganda against Chavez with a very large grain of salt. For decades upon decades power was held by a very few in the oligarchies of Venezuela. Now, that someone has come into power, elected by those who never had any power in Venezuela, I'm very, very skeptical about the motives of those who never supported real democracy before - while it was to their advantage not to do so - and now spew endless columns about the danger to democracy.

If you have lived through the coups in Chile, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, etc. etc. this all sounds very familiar. And the hand of CIA and the Bush administration is most definitely involved - even if there are legitimate reasons to question what Chavez is doing. Certainly, I don't read crap like the use of the "danger of socialism" as anything but a bogey man raised for North American audiences. Even if it is true, if the Venezuelan people want socialism, that is their right and the US needs to stay the hell away from interfering in internal Venezuelan politics.

I'm not against the Venezuelan people choosing their own way, whatever they choose. What I'm not okay with is that if Chavez's reforms pass he will most likely venture on to support "revolutionary" causes in other countries only to provoke the United States, thing that he has no business doing.

Whatever ideology triumphs in Venezuela, then be it. It is okay as long as it remains in Venezuela and remains a matter of Venezuelan people only, thing of which I am not so sure if Chavez gets the upper hand.

[Peterkro]

I'm not against the Venezuelan people choosing their own way, whatever they choose. What I'm not okay with is that if Chavez's reforms pass he will most likely venture on to support "revolutionary" causes in other countries only to provoke the United States, thing that he has no business doing.

Whatever ideology triumphs in Venezuela, then be it. It is okay as long as it remains in Venezuela and remains a matter of Venezuelan people only, thing of which I am not so sure if Chavez gets the upper hand.


I don't think being worried about Chavez's support for "revolutionary movements" in neighbouring countries is necessary it will after all be only a counterweight to the US's policy of interfering (militarily and economically ) for at least the last hundred years.

[IJ Reilly]

And anyone who doesn't think the US has been trying to overthrow Chavez hasn't been paying attention to the history of US relations with Latin America or the Bush administration's activities since he came to power. At this point, Bush has no right to lecture anyone on democracy.

Since I am clearly one who "hasn't been paying any attention," could you please supply us with some evidence of US efforts to overthrow Chavez?

I am also very weary of moral or amoral equivalency arguments.

[skunk]

The problem with Chavez is not only his unlimited re-election proposal, if you read the whole document (I can send it to you but I have it in spanish) there are other things that are worse (to me atleast), like such clauses that say that Venezuela shall support "revolutionary fights" in allied countries, such as the one that lies next to me.What is wrong with supporting "revolutionary fights"? Many of these "revolutionary fights" were in response to repressive right-wing dictatorships (or oligarchies) which were kept in power or brought to power by countries (usually the US) which had corporate or strategic interests in the region, which those oligarchies or dictators enabled in return for financial, political and military support. Now the boot is on the other foot, suddenly such behaviour is seen as a threat.

[Luis]

I don't think being worried about Chavez's support for "revolutionary movements" in neighbouring countries is necessary it will after all be only a counterweight to the US's policy of interfering (militarily and economically ) for at least the last hundred years.

US military "intervention" hasn't happened in years, and last it happened it brought stability to the region (at least Central America). And that "economical intervention", well you should take into consideration that the vast majority of Central American countries depend economically on the US, and only thanks to US incentives, is that our economy barely floats.

If Chavez succeds to break the stability of the region with Nicaragua, and Central American relations with the US go astray, then a whole economic crisis would be upon our countries. To whom are we going to sell our products? Venezuela? yeah right :rolleyes:

What is wrong with supporting "revolutionary fights"? Many of these "revolutionary fights" were in response to repressive right-wing dictatorships (or oligarchies) which were kept in power or brought to power by countries (usually the US) which had corporate or strategic interests in the region, which those oligarchies or dictators enabled in return for financial, political and military support. Now the boot is on the other foot, suddenly such behaviour is seen as a threat.

Again, I have no problem if the "revolutionary fights" stay inside Nicaragua, supported or not by Chavez. However, most likely this will not be the case, as has already happened. I'm not really confortable with having an armed revolution on my frontdoor thank you.

At least in Nicaragua, this already happened once (and the current Nicaraguan president was behind it, coincidence?). This revolution sunk the country in economic crisis and brought a lot of political tensions between our countries. Not to mention the extense immigration problems we have today. Nice revolution eh?

Now the situation has sort of stabilized, and to start this process again is a no go.

[Sayhey]

Since I am clearly one who "hasn't been paying any attention," could you please supply us with some evidence of US efforts to overthrow Chavez?

I am also very weary of moral or amoral equivalency arguments.

Try this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,688071,00.html) for starters, IJ.

I glad I didn't make one of those "moral or amoral equivalency arguments" then.

[skunk]

Since I am clearly one who "hasn't been paying any attention," could you please supply us with some evidence of US efforts to overthrow Chavez?I tend to go along with this version of events, which I read as a US-supported attempted coup d'êtat.
The events leading up to the April 11 military coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez can be traced back to the worsening political climate evident since the end of last year. The conflict between forces loyal to President Hugo Chavez and those opposed to him heated up particularly after November 2001, when Chavez, using new powers granted him by the National Assembly, passed 49 laws, some of which were extremely controversial--such as the Land Law and the Organic Law of Liquid Hydrocarbons. Each of these laws was annulled on Friday, less than twenty-four hours after Chavez was ousted from power by the military in alliance with business elites and the top managers of Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa), the state-owned oil company.

The opposition to Chavez, led by the Federation of Chambers of Industry and Commerce (Fedecamaras) and the top managers of Pdvsa, became increasingly active, organizing civic strikes, protest marches, and other activities. The demand that Chavez resign immediately became the clarion call of these mobilizations.

The opposition activities were met by the government and its supporters with counterdemonstrations, leading to an alarming degree of tension, which threatened to degenerate into violence on more than one occasion. However, prior to the week before the coup, the acts of violence registered in the demonstrations of both government supporters and opponents--verbal assaults aside--were few and far between.

After Chavez appointed a new president and board of directors to Pdvsa, the opposition adopted more strident measures against the government, culminating in a general strike. The strike was organized jointly by Fedecamaras and a group of trade unionists who had assumed leadership of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) after elections that were characterized by numerous irregularities. The general strike served as the platform for the military coup of April 11.

The strike was widely seen as less than a resounding success. On April 11, the CTV and Fedecamaras decided to lead the protesters through eastern Caracas to the Pdvsa offices in Chuao. Once they arrived, emboldened by the large number of followers, Carlos Ortega, the contested president of the CTV, urged the protesters to march toward the Miraflores Palace, the seat of the national government, with the express purpose of "removing Chavez from office." In the three years of Chavez's government, government supporters have frequently mobilized around the government palace to demonstrate their support.

That day, as had been the case since the strike began, Chavez supporters had turned out in massive numbers at the government palace. Ortega's intention of inciting a violent confrontation was evident; violence did in fact occur and several people were killed and wounded by gunfire. According to the media versions of what happened, those responsible were either pro-Chavez sharpshooters or members of the National Guard. However, several of those who were killed by gunfire, including the Vice President's chauffeur, were government supporters. As events unfolded, President Chavez was making a public statement; immediately after he finished, several opposition politicians appeared on television, openly and aggressively calling on the armed forces to intervene and remove Chavez. Jose Rodriguez Iturbe, a leading member of the Copei political party and who on the next day was named chancellor of the new government, harangued the armed forces, accusing them of cowardice if they did not act to remove Chavez. Around 10pm the state-owned TV channel went off the air; and shortly thereafter a top military official, echoing opposition accusations that Chavez supporters had massacred peaceful protesters, began to publicly declare that the military no longer recognized Chavez as president. At 1:20am it was announced that Chavez had resigned and, a few hours later, that the president of Fedecamaras, Pedro Carmona Estanga, would assume the presidency of a transition government.

This was clearly a military coup that has been in the making for some time, with the help of Democratic Action (AD), business elites, trade unionists, the top leadership of Pdvsa, and, most likely, with the support or at least the tacit approval of the U.S. embassy. It is probably not a coincidence Charles Shapiro, the new U.S. ambassador--who has experience in counterinsurgency operations--arrived in Caracas just days before the coup.

The authoritarian, illegal, and illegitimate nature of the new government was evident with the closure of public institutions that operated under the existing constitution. The National Assembly was shut down, as were the Attorney General's office, the Supreme Court, the Comptroller's office, the National Electoral Board, and the Ombudsman's office. This closure of these democratic institutions was a clear manifestation of authoritarianism.

The media, and particularly television, were the main instruments of the military coup. It is obvious that a healthy democracy cannot exist without a democratic media. In Venezuela, the media has acted wholeheartedly in defense of the interests of big business and of a particular vision of the country articulated by so-called "civil society," the term that middle class groups opposed to the Chavez government use to refer to themselves. The media launched a systematic campaign to undermine the Chavez government, presenting biased information.

On April 12, the Attorney General, who was in hiding, made a public statement explaining in detail how the military coup violated the constitution. He affirmed that President Chavez did not resign. If he had done so, then according to the constitution the vice president would assume the presidency. If the vice president were to resign, then the president of the National Assembly would assume the presidency. The events of April 11, therefore, represented a clear rupture of this constitutional order.

The security forces started raiding offices of pro-Chavez supporters and arresting mayors and governors linked to his movement. These, like Chavez, had been freely elected. Several ministers and deputies of the National Assembly were detained without any legal process for the "crime" of being members of the deposed government. Members of the government and the National Assembly struggled to communicate with the country and the media, but the media ignored them.

At 4am on April 12 Chavez was detained and transferred to the Tiuna Fortress, and in the subsequent thirty-eight hours he was moved to four different locations. No one was permitted to see him, including the Attorney General and local human rights organizations. Every time they had an opportunity, individuals close to Chavez affirmed that he had neither resigned nor had he dismissed anyone. The lives of the men and women linked to his government and his political movement were at risk. The vigilance of the international community became crucial.

Unlike the declarations given on April 12 by the White House spokesperson, who reiterated the Venezuelan media's version of events, some Latin American and European governments recognized that this was a military coup and they repudiated it. The U.S. government failed to demonstrate its commitment to democracy. After countries such as Mexico or Argentina rejected this act of force, the majority of Latin American nations followed suit and withheld recognition of the interim government. On the morning of Saturday April 13, U.S. Ambassador Shapiro met with Pedro Carmona Estanga in the Miraflores Palace for an hour. Referring to Carmona as the "president," he refused to make public the nature of their conversation, but the meeting carried significant symbolic weight. Was the United States seeking ways to make the de facto interim government palatable to its neighbors and to the world?

Since the afternoon of the 12th, Caracas and other cities throughout Venezuela witnessed massive street protests in support of President Chavez. These protests grew larger throughout the day on Saturday. International pressure, divisions among the anti-Chavez groups, and the military uprisings in support of Chavez in several garrisons throughout the country signaled the coup's lack of public support. In the afternoon, the army commander made a public announcement that conditioned the army's support of the transitional government on a series of points, unleashing the events that ultimately led to the renunciation of Carmona Estanga and the return of Hugo Chavez to the presidency.

Now that constitutional order has been reinstated, Venezuela faces dramatic challenges. The polarization that led to the events of the past several days lingers in the air. Upon his return, Chavez has made statements seeking reconciliation among all Venezuelans. The country's future depends on the lessons that the president and the opposition draw from this unfortunate experience.

(Margarita López Maya is a historian and professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. Luis E. Lander is an engineer and professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. Edgardo Lander is a sociologist and professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela.)
http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204venezuela.html

[Sayhey]

I'm not against the Venezuelan people choosing their own way, whatever they choose. What I'm not okay with is that if Chavez's reforms pass he will most likely venture on to support "revolutionary" causes in other countries only to provoke the United States, thing that he has no business doing.

Whatever ideology triumphs in Venezuela, then be it. It is okay as long as it remains in Venezuela and remains a matter of Venezuelan people only, thing of which I am not so sure if Chavez gets the upper hand.

I don't necessarily disagree with this post, but I am rather troubled by your view that US efforts to create and fund armed insurrection against Nicaragua is viewed as something that "stabilized" the region. It overthrew the Sandinistas and certainly interfered in democracy. That says nothing about the death squads the US trained and financed in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Support for democracy in Latin America has never been the US long suit. The stabilization of the grave for any who would challenge US business interests has been however.

[skunk]

US military "intervention" hasn't happened in years, and last it happened it brought stability to the region (at least Central America).I suppose Haiti is conveniently just outside your region, then?
And that "economical intervention", well you should take into consideration that the vast majority of Central American countries depend economically on the US, and only thanks to US incentives, is that our economy barely floats.For "US incentives", read "US economic arm-twisting".
At least in Nicaragua, this already happened once (and the current Nicaraguan president was behind it, coincidence?). This revolution sunk the country in economic crisis and brought a lot of political tensions between our countries. Not to mention the extense immigration problems we have today. Nice revolution eh?The US did its level best to make Nicaragua economically non-viable, just as it has done for 50 years in Cuba.

[Luis]

I don't necessarily disagree with this post, but I am rather troubled by your view that US efforts to create and fund armed insurrection against Nicaragua is viewed as something that "stabilized" the region. It overthrew the Sandinistas and certainly interfered in democracy.

And how do you think the Sandinistas came into power? You should really hear the stories I have heard of people who fled from the Sandinistas...

That says nothing about the death squads the US trained and financed in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Support for democracy in Latin America has never been the US long suit. The stabilization of the grave for any who would challenge US business interests has been however.

Your'e implying that before US "intervention" there was stability in the region to start with, but this is not the case, there were violent conflicts everywhere, I mean even one started because of a soccer match! It was mainly Oscar Arias's peace plan together with US support that finally brought some sort of stability in the region, that in some way continues until today.

[Brianstorm91]

Putin pisses me off.

[Eraserhead]

, just as it has done for 50 years in Cuba.

And they still have a better health care system :p.

Seriously I thought we were talking about the US as a possible dictatorship from the thread title. Russia already is a dictatorship, and Venezuela is a bit dodgy, but Chevez is simply trying to counteract US propaganda.

[Luis]

I suppose Haiti is conveniently just outside your region, then?

Conveniently or not, it is indeed outside my region.

For "US incentives", read "US economic arm-twisting".

Economic "arm twisting" as you say that has brought some sort of economic success to the region. What's your point? What other way do we have? selling to Venezuela then? :rolleyes:

The US did its level best to make Nicaragua economically non-viable, just as it has done for 50 years in Cuba.

And how exactly did they do that? Nicaragua just signed the CAFTA with the US, which kinda contrasts with your claims that the US has made it's best to make Nicaragua "economically non-viable".

[Eraserhead]

Economic "arm twisting" as you say that has brought some sort of economic success to the region.

What region are we talking about? And how does their economic success compare to say, Vietnam, who the Americans invaded, and then ignored for 30 years, which is now fairly successful.

[Sayhey]

And how do you think the Sandinistas came into power? You should really hear the stories I have heard of people who fled from the Sandinistas... I think the Sandinistas came to power in a legitimate revolution that overthrew one of the regions worst entrenched dictatorships - which was installed in the first place through US intervention. One doesn't have to agree with the politics of Daniel Ortega to see his movement was quite popular and represented - at the time - the wish of a people long oppressed. The US did everything in its power to stop this positive development.

Your'e implying that before US "intervention" there was stability in the region to start with, but this is not the case, there were violent conflicts everywhere, I mean even one started because of a soccer match! It was mainly Oscar Arias's peace plan together with US support that finally brought some sort of stability in the region, that in some way continues until today. I didn't say anything about stability in the region - you did. I think a lack of stability when long over due change is needed is a good thing. For decades upon decades the people of the region got next to nothing from the exploitation of their own natural resources and lived in extreme poverty as a result. People who want to change this status quo have my support - as little as that means. Intervention by my government in the internal affairs of sovereign nations to allow for continued exploitation by US business interests does not, however.

[IJ Reilly]

Try this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,688071,00.html) for starters, IJ.

I've read this and a lot more on the subject. You should note the nature of the "sources" and the startling paucity of detail.

I glad I didn't make one of those "moral or amoral equivalency arguments" then.

That's what you did here:

At this point, Bush has no right to lecture anyone on democracy.

This is a red herring. I don't have to choose between siding with one or the other in order to have an opinion about either one. And if you didn't mean to imply this, then I wonder why you mentioned it.

[Luis]

I think the Sandinistas came to power in a legitimate revolution that overthrew one of the regions worst entrenched dictatorships - which was installed in the first place through US intervention. One doesn't have to agree with the politics of Daniel Ortega to see his movement was quite popular and represented - at the time - the wish of a people long oppressed. The US did everything in its power to stop this positive development.


"Positive Development"? The Sandinistas may have had a legitimate reason, but they were nowhere near to being positive. Their revolution only ended in bringing an economic collapse (that continues until today) and the massive immigration to leave the country, which also continues until today. At least before the Sandinistas, there was some sort of stability, thing that the revolution took care of destroying. Again, you should hear the stories of the people (and no, not people who had support of the US, i'm talking about poor, peasant class people) who really lived the Revolution, and reconsider what kind of "positive development" the revolution was.

[Sayhey]

I've read this and a lot more on the subject. You should note the nature of the "sources" and the startling paucity of detail. Glad to hear it. I have as well. If you have a problem with the story, then making a detailed argument against it, or skunk's article for that matter, would be in order.

[QUOTE=IJ Reilly;4569523This is a red herring. I don't have to choose between siding with one or the other in order to have an opinion about either one. And if you didn't mean to imply this, then I wonder why you mentioned it.[/QUOTE]

I mention it because concerns for democracy from the US should be noted with a huge grain of salt - as I said before. History shows us - in Venezuela, in Latin America, in Iraq, in Iran, and over and over again - real concern for democracy has very little to do with US actions in the world. It certainly is nothing more than a trojan horse for this administration in the conduct of foreign policy. No red herring, but rather an important context in the viewing of news reports and current policies towards Venezuela.

Notice, as well, I never said one has to support Chavez' politics or one cannot legitimately be critical of some of his moves, but the reflex reaction to some of this, like assuming changes in the Venezuelan Constitution are automatically undemocratic, are both hypocritical and without any Venezuelan context - or US context for that matter.

[IJ Reilly]

I tend to go along with this version of events, which I read as a US-supported attempted coup d'êtat.

So "maybe," which is the best level of certainty expressed by this writer, is a proof? I think you have to want to believe it, in order to find any evidence here at all.

The handling of the immediate aftermath of the coup attempt was the first of what would be many major diplomatic blunders by the Bush administration. It was widely recognized as such at the time both here and abroad, and provided Chavez with an opportunity to weave a tale of a US-sponsored plot. It's no coincidence that Chavez tends to characterize his political opponents as dupes and agents of the United States. Had it not been for our Blunderer in Chief, Chavez might have needed to score his domestic political points elsewhere.

This is why I said earlier that Chavez will probably continue to tell this story and, others like it, over and over, and to cast the US as the enemy no matter who is president. Bush gave him that opportunity and there's probably no taking it back.

[skunk]

Again, you should hear the stories of the people (and no, not people who had support of the US, i'm talking about poor, peasant class people) who really lived the Revolution, and reconsider what kind of "positive development" the revolution was.I expect you'll post some links, then.

[Luis]

I expect you'll post some links, then.

I'm sorry, I've only heard them in person, so no links...

[skunk]

So "maybe," which is the best level of certainty expressed by this writer, is a proof? I think you have to want to believe it, in order to find any evidence here at all.I expect you will be disappointed that I did not mention the word "proof" anywhere. Personally, though, I find the balance of probabilities - which is all we will ever have to go on, I suspect - favours the scenario I have described. It wouldn't be the first time, would it?

[Sayhey]

"Positive Development"? The Sandinistas may have had a legitimate reason, but they were nowhere near to being positive. Their revolution only ended in bringing an economic collapse (that continues until today) and the massive immigration to leave the country, which also continues until today. At least before the Sandinistas, there was some sort of stability, thing that the revolution took care of destroying. Again, you should hear the stories of the people (and no, not people who had support of the US, I'm talking about poor, peasant class people) who really lived the Revolution, and reconsider what kind of "positive development" the revolution was.

If you want to disagree with the policies of the Sandinistas, that is fine by me. I think the economic collapse had much more to do with US actions toward Nicaragua at the time, but that is another thread. The point is that you are concerned, and maybe rightly so, about Venezuelan support for indigenous rebels in Columbia (they have existed long before Chavez came to power) and yet seemingly have no problem with the US funding for the Contras, the right-wing death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras during the Reagan administration, and in general US intervention in sovereign nations. I see this as a fundamental contradiction in your argument against Chavez. Convince me you aren't just arguing for the return to the status quo of US domination of the region and its resources.

[synth3tik]

I agree with Zap2. Putin is the one we have to worry about. He does not keep his dislike of the US a secret. I think if the US gets another Neo-Con in office things could get really bad.

[IJ Reilly]

Glad to hear it. I have as well. If you have a problem with the story, then making a detailed argument against it, or skunk's article for that matter, would be in order.

The article contains essentially no facts upon which to base a response. That was the point of my remarks. All of the articles I've read where this charge is made are similarly vague.

I mention it because concerns for democracy from the US should be noted with a huge grain of salt - as I said before. History shows us - in Venezuela, in Latin America, in Iraq, in Iran, and over and over again - real concern for democracy has very little to do with US actions in the world. It certainly is nothing more than a trojan horse for this administration in the conduct of foreign policy. No red herring, but rather an important context in the viewing of news reports and current policies towards Venezuela.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that I had not made any reference to the issue of US attitudes and or policy respecting democracy in Latin America from this administration or any other. Consequently, I was wondering why this issue was raised.

[Luis]

If you want to disagree with the policies of the Sandinistas, that is fine by me. I think the economic collapse had much more to do with US actions toward Nicaragua at the time, but that is another thread. The point is that you are concerned, and maybe rightly so, about Venezuelan support for indigenous rebels in Columbia (they have existed long before Chavez came to power) and yet seemingly have no problem with the US funding for the Contras, the right-wing death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras during the Reagan administration, and in general US intervention in sovereign nations. I see this as a fundamental contradiction in your argument against Chavez. Convince me you aren't just arguing for the return to the status quo of US domination of the region and its resources.

Wait wait, I am talking of Nicaragua, not Colombia, that is another issue.

And no, I don't want the US to "dominate" us and our resources; however, I say that it is impossible to ignore the fact that this region depends on the US for survival, either for good or bad, but it is the reality. Maybe Chavez wants to "save us" from "US imperialism", but the point is, that without the US our countries will collapse, and Venezuela simply does not have the power to prevent that. Will they buy everything we sell to the US? Or course not.

Because face it, Chavez's real goal is to provoke the US, and I don't really like the idea of him doing it at the expense of the stability of our countries.

[IJ Reilly]

I expect you will be disappointed that I did not mention the word "proof" anywhere. Personally, though, I find the balance of probabilities - which is all we will ever have to go on, I suspect - favours the scenario I have described. It wouldn't be the first time, would it?

You certainly made it sound like a vague allegation can be taken as convincing evidence, and it appears to me as though you're still arguing as much. As for "it wouldn't be the first time so its probably true," this reasoning begins to work perilously close to conspiracy theory territory -- the place where things which can't be definitely disproved are as good as true. To close for my comfort anyway.

[skunk]

You certainly made it sound like a vague allegation can be taken as convincing evidence, and it appears to me as though you're still arguing as much.Taken together, all the reports about the coup add up to much more than "vague".
As for "it wouldn't be the first time so its probably true," this reasoning begins to work perilously close to conspiracy theory territory.Nonsense. Seeing a pattern of foreign policy behaviour is not the same as conspiracy theory. You surely aren't denying that the US has used such tactics elsewhere, are you? Ask Pinochet what he thinks.

[Sayhey]

The article contains essentially no facts upon which to base a response. That was the point of my remarks. All of the articles I've read where this charge is made are similarly vague. So the meetings of Carmona and others involved in the coup attempt with Otto Reich in the months leading up to the coup are just coincidental? The immediate congratulations of the Bush administration to the coup plotters doesn't mean a thing? The roles played in the region by Reich, Abrams, and Negroponte in plotting the overthrow of regimes the US disagreed with just stopped under the current administration because of their commitment to non-intervention? Same players, same clues to their same type of operation, but it didn't happen here because they say it didn't? I'd like to see some of the sources you have that convince you of this, IJ.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that I had not made any reference to the issue of US attitudes and or policy respecting democracy in Latin America from this administration or any other. Consequently, I was wondering why this issue was raised. It wasn't directed at anything in particular you had written. It was in order to provide important context in understanding what was going on in Venezuela.

[Sayhey]

Wait wait, I am talking of Nicaragua, not Colombia, that is another issue. My point is you don't hold the same standards for each situation. You are concerned about Venezuelan interference in Colombian affairs, but you show no concern about the long history of very bloody US interference in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala. Don't you see that as a contradiction?

And no, I don't want the US to "dominate" us and our resources; however, I say that it is impossible to ignore the fact that this region depends on the US for survival, either for good or bad, but it is the reality. Maybe Chavez wants to "save us" from "US imperialism", but the point is, that without the US our countries will collapse, and Venezuela simply does not have the power to prevent that. Will they buy everything we sell to the US? Or course not.

Because face it, Chavez's real goal is to provoke the US, and I don't really like the idea of him doing it at the expense of the stability of our countries.

I respect the fact you don't agree with Chavez's politics. Do you agree that the US shouldn't interfere in the internal politics of Venezuela? Shouldn't the Venezuelan people have the democratic right to choose to endorse Chavez's constitutional amendments or choose socialism is they so desire? If you have specific complaints about the democratic process in Venezuela, I might agree with you, but I don't automatically agree that because Chavez proposes something it is bad.

[Macky-Mac]

I don't necessarily disagree with this post, but I am rather troubled by your view that US efforts to create and fund armed insurrection against Nicaragua is viewed as something that "stabilized" the region. It overthrew the Sandinistas and certainly interfered in democracy....

Actually, the Sandinistas were voted out of power in 1990.....and not overthrown by a US funded military insurrection as you claim.

They've continued to be active in Nicaraguan politics. Indeed, Ortega was re-elected president just last year

[Sayhey]

Actually, the Sandinistas were voted out of power in 1990.....and not overthrown by a US funded military insurrection as you claim.

They've continued to be active in Nicaraguan politics. Indeed, Ortega was re-elected president just last year

True. Thanks for the correction. I would contend that the main reason behind the vote was the effect of the long US-sponsored war and embargo of Nicaragua, but you are absolutely correct that the Sandinistas left office after a vote that put them in the minority.

[Luis]

My point is you don't hold the same standards for each situation. You are concerned about Venezuelan interference in Colombian affairs, but you show no concern about the long history of very bloody US interference in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala. Don't you see that as a contradiction?

When did I mention that I was concerned about Venezuela intervention in Colombia?:confused:



I respect the fact you don't agree with Chavez's politics. Do you agree that the US shouldn't interfere in the internal politics of Venezuela? Shouldn't the Venezuelan people have the democratic right to choose to endorse Chavez's constitutional amendments or choose socialism is they so desire? If you have specific complaints about the democratic process in Venezuela, I might agree with you, but I don't automatically agree that because Chavez proposes something it is bad.

I agree that the Venezuelan people should choose whatever they want, just like they did today. I am ok with that, as long as that choice reflects a change in Venezuela only, and not in the countries in which Chavez wishes to support "revolution". Countries in which the people did not choose that change.

[Macky-Mac]

Of course he is, but it's all about how you handle someone like that. I would submit that you, nor your surrogates, do not antagonize someone like that. The Bush administration has taken delight in antagonizing Chavez deliberately and publicly; as they have with other leaders and nations.

Tone the rhetoric down, and talk in good faith with him. I suspect any danger Chavez poses to the US could be contained with relative ease.

And really, how much of a threat is Chavez to US national security? Particularly when compared to some of the other threats out there. Some perspective on that issue is in order as well.

indeed, one can only move forward and hope for the best

[Sayhey]

When did I mention that I was concerned about Venezuela intervention in Colombia?:confused:

My apologies, I remembered you writing of the vote today and the constitutional changes supporting revolutionary changes in other countries and I remembered your statement incorrectly. I thought you were talking about "next to him" meaning the widely discussed support of Venezuela for revolutionaries in Colombia, but you said "next to me" meaning your location in Costa Rica, referring to his support of Nicaragua, I assume. While I apologize for the mistake, my point however is the same. If you condemn Venezuelan support for Nicaraguan leftists, or leftists in any country for that matter, how can you ignore the history of US intervention in your region and the world? I don't think one can logically do so.

I agree that the Venezuelan people should choose whatever they want, just like they did today. I am ok with that, as long as that choice reflects a change in Venezuela only, and not in the countries in which Chavez wishes to support "revolution". Countries in which the people did not choose that change. Doesn't it depend on what is the nature of that support? I don't see Chavez giving preferential treatment to Nicaragua in oil prices as particularly harmful to anyone. Too often this seems to be translated into some kind of fear of Venezuelan troops - which has happened no where. Much of it is incredibly gross propaganda and not worthy of a response.

[Luis]

Doesn't it depend on what is the nature of that support? I don't see Chavez giving preferential treatment to Nicaragua in oil prices as particularly harmful to anyone. Too often this seems to be translated into some kind of fear of Venezuelan troops - which has happened no where. Much of it is incredibly gross propaganda and not worthy of a response.

Of course it depends on the nature of the support, however when the reform talks about revolutionary support, it is when things get ugly.

Anyways...

One of the dictatorships just received a very strong blow! "Photo finish" :D

[Peterkro]

~^~^ If you want to have any sort of reasonable discussion you would need to stop referring to dictatorships when all the evidence clearly says they are not dictatorships.

[skunk]

~^~^ If you want to have any sort of reasonable discussion you would need to stop referring to dictatorships when all the evidence clearly says they are not dictatorships.Exactly. When was the last time you saw a dictatorship submit itself to an unrigged popular vote?

[Sayhey]

Of course it depends on the nature of the support, however when the reform talks about revolutionary support, it is when things get ugly.

Anyways...

One of the dictatorships just received a very strong blow! "Photo finish" :D

So I'm guessing you are less worried today about Venezuelan "revolutionary" support arriving in the streets of Costa Rica? Only problem is, it was never going to happen whatever the outcome of the vote. Support for the Sandinistas will continue, revolutionary and otherwise, and I'm sure there will be folks telling you they will marching up your street any minute, but my advice is to stop letting such nonsense worry you. We keep hearing here about Al Qaeda or Iran trying to take over the US; same old BS, the names have been changed to sell more tanks.

As to the actual vote, I still don't know if the outcome is something I should cheer or feel sad about. I do know, at least so far, skunk and Peterko are absolutely right. Dictatorships don't lose elections like this.

[Luis]

~^~^ If you want to have any sort of reasonable discussion you would need to stop referring to dictatorships when all the evidence clearly says they are not dictatorships.

Exactly. When was the last time you saw a dictatorship submit itself to an unrigged popular vote?

I said dictatorships referring to the OP's post, not because I think they really are a dictatorship, since they aren't, at least for now. Sorry for the confusion

So I'm guessing you are less worried today about Venezuelan "revolutionary" support arriving in the streets of Costa Rica? Only problem is, it was never going to happen whatever the outcome of the vote. Support for the Sandinistas will continue, revolutionary and otherwise, and I'm sure there will be folks telling you they will marching up your street any minute, but my advice is to stop letting such nonsense worry you. We keep hearing here about Al Qaeda or Iran trying to take over the US; same old BS, the names have been changed to sell more tanks.


Nah i'm not worried, at least not anymore. If you asked me that question when the referendum was going on (The Costa Rican referendum) then you would have gotten a different answer ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Nonsense. Seeing a pattern of foreign policy behaviour is not the same as conspiracy theory. You surely aren't denying that the US has used such tactics elsewhere, are you? Ask Pinochet what he thinks.

If your proof is that it can't be disproved, then you are employing conspiracy theory logic.

So the meetings of Carmona and others involved in the coup attempt with Otto Reich in the months leading up to the coup are just coincidental? The immediate congratulations of the Bush administration to the coup plotters doesn't mean a thing? The roles played in the region by Reich, Abrams, and Negroponte in plotting the overthrow of regimes the US disagreed with just stopped under the current administration because of their commitment to non-intervention? Same players, same clues to their same type of operation, but it didn't happen here because they say it didn't? I'd like to see some of the sources you have that convince you of this, IJ.

Odd. I am not "convinced" of anything. It seems you and Skunk are the convinced parties. I am simply pointing out that these convictions are based, at best, on entirely circumstantial evidence.

As you may recall, the political furor in the US at the time was over the Bush administration's tacit approval of the coup. Even the strongest critics of the administration (Christopher Dodd, in particular), did not make the far more serious charge that the Bush administration supported it. To treat this now as a virtual fact is a bit of a reach, at the very least.

Anyway, I brought this point up entirely in the context of the question of whether Chavez would continue to cast the US in the role of Venezuela's chief enemy even after Bush leaves office. Given that Chavez and his supporters have made a series of wild charges against against the US, I thought it likely that this would continue no matter who was president.

Finally, we see this morning that the proposed revisions to Venezuela's constitution were defeated narrowly by the voters. I was about to bring up the point that many Chavez supporters were souring on his power grabs, but I guess I no longer need to.

[skunk]

If your proof is that it can't be disproved, then you are employing conspiracy theory logic.You're the one banging on about proof, not me. I'm content with the balance of probabilities.

[Macky-Mac]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence of US backing for the attempted coup d'êtat.....

You're the one banging on about proof, not me.....

oh really?

[Sayhey]

Would the case that the US was involved in the planning of the coup attempt be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, such as is the standard demanded in a court of law? No. Not until we have the documents of CIA some twenty years from now showing if it is the case.

However, if anyone had suggested the CIA was trying to kill Castro with exploding cigars (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,1835930,00.html) 40 odd years ago, I'm sure the State Department would have laughed it off as "ridiculous" as well (their response to Chavez' allegations.) What we have is a lot of meetings and reactions to the coup that fit with the Bush administration's goal of getting rid of Chavez. This from an administration that has never shown an unwillingness to us any means necessary to impose its will on other nations. This is a case of quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it most probably is a duck.

To dismiss the likelihood that the US was involved in the planning, backed by lots of pre-coup meetings between the US and the plotters, because the secret files on the coup are still secret, or because one doesn't like Chavez is what doesn't make much sense. The only truly ridiculous response is to accept the Bush Administration's word on this.

edit: and no, IJ, I'm not saying you do accept the Bush Administration's word.

[skunk]

oh really?"Evidence" is not the same as "proof". Ask any lawyer. In any case of this type you are unlikely to find actual proof unless you are dealing with an Oliver North.

[Macky-Mac]

"Evidence" is not the same as "proof". Ask any lawyer. In any case of this type you are unlikely to find actual proof unless you are dealing with an Oliver North.

alas, not only didn't you provide any "proof", you didn't provide the "overwhelming evidence" that you claim exists

[Naimfan]

Try this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,688071,00.html) for starters, IJ.


I just read that article, and all it offers is unsupported assertions. How is that "overwhelming evidence?" Or, for that matter, any evidence at all? Such assertions would never be admitted in an American court as "evidence."

[mactastic]

I just read that article, and all it offers is unsupported assertions. How is that "overwhelming evidence?" Or, for that matter, any evidence at all? Such assertions would never be admitted in an American court as "evidence."Neither would the claims of KSM, yet those claims are widely disseminated as "proof" by our government.

It's all about who you want to believe.

[Naimfan]

Neither would the claims of KSM, yet those claims are widely disseminated as "proof" by our government.

It's all about who you want to believe.

Fair enough, but when people say "overwhelming evidence" exists, and then offer an article that offers zero facts, only assertions, then the logical conclusion is that overwhelming evidence does not exist.

[mactastic]

Fair enough, but when people say "overwhelming evidence" exists, and then offer an article that offers zero facts, only assertions, then the logical conclusion is that overwhelming evidence does not exist.
Of course. But we are all guilty of this association much of the time. How many people here think OJ killed Nicole and Ron? Got any "overwhelming evidence" to back that assertion up? Then it can't possibly be true, and shame on you for saying it.

Right?

[Naimfan]

Of course. But we are all guilty of this association much of the time. How many people here think OJ killed Nicole and Ron? Got any "overwhelming evidence" to back that assertion up? Then it can't possibly be true, and shame on you for saying it.

Right?

Wrong. Association does not equal "overwhelming evidence." Is it possible that the Guardian is correct? Of course it is. The problem is that the Guardian article simply offers the "assertions" of unnamed OAS "officials." My point is simply that vague assertions are not "overwhelming evidence."

As for OJ, he WAS found liable for killing Nicole and Ron. Remember? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Fair enough, but when people say "overwhelming evidence" exists, and then offer an article that offers zero facts, only assertions, then the logical conclusion is that overwhelming evidence does not exist.

I don't know if the evidence exists or not, I only know that I've never seen any that I find even marginally persuasive. In defense of this position, I point to Christopher Dodd and what he said after the coup attempt. This is why I'm limiting my opinion to whether the Chavez government will or will not continue to use the US as its principal boogyman, even after the Bush administration comes to an end. From what I've seen and heard, I think they will continue to find casting the US as a villain to be of domestic value. This is what I set out to discuss, but if nobody else is interested in this subect, I'll quit bringing it up.

[mactastic]

Wrong. Association does not equal "overwhelming evidence." Is it possible that the Guardian is correct? Of course it is. The problem is that the Guardian article simply offers the "assertions" of unnamed OAS "officials." My point is simply that vague assertions are not "overwhelming evidence."

As for OJ, he WAS found liable for killing Nicole and Ron. Remember? ;)
I never claimed association was equal to overwhelming evidence. I said many of us are guilty of associating guilt with underwhelming evidence.

OJ was found liable based upon the preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard for a civil case. That basically says "is it more likely than not that he did it?"

He was found not guilty in the criminal trial, based upon the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

There's a huge difference between those standards. The standard you are claming OJ was found liable on is quite possibly acheivable based upon the assertions presented in the article listed. Yet most here would argue that OJ is guilty of murder basing their assumptions only upon a preponderance of the evidence, but the US had nothing to do with the attempted coup in Venezuala because it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note that I am making no claim about the validity of the coup charges, just that it's highly likely that people's politics color how they see the accusations against the US in the same manner that people's race colors how they see the OJ verdict.

[Naimfan]

OJ was found liable based upon the preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard for a civil case. That basically says "is it more likely than not that he did it?"

He was found not guilty in the criminal trial, based upon the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

There's a huge difference between those standards. The standard you are claming OJ was found liable on is quite possibly acheivable [sic] based upon the assertions presented in the article listed. Yet most here would argue that OJ is guilty of murder basing their assumptions only upon a preponderance of the evidence, but the US had nothing to do with the attempted coup in Venezuala because it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


Depends on which lawyer you ask regarding how different the standards are. ;) And don't forget the "clear and convincing" standard. Also, the OJ civil verdict was based on actual evidence.

That said, even by a preponderance standard, the Guardian article would not come remotely close to showing that the US had anything to do with the coup. The article could not be admitted as evidence, so to base the case solely on that article the case would be dismissed for failure to present any evidence in support. The content of the article is simply inadmissible hearsay. So, no, the Guardian article does not even begin to approach the "preponderance" standard.

Finally, the original claim was that "overwhelming evidence" exists to support the argument that the US was involved in the coup. "Preponderance" and "overwhelming" are rather different, don't you think?

IJ--I agree.

[mactastic]

Depends on which lawyer you ask regarding how different the standards are. ;) And don't forget the "clear and convincing" standard. Also, the OJ civil verdict was based on actual evidence.

That said, even by a preponderance standard, the Guardian article would not come remotely close to showing that the US had anything to do with the coup. The article could not be admitted as evidence, so to base the case solely on that article the case would be dismissed for failure to present any evidence in support. The content of the article is simply inadmissible hearsay. So, no, the Guardian article does not even begin to approach the "preponderance" standard.
No it doesn't matter which lawyer you talk to. The legal standards of proof are well defined. Now, of course lawyers have not presented a case for the coup, so it's not fair to compare it directly to a case that has been litigated, in terms of evidence. Newspapers do not have to put forth evidence in the same manner as a lawyer during trial.

Were this a legal proceeding, I'd say the Guardian article provides enough evidence to prod the court to more forward with more legal proceedings designed to find out if the accusations are true. It's a very suspicious set of coincidences, I think we'd all have to agree. And it fits into the US pattern of working to eliminate any leader thought to be remotely "red".

Of course it's not "overwhelming evidence". I never made that claim.

Finally, the original claim was that "overwhelming evidence" exists to support the argument that the US was involved in the coup. "Preponderance" and "overwhelming" are rather different, don't you think?
Yes, I do think. And I never said they were equivalent. I could make that statement again if you think it will help?

The article is not overwhelming evidence. Preponderance and overwhelming are not equivalent.

But then again, the Idaho Statesman isn't printing "overwhelming evidence" about Larry Craig's proclivity for man love, now is it? So by this standard, their claims about Craig are not true?

[IJ Reilly]

In the end, it all comes down to OJ. It always comes down to OJ.

[mactastic]

See I think Chavez will have a much harder time painting the US as the Imperialist Devil once we do not have a president so willing to take on that mantle.

Will that eliminate the problem completely? Probably not, but it will certainly take the rhetoric down a few notches.

Besides, it's not been all that long since Americans were pointing to the French as an example of All That Is Wrong with Europe.

Freedom fries anyone? Seriously, how stupid was that little bit of nationalistic fervor?

[Naimfan]

No it doesn't matter which lawyer you talk to.

I sense a sense of humor failure! ;) Actually, yes it does. Different lawyers will give you different interpretations of what, precisely, the different standards mean. Ask a criminal defense lawyer what BARD means and they'll tell you it means 100%. Ask a prosecutor and they may say something like 80-85%. Etc.

The legal standards of proof are well defined. Now, of course lawyers have not presented a case for the coup, so it's not fair to compare it directly to a case that has been litigated, in terms of evidence. Newspapers do not have to put forth evidence in the same manner as a lawyer during trial.

Ha. You were the first to make the comparison with a case that has been litigated in both the criminal and civil contexts....

Were this a legal proceeding, I'd say the Guardian article provides enough evidence to prod the court to more forward with more legal proceedings designed to find out if the accusations are true.

No offense, but you would be wrong. The Guardian article is not evidence of any kind. At least not evidence that would be admissible in a US federal court. So if the plaintiff's case were to be based solely on the Guardian article, the case would not survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Of course it's not "overwhelming evidence". I never made that claim.

So why defend the article as being evidence at all when it is not?

The article is not overwhelming evidence.

The article is not evidence at all. Do you understand that?

Preponderance and overwhelming are not equivalent.

Right. "Overwhelming," legally, is equivalent to BARD.

But then again, the Idaho Statesman isn't printing "overwhelming evidence" about Larry Craig's proclivity for man love, now is it? So by this standard, their claims about Craig are not true?

Irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not discussing whether the US supported or was involved in the coup.

So you would agree that there is not "overwhelming evidence," based on the Guardian article, in support of the idea that the US supported the coup?

[solvs]

It's all about who you want to believe.
Don't believe anyone, it's just easier that way.

This is why I'm limiting my opinion to whether the Chavez government will or will not continue to use the US as its principal boogyman, even after the Bush administration comes to an end. From what I've seen and heard, I think they will continue to find casting the US as a villain to be of domestic value. This is what I set out to discuss, but if nobody else is interested in this subect, I'll quit bringing it up.
Well, I guess well have to just wait and see. If we have a President then who deserves it, or even seems like they might, I have a feeling it will continue, and be ratcheted up or down depending on the feedback. If we're all smiles and giggles, he won't have much. Especially if they try and engage him. Which might be a slippery slope. They don't want to align themselves with him, but they also don't want to spit in his face.

Except Rudy, who I actually think might want to spit in his face.

[mactastic]

I sense a sense of humor failure! ;) Actually, yes it does. Different lawyers will give you different interpretations of what, precisely, the different standards mean. Ask a criminal defense lawyer what BARD means and they'll tell you it means 100%. Ask a prosecutor and they may say something like 80-85%. Etc.
Right, and if you ask the right scientists, one will tell you that global warming is real, and another will tell you that it isn't.

BARD is BARD. Whether that means 100% to one person and 80-85% to another has no bearing on what BARD is.

Ha. You were the first to make the comparison with a case that has been litigated in both the criminal and civil contexts....
Not sure where you're going with this. You were the first one to bring up OJs civil conviction...

No offense, but you would be wrong. The Guardian article is not evidence of any kind. At least not evidence that would be admissible in a US federal court. So if the plaintiff's case were to be based solely on the Guardian article, the case would not survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Show me any newspaper article that puts forth "evidence admissible in a US courtroom". You're missing the point (deliberately perhaps?) of comparing the article to a preliminary hearing.

So why defend the article as being evidence at all when it is not? Let me say this slowly and clearly so that you can understand me. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE ARTICLE AS BEING EVIDENCE. You are the one making that straw man up. I know it makes it easier for you to argue when you do so, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim that I am defending the findings of the article. I am saying that it raises troubling questions that need answers. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT THE ARTICLE IS ACTUAL PROOF THE US WAS INVOLVED IN A COUP ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW CHAVEZ.



The article is not evidence at all. Do you understand that?



Right. "Overwhelming," legally, is equivalent to BARD.



Irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not discussing whether the US supported or was involved in the coup.

So you would agree that there is not "overwhelming evidence," based on the Guardian article, in support of the idea that the US supported the coup?[/QUOTE]

[mactastic]

I sense a sense of humor failure! ;) Actually, yes it does. Different lawyers will give you different interpretations of what, precisely, the different standards mean. Ask a criminal defense lawyer what BARD means and they'll tell you it means 100%. Ask a prosecutor and they may say something like 80-85%. Etc.
Right, and if you ask the right scientists, one will tell you that global warming is real, and another will tell you that it isn't.

No offense, but you would be wrong. BARD is BARD. Whether that means 100% to one person and 80-85% to another has no bearing on what BARD is.

Ha. You were the first to make the comparison with a case that has been litigated in both the criminal and civil contexts....
Not sure where you're going with this. You were the first one to bring up OJs civil conviction...

No offense, but you would be wrong. The Guardian article is not evidence of any kind. At least not evidence that would be admissible in a US federal court. So if the plaintiff's case were to be based solely on the Guardian article, the case would not survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Show me any newspaper article that puts forth "evidence admissible in a US courtroom". You're missing the point (deliberately perhaps?) of comparing the article to a preliminary hearing.

So why defend the article as being evidence at all when it is not? Let me say this slowly and clearly so that you can understand me. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE ARTICLE AS BEING EVIDENCE. You are the one making that straw man up. I know it makes it easier for you to argue when you do so, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim that I am defending the findings of the article. I am saying that it raises troubling questions that need answers. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT THE ARTICLE IS ACTUAL PROOF THE US WAS INVOLVED IN A COUP ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW CHAVEZ. I'm claiming it is something that COULD QUITE POSSIBLY be true and should be looked into further.

Are you saying that the article is proof the US had no involvement?

The article is not evidence at all. Do you understand that?
Shall I use the little words this time? I never claimed the article was evidence admissible in a court of law. It's a little silly to hold newspapers to that standard in this case, when in many, if not most, other cases newspapers are not held to that standard.

Where were the factcheckers like you when newspapers were printing the Swiftboat Veterans claims about John Kerry? Were those admissible in court? I know, I know, not relevant. But your honor, it speaks to similar instances of news reporting being selectively ignored by those who now demand "BARD" proof from a newspaper when they never have before...

Right. "Overwhelming," legally, is equivalent to BARD.
Please show me where I have said that this article is overwhelming, or is proof BARD. If you fail to find such proof (and it must be legally admissible, or no dice) then I would appreciate a cessation of the lectures about things I did not claim.

Irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not discussing whether the US supported or was involved in the coup.
Do you believe that every newspaper article must contain proof BARD before publishing? Or do you only reserve that skepticism for articles that you disagree with?

So you would agree that there is not "overwhelming evidence," based on the Guardian article, in support of the idea that the US supported the coup?
Again, small words since you seem to be having extreme difficulty with this: I never claimed there was overwhelming evidence that the US supported a coup against Chavez in that article. YOU are the one who keeps claiming I said it. It's a straw man that you seem intent on bashing for some reason. The article raises troubling questions that need to be explored further.

Would you agree that there are enough coincidences involved that it would warrant further investigation?

[Naimfan]

Right, and if you ask the right scientists, one will tell you that global warming is real, and another will tell you that it isn't.

And your point is.......oh, right, there isn't one! Never mind!

No offense, but you would be wrong. BARD is BARD. Whether that means 100% to one person and 80-85% to another has no bearing on what BARD is.

Never mind. It has a great deal of bearing on what BARD is, but I'll let you read up on it....

Not sure where you're going with this. You were the first one to bring up OJs civil conviction...

Actually, you were the first to reference OJ. I simply pointed out that he WAS found legally liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron because you were not intellectually honest enough to say he was acquitted in his criminal trial and then found liable at his civil trial.

Show me any newspaper article that puts forth "evidence admissible in a US courtroom". You're missing the point (deliberately perhaps?) of comparing the article to a preliminary hearing.

Who said anything about a PH? And as an aside, there are actually plenty of newspaper articles that are admissible as evidence. But I'll let you research the evidence rules on your own. Start with the 400s and move to the 800s...

Let me say this slowly and clearly so that you can understand me. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE ARTICLE AS BEING EVIDENCE. You are the one making that straw man up.

Wrong again. You are the one who chose to respond to my post that pointed out that the Guardian article referenced does not comprise or contain any evidence or proof that the US was involved in or supported the coup.

Not to mention, you did defend the article as being evidence:


Were this a legal proceeding, I'd say the Guardian article provides enough evidence to prod the court to more forward with more legal proceedings designed to find out if the accusations are true.

Surely you don't deny writing that?

I know it makes it easier for you to argue when you do so, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim that I am defending the findings of the article. I am saying that it raises troubling questions that need answers. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT THE ARTICLE IS ACTUAL PROOF THE US WAS INVOLVED IN A COUP ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW CHAVEZ. I'm claiming it is something that COULD QUITE POSSIBLY be true and should be looked into further.

I have never claimed that you are defending the findings of the article. I have also never denied that it's entirely possible the US was involved. That is not the point.

Are you saying that the article is proof the US had no involvement?

No. I have not offered an opinion on the subject at all.

Shall I use the little words this time? I never claimed the article was evidence admissible in a court of law. It's a little silly to hold newspapers to that standard in this case, when in many, if not most, other cases newspapers are not held to that standard.

You certainly did say "I'd say the Guardian article provides enough evidence to prod the court to more forward with more legal proceedings. . . "

Where were the factcheckers like you when newspapers were printing the Swiftboat Veterans claims about John Kerry? Were those admissible in court? I know, I know, not relevant. But your honor, it speaks to similar instances of news reporting being selectively ignored by those who now demand "BARD" proof from a newspaper when they never have before...

I've never demanded proof beyond a reasonable doubt from a newspaper. You are the one who said the article contained sufficient "evidence" for a court to move forward. You are incorrect in that statement, because the article itself is not evidence. Besides, now you're just trying to divert attention away from you actually said.

Please show me where I have said that this article is overwhelming, or is proof BARD. If you fail to find such proof (and it must be legally admissible, or no dice) then I would appreciate a cessation of the lectures about things I did not claim.

I never said that you said that. You claimed the article is evidence. It is not.

Do you believe that every newspaper article must contain proof BARD before publishing? Or do you only reserve that skepticism for articles that you disagree with?

Since I've not expressed an opinion on whether I think the article is accurate or not, what makes you think I disagree with it?

Again, small words since you seem to be having extreme difficulty with this: I never claimed there was overwhelming evidence that the US supported a coup against Chavez in that article. YOU are the one who keeps claiming I said it. It's a straw man that you seem intent on bashing for some reason. The article raises troubling questions that need to be explored further.

I never said you said there was overwhelming evidence. Point me to where I did? Right. I did not. I have only pointed out that you chose to respond to my post that the Guardian article not only does not provide overwhelming evidence, it does not provide evidence at all.

[Sayhey]

I just read that article, and all it offers is unsupported assertions. How is that "overwhelming evidence?" Or, for that matter, any evidence at all? Such assertions would never be admitted in an American court as "evidence."

(1) the phrase "overwhelming evidence" is not one I used. Most certainly not with the introductory article I posted a link to that appears in the Guardian.

(2) if you read my posts you would know I don't suggest that we have proof anything akin to what would be needed in a courtroom. That will take some years until the documents regarding the coup in the CIA, State Department, and the White House are declassified for all of us to see.

Rather, I say the evidence in the article gives us every reason to believe the US was involved. One has to know something about who Reich, Negroponte, and Abrams are and their history in destabilizing governments the US doesn't approve of (Nicaragua, Chile, and Cuba,) and arming and running death squads to help authoritarian governments stamp out insurrections (El Salvador, Honduras, & Guatemala.) One has to have as a context the history of the US in overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, any government in Latin America it disagrees with (Chile, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. etc.) And one needs the context of the Bush administration's use of any means necessary to get rid of governments it doesn't like (Iraq.)

Given that background, if you look at the meetings Reich and others admit to before the coup takes place (this isn't just the Guardian reporting on these meetings, while the content of them is in dispute the fact they took place is not (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D81F3CF934A25757C0A9649C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss),) and the response (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html) of the administration to the coup attempt, including the parroting of the coup leaders of Chavez's "resignation" and the evidence points very strongly toward a plot organized in Washington. Yes, it takes some knowledge of these things, but the evidence is there - if not what a lawyer would want in a courtroom.

I would also point out that the OAS meeting and the discussion in it isn't just something the Guardian was reporting on. Salon.com (http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/bushed/2002/04/17/venezuela/) had a similar piece around the same time. Someone in the meeting was pushing a line that the Bush Administration was behind the coup and it wasn't the Venezuelans.

[Macky-Mac]

....

... and the response of the administration to the coup attempt, including the parroting of the coup leaders of Chavez's "resignation" and the evidence points very strongly toward a plot organized in Washington..


well, even the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,683142,00.html) "parroted" the claim that Chavez had resigned......hmmm, does that point to the Guardian having been part of the plot as well?? :D The reason this was so widely reported was that General Lucas Rincón Romero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Rincón_Romero) (a Chavez supporter who later was the Minister of Interior and Justice under Chavez) went on television and ANNOUNCED that Chavez had resigned......bad information on his part perhaps, but that people believed him for a while doesn't really point to the coup being organized in Washington.

[Sayhey]

well, even the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,683142,00.html) "parroted" the claim that Chavez had resigned......hmmm, does that point to the Guardian having been part of the plot as well?? :D The reason this was so widely reported was that General Lucas Rincón Romero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Rincón_Romero) (a Chavez supporter who later was the Minister of Interior and Justice under Chavez) went on television and ANNOUNCED that Chavez had resigned......bad information on his part perhaps, but that people believed him for a while doesn't really point to the coup being organized in Washington.

This is hardly the most important part of this, but, yes, the fact the US administration, who admits to being in contact with the coup leaders while this was going on, decided to put out information in support of the coup and repeating information that the coup leaders were giving out, does indeed support the case that the US was involved. Here is what Ari Fleischer (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html) said on that day:

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me share with you the administration's thoughts about what's taking place in Venezuela. It remains a somewhat fluid situation. But yesterday's events in Venezuela resulted in a change in the government and the assumption of a transitional authority until new elections can be held.

The details still are unclear. We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis. According to the best information available, the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations. Government supporters, on orders from the Chavez government, fired on unarmed, peaceful protestors, resulting in 10 killed and 100 wounded. The Venezuelan military and the police refused to fire on the peaceful demonstrators and refused to support the government's role in such human rights violations. The government also tried to prevent independent news media from reporting on these events.

The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. This government has promised early elections.

The United States will continue to monitor events. That is what took place, and the Venezuelan people expressed their right to peaceful protest. It was a very large protest that turned out. And the protest was met with violence.

Do you see any commitment to the democratic process and respecting the will of the Venezuelan electorate in the Administration's statement? I sure don't and neither did the delegates to the OAS meeting that denounced Washington's lack of support for democracy.

The Guardian story also followed confused reports of those days, but it is hardly the same for a newspaper to get it wrong, and the US government to go on record saying the same thing and stating their support for the leaders of a coup d'etat.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I guess well have to just wait and see. If we have a President then who deserves it, or even seems like they might, I have a feeling it will continue, and be ratcheted up or down depending on the feedback. If we're all smiles and giggles, he won't have much. Especially if they try and engage him. Which might be a slippery slope. They don't want to align themselves with him, but they also don't want to spit in his face.

I think a couple things need to happen, one of which already has. Chavez has to have been chastened at least a bit by his defeat at the polls this week. Another is we need a US president with a more measured foreign policy, or at least one who doesn't blunder around like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Our international reputation has been battered so low under Bush it's almost unfathomable. He's made it fashionable to be anti-American. That hangover is bound to last years post-Bush, so I think Chavez will probably be able to get quite a bit more domestic political mileage out of it.

[mactastic]

And your point is.......oh, right, there isn't one! Never mind!
And your point is? Oh right, you're choosing to ignore mine! Never mind!

Never mind. It has a great deal of bearing on what BARD is, but I'll let you read up on it....
Is BARD not a legal standard of evidence, despite disagreements on what percentage it is? Besides, in either case you cited, it's far beyond the 50% threshold POTE takes to cross, is it not? In other words, you're simply arguing with me for argument's sake. Not surprising when you've got no other argument. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff. Or the poster, as the case may be, eh?

Actually, you were the first to reference OJ. I simply pointed out that he WAS found legally liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron because you were not intellectually honest enough to say he was acquitted in his criminal trial and then found liable at his civil trial.
I left it out because it had no bearing on the point I made. Your claim of intellectual dishonesty is laughable, and would be thrown out of any court for lacking proper evidence.

Who said anything about a PH? And as an aside, there are actually plenty of newspaper articles that are admissible as evidence. But I'll let you research the evidence rules on your own. Start with the 400s and move to the 800s...
Oooo a condescending lawyer... Who would have thunk it? And I said something about a PH. I'm sure you just ignored it in your rush to indict me.

Wrong again. You are the one who chose to respond to my post that pointed out that the Guardian article referenced does not comprise or contain any evidence or proof that the US was involved in or supported the coup.
You got me there. I did respond to your post.

Not to mention, you did defend the article as being evidence:



Surely you don't deny writing that?
You're right. I rescind the word evidence.

I have never claimed that you are defending the findings of the article. I have also never denied that it's entirely possible the US was involved. That is not the point.
So you deny saying:
So why defend the article as being evidence at all when it is not?

No. I have not offered an opinion on the subject at all.
Well? Are you going to, or are you just here to harp on legal technicalities?

You certainly did say "I'd say the Guardian article provides enough evidence to prod the court to more forward with more legal proceedings. . . "
See above.

I've never demanded proof beyond a reasonable doubt from a newspaper. You are the one who said the article contained sufficient "evidence" for a court to move forward. You are incorrect in that statement, because the article itself is not evidence. Besides, now you're just trying to divert attention away from you actually said.
Do you deny saying:
I just read that article, and all it offers is unsupported assertions. How is that "overwhelming evidence?" Or, for that matter, any evidence at all? Such assertions would never be admitted in an American court as "evidence."
Right there you are demanding BARD proof from a newspaper article. Of course, you claim you never did that, but that's ok.

I never said that you said that. You claimed the article is evidence. It is not.
Yes, you did say that. It's right here:
Right. "Overwhelming," legally, is equivalent to BARD.
Do you deny saying that?

Since I've not expressed an opinion on whether I think the article is accurate or not, what makes you think I disagree with it?
Oh, I don't know, perhaps your constant disagreement with anyone who thinks that article may be on to something.

I never said you said there was overwhelming evidence. Point me to where I did? Right. I did not. I have only pointed out that you chose to respond to my post that the Guardian article not only does not provide overwhelming evidence, it does not provide evidence at all.
Right. "Overwhelming," legally, is equivalent to BARD.
There it is. In black and white.

[Sayhey]

Naimfan, are we playing lawyer here or are we discussing politics? What in the heck does a case that's constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt have to do with anything? Let me guess. You're somewhere in your early years of law school and think that means you are an expert on foreign policy, history, the Bush administraton, and Hugo Chavez? Think again.

[Naimfan]

You got me there. I did respond to your post.


You're right. I rescind the word evidence.


The point I was making was simply that the Guardian article linked to does not comprise "evidence" that would be admissible in a US court. You then chose to dispute that. I am glad we have now reached resolution on that point.

As to the other--was the US involved in the coup--what I have read about it and considering the actions of the chief executive, I would be surprised to find out the US was not involved.

Naimfan, are we playing lawyer here or are we discussing politics? What in the heck does a case that's constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt have to do with anything? Let me guess. You're somewhere in your early years of law school and think that means you are an expert on foreign policy, history, the Bush administraton, and Hugo Chavez? Think again.

Neither. I simply pointed out that the Guardian article linked to is not evidence in a legal sense. Also, you would be incorrect in your "guess." I am a licensed attorney, and have a PhD in American government. My particular area is constitutional law, and more specifically separation of powers. It is for that reason that I have not previously offered an opinion on whether we were involved in the coup or not. As I said above, I would be surprised if we were not involved.

You're an expert on "foreign policy, history, the Bush administraton [sic], and Hugo Chavez" how?

[mactastic]

The point I was making was simply that the Guardian article linked to does not comprise "evidence" that would be admissible in a US court. You then chose to dispute that. I am glad we have now reached resolution on that point.

As to the other--was the US involved in the coup--what I have read about it and considering the actions of the chief executive, I would be surprised to find out the US was not involved.
Why does it matter whether the story in the newspaper is admissible in court? What was the point of dragging that out so vehemently?

[Naimfan]

Why does it matter whether the story in the newspaper is admissible in court? What was the point of dragging that out so vehemently?

A fair question back to you. Why did you try to debate it? Especially when it's all too easy to look up?

[mactastic]

A fair question back to you. Why did you try to debate it? Especially when it's all too easy to look up?
I don't answer questions posed in response to questions.

[Naimfan]

I don't answer questions posed in response to questions.

And JUST when we were making such good progress! ;)

[mactastic]

And JUST when we were making such good progress! ;)
Sadly it appears you are not interested in honest debate, but rather semantic arguments and ridicule.

[Naimfan]

Sadly it appears you are not interested in honest debate, but rather semantic arguments and ridicule.

Well, you cannot have a debate when your fundamental point is incorrect. You made a statement. The statement was wrong. That's all. For whatever reasons, that seems to be offensive to you.

As for the balance of your comment, you were the one engaging in ad hominem attacks--"condescending lawyer," and so on. You were the one to start the "I'll use little words" bit, etc.

[mactastic]

Well, you cannot have a debate when your fundamental point is incorrect. You made a statement. The statement was wrong. That's all. For whatever reasons, that seems to be offensive to you.

As for the balance of your comment, you were the one engaging in ad hominem attacks--"condescending lawyer," and so on. You were the one to start the "I'll use little words" bit, etc.
I see you do not wish to answer the question I posed. That's ok. Go ahead and keep up your lawyering if you think that helps your cause.

[Naimfan]

I see you do not wish to answer the question I posed. That's ok. Go ahead and keep up your lawyering if you think that helps your cause.

Ditto regarding the question. Why is it so hard to simply admit you made a mistake?

[mactastic]

Ditto regarding the question. Why is it so hard to simply admit you made a mistake?
I already admitted I made a mistake in my terminology. Why are you still badgering me about it? Is it because, outside of that, you have no other point to make?

[Sayhey]

Neither. I simply pointed out that the Guardian article linked to is not evidence in a legal sense. Also, you would be incorrect in your "guess." I am a licensed attorney, and have a PhD in American government. My particular area is constitutional law, and more specifically separation of powers. It is for that reason that I have not previously offered an opinion on whether we were involved in the coup or not. As I said above, I would be surprised if we were not involved.

You're an expert on "foreign policy, history, the Bush administraton [sic], and Hugo Chavez" how?

And who was arguing it was - in the legal sense? No one.

If you are really a lawyer, then I'd hope you'd recognize that does not mean that every debate here turns on what is an isn't acceptable in a court of law. Lectures on legal points don't tend to get anyone very far, in my experience, unless we are dealing with a court case.

As to my own claims to being an expert, I have none. I'm just a working stiff who has spent the better part of my life involved in politics around issues like the Vietnam War, civil rights struggles, anti-apartheid campaigns, ending the Contra War against Nicaragua, ending the US support for the death squads in El Salvador, as well as a huge amount of time in US trade union work. I'm a unabashed lefty, but I've never claimed to be an expert in any of the fields in questions. I just know enough to spot someone who majors in BS.

btw, I appreciate the use of the [sic]. The spelling police are always well received.

[IJ Reilly]

Wow, that's sure a lot of insults and accusations for one post.

[solvs]

but rather semantic arguments and ridicule.
You're just now realizing that? I like proof as much as anybody, but yeah, arguing about semantics and whether these things hold up in court just obfuscates (wow, that must be my new favorite word) the issue. I actually kinda forgot what we were talking about for a sec, which is sad considering I'll be the hundredth post in this thread.

Wasn't it about Chavez and how's he a dictator even though he isn't because we might have done something we don't have any proof we did or didn't, other than the proof we do have that isn't proofy enough?

[Sayhey]

I actually kinda forgot what we were talking about for a sec, which is sad considering I'll be the hundredth post in this thread.

Which is the purpose of obfuscating arguments. Frustrating isn't it? Instead of a civil and intelligent discussion on Chavez, Venezuelan politics and the state of its democracy, and the role the US has or hasn't played in all of this, we have pages of argumentation about what constitutes beyond a reasonable doubt in a US courtroom.

If someone wants to talk about the thread topic, or at least something related to it, I'd love to do so. I'll check in later to see if that's the case.

[IJ Reilly]

Wasn't it about Chavez and how's he a dictator even though he isn't because we might have done something we don't have any proof we did or didn't, other than the proof we do have that isn't proofy enough?

I like it.

Which is the purpose of obfuscating arguments. Frustrating isn't it? Instead of a civil and intelligent discussion on Chavez, Venezuelan politics and the state of its democracy, and the role the US has or hasn't played in all of this, we have pages of argumentation about what constitutes beyond a reasonable doubt in a US courtroom.

If someone wants to talk about the thread topic, or at least something related to it, I'd love to do so. I'll check in later to see if that's the case.

Frustrating is right, but the target is misplaced. I raised an on-topic point right at the very start of this thread, which apparently nobody wanted to discuss, and I was the only one to even mention the results of the election, which again I thought was germane. You also might want to consider who is dropping the insults. That is certainly no way to promote a civil discussion.

[skunk]

Wow, that's sure a lot of insults and accusations for one post.Which post are you referring to? :confused:

[Sayhey]

Frustrating is right, but the target is misplaced. I raised an on-topic point right at the very start of this thread, which apparently nobody wanted to discuss, and I was the only one to even mention the results of the election, which again I thought was germane. You also might want to consider who is dropping the insults. That is certainly no way to promote a civil discussion.

Which post are you referring to? :confused:

He's referring to mine. I call them as I see them, IJ. I seem to remember more than a few times you have done the same when posters have tried to threadjack discussions with nonsense that had nothing to do with the topic.

Now, I'm more than willing to get back to the discussion the thread was intended for. I do notice almost no one has commented on the elections in Russia. There it seems like most of the outside world views the results as totally bogus and a real threat to what ever remains of democracy.

[mactastic]

Now, I'm more than willing to get back to the discussion the thread was intended for. I do notice almost no one has commented on the elections in Russia. There it seems like most of the outside world views the results as totally bogus and a real threat to what ever remains of democracy.
But I haven't seen anything yet that's legally admissible in court, so what's there to discuss?

[skunk]

The overwhelmingness of the evidence is plain to see.

[Sayhey]

But I haven't seen anything yet that's legally admissible in court, so what's there to discuss?

LOL, mac, let me just say your patience is remarkable.

[Macky-Mac]

well, there's certainly truthiness in all the overwhelmingness of the evidenciness

[Thomas Veil]

Chavez has to have been chastened at least a bit by his defeat at the polls this week. Another is we need a US president with a more measured foreign policy, or at least one who doesn't blunder around like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Our international reputation has been battered so low under Bush it's almost unfathomable. He's made it fashionable to be anti-American. That hangover is bound to last years post-Bush, so I think Chavez will probably be able to get quite a bit more domestic political mileage out of it.Totally agreed. On the point about Chavez, I was pleased to see he accepted defeat with some grace, although I doubt this is the last we'll see of his desire to expand his power.

On the subject of Bush, recall that while Bill Clinton was not beloved by everybody in the international community, he had a good relationship with a hell of a lot more world leaders than Bush ever will. All the yahoos who vote for the guy who's anti-abortion or the guy who looks like he'd be fun to have a beer with need to remember that getting the respect and cooperation of the international community is a hell of a lot more important.

[IJ Reilly]

He's referring to mine. I call them as I see them, IJ. I seem to remember more than a few times you have done the same when posters have tried to threadjack discussions with nonsense that had nothing to do with the topic.

Saying so makes it true, and also inoculates you. Maybe you also seem to remember my implying that someone lied about their own background. That would also make it true, and gives you a pass to say whatever you like, by the same rule of argument.

Totally agreed. On the point about Chavez, I was pleased to see he accepted defeat with some grace, although I doubt this is the last we'll see of his desire to expand his power.

He also pledged to bring back some of these proposals piecemeal at a later time. The interesting dynamic here is that millions of Chavez supporters apparently decided to stay home rather than cast a vote against him, or "for Bush," as Chavez characterized a no vote on his proposals. This suggests to me that he might be in bigger political trouble than the vote tally implies. I think he's clearly also going to miss George Bush.

[Sayhey]

Saying so makes it true, and also inoculates you. Maybe you also seem to remember my implying that someone lied about their own background. That would also make it true, and gives you a pass to say whatever you like, by the same rule of argument.

I hesitate to ask, but what are you talking about? :confused:

[solvs]

I like it.
Thanks, that's what a lack of sleep gets ya. :)

I do notice almost no one has commented on the elections in Russia.
We aren't trying to bomb Russia so we don't care apparently, even though there might be cause to worry.

The overwhelmingness of the evidence is plain to see.
The absence of overwhelming evidence is not the evidence of overwhelming absence.

[skunk]

The absence of overwhelming evidence is not the evidence of overwhelming absence.Can't argue with that. :)

[mactastic]

I notice that our intrepid Legal Eagle has thus far refrained from explaining exactly WHY he felt it so necessary make such a big deal about the distinction between evidence admissible in court, and evidence that influences our thinking outside a courtroom. Was there a point beyond proving that he is a lawyer?

[IJ Reilly]

I hesitate to ask, but what are you talking about? :confused:

If you are really a lawyer,

The guy said he's a lawyer. Why would you imply that he might be lying?

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks, that's what a lack of sleep gets ya. :)

I've tried a lack of sleep. It only makes me tired -- so more power to you.

[Sayhey]

The guy said he's a lawyer. Why would you imply that he might be lying?

I didn't say he was lying, but having debated him around the 2000 Florida elections, I am somewhat less than impressed by his legal skills and more impressed by his willingness to put down anyone who disagrees with him as stupid and totally ignorant of the law. Not something I like in these discussions.

Perhaps you didn't mind the pages of attempting to browbeat mac about a legal point that had nothing to do with anything on topic. Having been through the same process, with even less light shed on the topic, I'm not thrilled with it myself.

Now, that I've answered your question, IJ, can we get back to the topic at hand?

[solvs]

Can't argue with that. :)
Why not, I came here for an argument?

Was there a point beyond proving that he is a lawyer?
You just answered your own question.

The guy said he's a lawyer. Why would you imply that he might be lying?
Because if he isn't, he's a liar, but if he is, well...

I've tried a lack of sleep. It only makes me tired -- so more power to you.
Clarity is for wussies.

Now, that I've answered your question, IJ, can we get back to the topic at hand?
I doubt it.

[Sayhey]

Why not, I came here for an argument?
No, you didn't! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM)

I doubt it.I'm afraid you're right. Can we agree that Russia is well down the road of authoritarian rule, and Venezuela is no where near as far as many believed? Or is that too much to hope for?

[obeygiant]

I didn't say he was lying, but having debated him around the 2000 Florida elections, I am somewhat less than impressed by his legal skills and more impressed by his willingness to put down anyone who disagrees with him as stupid and totally ignorant of the law. Not something I like in these discussions.

Certainly you don't think thats the first time thats happened here. Especially with someone involved in a "conversation" with certain parties.



Perhaps you didn't mind the pages of attempting to browbeat mac about a legal point that had nothing to do with anything on topic. Having been through the same process, with even less light shed on the topic, I'm not thrilled with it myself.

I've read this thread a couple times and it looks more like someone not willing to own up to what they said. It got in the way of the precious Chavez discussion? What a shame. :)

[Sayhey]

Certainly you don't think thats the first time thats happened here. Especially with someone involved in a "conversation" with certain parties.

I've read this thread a couple times and it looks more like someone not willing to own up to what they said. It got in the way of the precious Chavez discussion? What a shame. :)

This is my last post in this thread responding to thread conduct instead of the topic at hand. No, I don't think this is uncommon here. It is a favorite tactic of some to divert discussions from the thread topics as a way of not dealing with uncomfortable ideas. Not something new here or outside in real life. Just a lousy thing to do.

It is a shame. Chavez was the point, not rules of evidence. Even an unbiased observer as you can see that.

[solvs]

No, you didn't! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM)
Yes I did! :p

But that isn't an argument, it's just a contradiction. ;)

I'm afraid you're right. Can we agree that Russia is well down the road of authoritarian rule, and Venezuela is no where near as far as many believed? Or is that too much to hope for?
Probably, which is why we rambled off on semantics rather than discuss something that's patently obvious that you've just put into a nutshell.

[solvs]

Sen. Whitehouse Reveals Secret DoJ Legal Memos: Bush Determines What Is Constitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/07/whitehouse-speech-olc/)

Whitehouse is a lawyer, a former U.S. Attorney, a former legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and a former State Attorney General. He said he sought and received permission to have his notes declassified because he wanted to show the public “what the Bush administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking.”

“To give you an example of what I read,” Whitehouse said on the Senate floor, “I have gotten three legal propositions from these secret OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note-taking could reproduce them from the classified documents”:

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

[skunk]

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.Indeed. Is being versed in the intricacies of constitutional law a requirement of Presidential candidates as well as a well-honed strategic vision sharpened in the experience of war? Why bother with an AG, OLC or Pentagon, if the President is such a Renaissance Man?

[solvs]

if the President is such a Renaissance Man?
Not the term I'd use, but I get your point. Scary isn't it? Worse than even I thought. I suspect we'll still having some here arguing that it's ok if he does it for some reason, but if any of our enemies do the same types of things, it's not ok again. I don't get it. I'd think it's wrong no matter who does it. And that it's actually worse since we're supposed to be all "freedomy".

[IJ Reilly]

duplicate post

[IJ Reilly]

This is my last post in this thread responding to thread conduct instead of the topic at hand. No, I don't think this is uncommon here. It is a favorite tactic of some to divert discussions from the thread topics as a way of not dealing with uncomfortable ideas. Not something new here or outside in real life. Just a lousy thing to do.

It is a shame. Chavez was the point, not rules of evidence. Even an unbiased observer as you can see that.

How ironic. I thought that particular side-debate was pointless, and said so. You chose to participate, and polished it off with an ad hominem. For my part, I raised two, very much on-topic points -- which you elected not to discuss at all. This is why I can't take your complaints about obfuscation and off-topic diversions seriously.

[mactastic]

How ironic. I thought that particular side-debate was pointless, and said so. You chose to participate, and polished it off with an ad hominem. For my part, I raised two, very much on-topic points -- which you elected not to discuss at all. This is why I can't take your complaints about obfuscation and off-topic diversions seriously.
And the irony about complaints of off-topic discussion continues...

[Macky-Mac]

And the irony about complaints of off-topic discussion continues...

and continues

[mactastic]

and continuesAh, but I was not the one complaining about off-topic conversation. That's the difference. :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

2002 Venezuelan coup

Reich held the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the time of the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt against Hugo Chávez, and is thought to have been closely involved. After the aborted putsch, it emerged that Reich had met regularly with the coup plotters at the White House, including Pedro Carmona, who was briefly installed for two days before Chávez was restored. It subsequently emerged that Bush administration official Elliott Abrams, who is said to have supervised the planning of the operation, and Reich were not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it and discussed it in some detail. On the day Carmona was installed, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office and expressed the support of the US administration for the new government.[4]

Administration officials and anonymous sources acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to April 11, but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means. [5] Because of allegations, Sen. Christopher Dodd requested a review of US activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. The OIG report found no wrongdoing by US officials either in the State Department or in the US Embassy. [2]

According to a report in The New York Times, Reich warned Congressional aides that there was more at stake in Venezuela than the success or failure of Chávez. He accused Chávez of meddling with the historically independent state oil company, providing haven to Colombian guerrillas and bailing out Cuba with preferential rates on oil. He also said the administration had received reports that "foreign paramilitary forces"-- which they suspected to be Cubans -— were involved in the bloody suppression of anti-Chávez demonstrators, in which at least fourteen people were killed.[6]

The United States, which had acknowledged the de facto government, did not condemn the coup until Chávez had been restored to power. [3]Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Reich)

I'm not a great fan of Wikipedia as a reliable source, but it does give a starting point for those not familiar with some of the supposed players in the abortive coup in Venezuela. I'd invite any discussion on this topic. It has everything to do with whether Chavez's actions and speeches against the US government have any validity, or he is just using a bogus US threat to consolidate power. While I don't want to endorse everything Chavez does, I do think he is right in his complaints about US intentions and actions to subvert his elected government.

Reich is only one of the players involved in meetings with coup leaders. We can get to Elliot Abrams, of Iran-Contra fame, or John Negroponte as well if people would prefer. Abrams especially looks to have played a role.

IJ, I'm very, very well aware of the rules of this forum, having participated here for years. I know the difference between ad hominem attacks (i.e. saying someone is a "liar") and saying I don't have confidence they're telling the truth ("[I]f you are a lawyer...".) One is out of line; the other is well deserved from my standpoint. I'll continue with posting my thoughts as I see them, even if you find them ironic, not serious, or even just something with which you feel you must automatically disagree. My apologies to everyone else for continuing in a pointless discussion.

[Macky-Mac]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Reich)

... It has everything to do with whether Chavez's actions and speeches against the US government have any validity, or he is just using a bogus US threat to consolidate power....

But it isn't really an either/or situation now is it?

the USA/Chavez friction started back in the early 1990s when Chavez attempted a coup against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. It started up again later in the Clinton years when Chavez was elected president.....and it's continued on ever since. (Seriously, hasn't Chavez gotten the better of it?)

Obviously Chavez has used it to his advantage with great cunning. And equally obviously, the Bush gang would have been delighted to see the Venezuelans get rid of Chavez.

Sadly, it's the Venezuelans that are missing from the the leftist view of the situation. 40% of those that voted in the last presidential election opposed Chavez, hardly an insignificant number; and Chavez advocates a radical reordering of their existence, something they're clearly not going to be too happy about. Imagine if the US had a president that had previously tried a coup to overthrow the government and then proposed a radical re-ordering of just about everything....extremely unsettling to say the least.....yet the leftists here only wants to see CIA plots.

So far I haven't seen any evidence that the Bush gang had to do anything other than stand around and smile as the Venezuelans went about doing what is all too familiar in Venezuelan history.

I guess you have some you want to put forward?

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I'm very, very well aware of the rules of this forum, having participated here for years. I know the difference between ad hominem attacks (i.e. saying someone is a "liar") and saying I don't have confidence they're telling the truth ("[I]f you are a lawyer...".) One is out of line; the other is well deserved from my standpoint. I'll continue with posting my thoughts as I see them, even if you find them ironic, not serious, or even just something with which you feel you must automatically disagree. My apologies to everyone else for continuing in a pointless discussion.

Notice, I made no reference to the rules of the forum, and I don't "automatically disagree" with anything. This is a rather insulting and condescending way of responding, especially from someone who clearly considers himself to be a thoughtful debater and demands the same from others. This has never been about anyone not posting their thoughts as they see them, as well you should know. Perhaps if you responded to the substantial points raised, instead of accusing others of avoiding "uncomfortable ideas," then you would not be on the receiving end of sharp responses from me.

[Macky-Mac]

oyi.....maybe it's time to let this thread fade away and let things cool off. I'm sure that Chavez&Bush will give us another opportunity to discuss all of this again, maybe even soon

[solvs]

40% of those that voted in the last presidential election opposed Chavez, hardly an insignificant number; and Chavez advocates a radical reordering of their existence, something they're clearly not going to be too happy about.
Didn't Bush only win by a small percentage? Something like 47% voted for Kerry, and he barely won in '00 (if that, if you ask some people). Plus, he's pretty much completely overhauled the gov, in a way that currently around 70% don't like. Venezuelans didn't like this recent thing Chavez was trying to do, so they voted against it, as well they probably should have, and he accepted it. Bush continues to do things like veto expanding SCHIP, push the Iraq war, is pushing for an Iran war, all of which are currently more unpopular among our population than what Chavez is doing among his otherwise. You state that 40% voted against him so must disapprove of him, but that means somewhere around 60% either approve of him or don't care. Bush wishes he had those numbers.

I don't think that's a "leftist" POV, it's just the way things are.

[IJ Reilly]

Didn't Bush only win by a small percentage? Something like 47% voted for Kerry, and he barely won in '00 (if that, if you ask some people). Plus, he's pretty much completely overhauled the gov, in a way that currently around 70% don't like. Venezuelans didn't like this recent thing Chavez was trying to do, so they voted against it, as well they probably should have, and he accepted it. Bush continues to do things like veto expanding SCHIP, push the Iraq war, is pushing for an Iran war, all of which are currently more unpopular among our population than what Chavez is doing among his otherwise. You state that 40% voted against him so must disapprove of him, but that means somewhere around 60% either approve of him or don't care. Bush wishes he had those numbers.

I don't think that's a "leftist" POV, it's just the way things are.

True, but I think the news here is that something on the order of three million Venezuelans chose to stay home rather than make the "Chavez or Bush" choice, as the vote was cast by Chavez himself. This is akin to Bush claiming after the 2004 election that he had virtually unlimited "political capital," which even if it arguably ever existed, evaporated in a hurry.

[blackfox]

Well, it's been a long time since I set foot in here...nice to see some things haven't changed.

This is a long thread, so I admit I haven't read through all the posts - so I apologize in advance for any repetition.

As to the original topic raised, I am surprised no-one has brought up the relation of oil demand/prices/revenue as a lynchpin in the success of what both Chavez and Putin have been doing.

I read a rather interesting, if biased op-ed about Putin in the local paper here yesterday (Oregonian), explaining that Putins' ability to restore basic order and prosperity to the country after the chaos of the 90's really does give him a certain mandate to do what he wants. The Russian economy is growing, foreign-investment is at an all-time high and the Ruble is a viable currency once-again - meaning a lot to the upwardly-mobile and to those on pensions. The governent currently has a surplus due to oil revenues, being the single -largest oil producer (iirc). I have to imagine those a real improvements to Russian society, as has been the crackdown on rampant criminal capitalist figures of the 90's. This is not to say that he is a nice guy, but perhaps he will be remembered as an important and necessary transitional figure.

As for Chavez - His countries' oil wealth also makes it easy for him to make unilateralist decisions, as well as finance popular domestic social initiatives - which make it easier for him to govern as he sees fit. I find Chavez very interesting, in that I believe he is a lot smarter than much of his blustery comments make him out to be - but perhaps I am giving him too much credit. In the abstract, I cannot necessarily fault him for wanting to strengthen Venezueala's power in the region by negotiating and/or aiding various guerilla/separatist or political leaders in the region - that is how it's done, is it not? You work with those who can effect change - however odious they might be.

Nevertheless, as the US continues to consume oil unabated, and the global need will only grow as China and India continue to require more, those countries with natural oil wealth will have an easy time (relative) pursuing their own agendas. It is arguable that considering the window on oil-production capacities in these countries and their social/political situation, that autocratic rule may prove to be a net positive for these countries.

Russia and Venezuela are not Iraq, but few would argue that an autocracy would be more practical for Iraq now than a democracy - perhaps the same holds true for many locales. I always think of Singapore...

I have to go to work, and there is not a single link in my post - but I thought it might prove to act as some useful fodder for conversation.

Solvs, IJ, Sayhey, Skunk...it's nice to see you still here.

[skunk]

Welcome back, BF. :)

[mactastic]

Solvs, IJ, Sayhey, Skunk...it's nice to see you still here.
Sniff sniff.... I see where I rate around here.

Nice to see you back anyway.

[IJ Reilly]

Solvs, IJ, Sayhey, Skunk...it's nice to see you still here.

Likewise. Interesting comments.

It may be axiomatic, but if we were not so dependent on foreign oil, we'd probably be a lot less interested in leaders like Chavez, and he'd also have a lot less influence on us and his neighbors. Considering that we've virtually been governed for the last seven years by people who think that the US should be remaking the political map of the world, one wonders why they haven't understood this connection and tried to wean us off the substance.

[solvs]

Solvs, IJ, Sayhey, Skunk...it's nice to see you still here.
Was wondering where you've been, welcome back.

[Sayhey]

Welcome back, blackfox!