Hugo Chavez: The War On Demcracy

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Would it surprise you If the US did? seeing they tried to get Castro 8 times and failed....nah you would have only cocked up Chavez's assassination as well...so yes natural causes.

...really, so cancer can now be gotten like a virus?... Chavez had security on him day in and day out, EVERYTHING he did was watched by his thugs, but you must be thinking on those super-duper mind control powers the CIA has that give you cancer nowadays...

That first, second, castro spoke/speaks to this day from his behind to get the uneducated to believe his lies. If anyone did murder a President it was castro ordering the death of JFK, not the other way around...

But you go ahead and keep believing the fairy tales from leftist DICTATORS... Heck, you people believe Che guevara and the castro brother's dictatorship were/have worked for the people...

You go ahead and try getting TO THIS DAY an independent Humans Rights group to go to Cuba and find out the truth there and see how fast they are kicked out... But hey, more power to you if you want to believe DICTATORS right?...

Originally posted by tide88

I will take first hand accounts from the people who moved from Venezuela when he came to power. These quotes from people who lived there sure don't share your sentiment.
...

Trust me, leftwingers NEVER believe the account of the people who experienced the leftwing utopias they believe "are great"... Using similar, or even the same lies all leftwing dictators came to power from HItler, to Mussolinni, Mao, the castro brothers to Chavez and his chavistas...

Unfortunately there are many people in the world that would follow leftwing dictators to the end even when they know all they say are lies...

Originally posted by VonDinkinDunken

Did I say no-one in Caracas has a cell phone? I did not.

Three things for you to consider:
1. There are over 3 million Venezuelans in Caracas who are not in your picture
2. There is a difference between what you see in a press photo of pro-regime people at a pro-regime event vs day-to-day life on the street of ordinary Venezuelans .
3. Did you ask yourself why these pictures only seem to show large groups of Chavista's and no one else?

There are many things that pro-Chavez and pro-leftwingers don't know. For example, chavez himself has stated that castro was not only his friend but a mentor, and guess what?... The castro dictatorship has used, and keeps using to this day FORCE to make Cubans attent so called protests against "Capitalism", and back in the day people, and even children, I was one of them, would be round up from schools and work to listen to castro's speeches.

You see, when the state/government OWNS all infraestructures and all jobs they can use that to their benefit. They would use "managers" from the different workplaces where they rounded people, and teachers and these thugs of the castro regime would write down who attended, and who didn't and who would clap, and clammor in favor of castro's lies. If you were caught not being a "pro-communist", and quite a few children and people were, you would lose pay, or even your job, and if you were a child the state could take you away from your parent's homes and put you in brainwashing/indoctrination camps to "make you a good socialist/communist"...

There are to this day laws in Cuba about this, and it is known that Chavez used similar if not the same tactics although to a lesser degree...

...
The 1976 Constitution of the Republic of Cuba is resolved to build socialism and, led by the Communist Party, to build a communist society. In Article 6, the Union of Communist Youths is exclusively recognized by the State "to promote the active participation of the juvenile masses in the tasks of the socialist construction" of society. Under Article 38, the parents have the "duty" to "actively contribute to their children's education and the integral formation as useful citizens including preparations for life in socialist society." Article 39 mandates that the State's control of cultural and educational policy be based on "Marxist ideals" and again on the "communist formation" of youth. Article 62 criminalizes resistance or opposition to these edicts stating clearly that "no rights granted by this constitution and the laws can be exercised against the existence of and objectives of the communist state. The infraction of this article is punishable."

Blas Roca, Secretary General of the Communist Party, as President of the National Assembly, oversaw the passage of the Code of the Child and Youth. Law No.16, of June 28 1978 which comprises the body of Cuban law that regulates the lives of children and youth, specifies that personality must change, any influence contrary to communism must be combated, and school admission is predicated on political attitude. More specifically, Title II, Article 3 states, "The communist formation of the young generation is a valued aspiration of the State, the family, the teachers, the political organizations, and the mass organizations that act in order to foster in the youth the ideological values of communism." In Article 5, the society and the State watch to "ascertain that all persons who come in contact with the child during his educational process constitute an example for the development of communist personality." In Article 8, the society and the State "work for the efficient protection of youth against all influences contrary to their communist formation." In Article 9, "Educators have a high mission in the development of the communist personality." Title III, Article 23 determines whether a student may attain a higher level of education based on his adherence to communist doctrines and states, "Upon completion of primary schooling, young people may continue their education at pre-university centers, vocational schools, or other specialized schools, on the basis of their academic achievement, political attitude and social conduct." Title IV, Article 68 describes how "Children and young people prepare" for military education and active military service by subscribing to ideological indoctrination referred to as the "principles of proletarian internationalism and combative solidarity."

To insure no deviation from Marxist dictates a "cumulative dossier" is compiled for each student wherein his political attitude is recorded. You merits and demerits are minutely recorded and form the basis for your opportunities to obtain a higher education. This is persecution pure and simple and on a daily basis. Persecution is a recognized basis for asylum.
...

www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org...

But hey, worry not, similar laws are being, or have been passed by socialists, I mean democrats, progressives, etc, in the U.S. and even by Obama, so we will soon find something similar even in the U.S., including the FORCING of not only children but all citizens to do "Community Service" for free to the state...


In Venezuela, to this day...

II. Political Discrimination
...
The Chávez government proclaims a commitment to political inclusion, but has openly discriminated against those who do not share its views. Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissident employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment. The Chávez administration’s exclusion and harassment of those who voice their dissent belie its banner of democratic pluralism.

Political discrimination under Chávez was most pronounced in the aftermath of the 2004 recall referendum on Chávez’s presidency. Citizens who exercised their right to call for the referendum—invoking one of the new participatory mechanisms championed by Chávez during the drafting of the 1999 Constitution—were threatened with retaliation and blacklisted from some government jobs and services. After denouncing the referendum effort as an act “against the country”, Chávez requested that electoral authorities give legislator Luis Tascón a list of those who signed the referendum petition, which was made publicly available on the internet.

The “Tascón list” and an even more detailed list of all Venezuelans’ political affiliations—the “Maisanta program”—were then used by public authorities to target government opponents for political discrimination. (There were also reports that private sector employers utilized the lists to discriminate against Chávez supporters.)
...

www.hrw.org...

BTW, imagine where those reports about the opposition of Chavez doing the same came from?...

But like I said, don't worry, the U.S., and other "first world countries" are already targeted for the implementation of similar, if not the same "socialist/fascist policies"...

reply to post by VonDinkinDunken

Wow! You completely ripped my words from their context so you could make a point which has nothing at all to do with the context of my words!!!

The first and second quote were individual responses on two seperate posts to two entirely different topics

I know I expect you thought you had got away with it.

Do you regularly twist and distort other people's words to make your points?

That is what you were caught doing. Terrible isn’t it.

You still have not commented on the video's supplied on this thread. The incident on the bridge or if you support the USA illegally overthrowing a democratically elected government. Do that instead of demonstrating how indoctrinated you are.

Originally posted by nenothtu

If you say so, Jack. After all, you guys ARE the architects of the Worker's Paradise!

I'm curious as to why you posted a wikiquote that directly contradicts that notion if that's the point you were trying to make.

Don't worry, to this day leftwingers are so brainwashed and indoctrinated into thinking their ideologies are so great that they will denounce the truth even when it stares them in the face... heck, to this day they still claim Hitler was a rightwing nut, when in fact he was a socialist/fascist... the word NAZI itself is an abreviation of the German concept of NationalsoZIalisten, aka National Socialism... Even when they are shown the socialist programs implemented by Hitler, or even Mussolini these leftwingers claim this is not true, no matter what evidence you put right in front of their noses...

These people would proclaim that because Hitler was a "warmonger" that he was "rightwing", never mind that Marx' socialist/communist concept states that there must be a VIOLENT REVOLUTION to bring change from a capitalist society to a socialist/communist one...

National Socialism/fascism is not the same as communism, but it is a SOCIALIST concept/idea, one of many that exists and has existed in this world unfortunately...

whatever happened to that projectvixxen guy or whatever his name is, he was a moderator and staunch anti-communist/ i'm surprised i haven't seen him chime in here. electric universe, he was from cuba like you, do you know what happened to him?

reply to post by colin42


If you'd be so kind as to point out the alleged "flip flop", that would be ever so appreciated. So far, you've only said this:

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by VonDinkinDunken

Originally posted by Exitt

Originally posted by VonDinkinDunken

There are no pictures and there are no links.

Well then, IT NEVER HAPPENED !



wishing you a wonderful day, rainbows & little pink hamsters

I bet there are an awful lot of Venezuelans who wish they could honestly say the same thing.

Wow another flip flop from you

Experience makes him much more qualified than those who merely speculate on what is or isn't socialism.

All you have supplied as in this post is your speculation.

Tell me did you even bother to look at either of the documentaries posted in this thread?

... which is not a flip flop at all. In both cases he is saying, very clearly, that people who have lived it are in a far better position to judge the situation than people who have merely read it. There is no "flip-flop" there. Both statements are amazingly consistent in their assertion that experience trumps an evening's reading, whether it be experience of Chavez's Venezuela or Castro's Cuba... or for that matter Ortega's Nicaragua or Obama's America.

He is clearly saying that experience is a far better teacher than book learning in any given situation, so where is the "flip-flop"? You could conceivably, based upon his statements, make the argument that experience is educationally inferior to class work, but it's very difficult to make the assertion that saying experience trumps books is a flip-flop from the assertion that experience trumps books.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
whatever happened to that projectvixxen guy or whatever his name is, he was a moderator and staunch anti-communist/ i'm surprised i haven't seen him chime in here. electric universe, he was from cuba like you, do you know what happened to him?

He is in the U.S. military, so he might not even be in the U.S. at this point in time, and yeah I know him, there was at least one other member who is a Cuban-American, but she was brought to the U.S. at a very young age and didn't have family left in Cuba so she has forgotten a lot about the regime.

There was also a moderator, or who used to be a moderator, and was, don't know if she is still, in an independent Human's Right group and she testified that she and her group were kicked from Cuba when they tried to enter and stated they were there to record what is really happening in Cuba and if there were any Human Rights violations.

To this day independent Human Right groups are not allowed to enter Cuba to observe and record what has been happening there. This is how leftwing DICTATORS keep control over their own population meanwhile selling a lie to many foreigners who are not familiar with such socialist/fascist/leftwing dictatorship.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

These people would proclaim that because Hitler was a "warmonger" that he was "rightwing", never mind that Marx' socialist/communist concept states that there must be a VIOLENT REVOLUTION to bring change from a capitalist society to a socialist/communist one...

National Socialism/fascism is not the same as communism, but it is a SOCIALIST concept/idea, one of many that exists and has existed in this world unfortunately...

I'm an old Cold Warrior, a relic from the days of the "Cold War". I don't recall the Leftists as being particularly peaceful, so that argument that Hitler was "right wing" simply based on his proclivities to belligerence won't fly with me. I can recall several "Socialist revolutions" that were anything BUT "peaceful takeovers" of existing nations. Some, many, were very bloody indeed. I can't see where the Left OR the Right had a monopoly on violence, although the Left were usually a good deal more overt about it. I saw Cuban and Soviet "advisors" in Nicaragua - together with their warlike equipment and activities, not entirely dissimilar from the US "advisors" in Vietnam. They were not there to hand out flowers to the grateful Nicaraguan people any more than the Contras were there to supply donuts.

Jonas Savimbi fought several years in UNITA in Angola against the same sort of Cuban "advisors" hell-bent on taking over his country by violence, up until his character was successfully assassinated by the left wing smear machine. I could go down the list and specify several leftist revolutions and attempted revolutions in Africa, Central America, and Asia that were anything but love fests. Zimbabwe (really "Rhodesia", but they had an ancient bug up their ass about long dead colonialist Cecil Rhodes after the win) is another that comes to immediate mind, as is Vietnam and Korea. My point is that this "kinder, gentler" left that we see today has a core of cold steel born of blood. They are not the innocents that they would have this younger generation believe. I believe the term from back in the day was "Useful Idiots". Was that not coined by another leftist, Lenin? Nice to see what the left REALLY thinks of their water boys in a candid moment, and still, the kiddies will carry the water for their masters.

I guess being a lap-dog is nice work, if you can get it. Commandante Cerro, Eden Pastora, didn't seem all that impressed with the treatment he got at the hands of the victorious left he fought for in Nicaragua after they won and were finished with him. It's been said that experience is the best teacher, and I think that he might agree with that after his experience of Socialism vs. the theory he was taught, just like innumerable others.

Still, modern day Socialists will invariably point back to their text books and try to split hairs over the finer points of different flavors of leftism, as if there were any real difference in experience of one or the other on the ground, while at the same time never having lived on that ground. Takes all kinds, I reckon.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Trust me, leftwingers NEVER believe the account of the people who experienced the leftwing utopias they believe "are great"... Using similar, or even the same lies all leftwing dictators came to power from HItler, to Mussolinni, Mao, the castro brothers to Chavez and his chavistas...

Hi there ElectricUniverse, you're talking to a true socialist, born and raised.

Soviet Union was not amused at the time when we didn't follow their rules of communism. There goes your theory about communism being a synonym for socialism. That is our experience just like you are describing yours and you know what they say about opinions&experiences, everybody has one.

I have family members who left the country in the 70's just like you. Socialism wasn't their thing and that is their prerogative. Nobody forced them to stay, in fact if people became too loud about them not liking the situation as is - they were 'encouraged' to leave just like in Libya. If you can't stand the heat, GTFO of the kitchen.

Do i think this is fair, no i don't think it's fair, but it is reality of life because you can't please everyone and the majority of people were content. This is actually the first principle of democracy, you know?

Just like in Cuba and Venezuela we had all kind of shortages. Sugar, salt, gasoline (we have no oil of our own) shoes, chewing gum. We did not like this at the time.

Our 'semi dictator' had 15 exclusive cars and 3 mansions. This too we did not like.

There were no homeless people, university was free for everyone, doctors were free for everyone, everyone got payed vacation in the summer, free gifts for Christmas, old people and children were being looked after for free.
Everyone had savings in the bank, interest was pretty high. Everyone drove similar small cars. At the time we were the richest socialist country in that part of the world.

Things changed eventually. We wanted Nintendo's too. And Levi's. And Nike sneakers. And the American dream. We became democrats and have chosen a representative. He has one mansion, 3 cars and a secret Swiss bank account. People are now free to go outside and say fcuk the police. We got the Nikes and Apple personal computers. We have malls now and no shortages except people can't pay for the goods. People who graduated from their free university in the 80's are searching through garbage cans as we speak, because there are no jobs, young people cannot pay for education. People can't afford a car anymore. Vacation on one of our national islands is impossible now, it has been sold to a wealthy private individual.

The moral of my story is, yes at one point, not knowing any better, we wanted change and we got it but people are unhappy with the change and want socialism back, with some 21century adaptations of course. Many many people, a couple of million. I predict this is the future in 20+ years for countries like Libya, Venezuela and Cuba(eventually). An old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

I sense from your writings you are happy to live in 'the west' and i am honestly glad you found your place. Just stop telling others how they should feel based on your experience.

reply to post by nenothtu
I have read most of the things you have posted on this thread and you seem to have added nothing of value at all.

Please do as you have been asked and comment on the videos supplied.

1. Please give me your views on the incident at the bridge and the reporting of it by western media.
2. Please tell me if you believe as shown in both videos that the USA actively taking part and funding the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government ok and something you support.
3. After watching either or both of those video's can you hand on heart tell me the only villain is Chavez and the only truth is the propagandist war the USA has raged against him after he told them their cheap oil is no longer cheap

If you cannot answer any of the things above then I see no real value in a dialog between us.

Originally posted by freedomwv
. He showed what South American socialism can do.

Take away freedom of speech.
Take away freedom of the press.
Take over oil profits and the accountability of the oil profits.
Steal 2 Billion $$ in oil profits.
Appoint family members to key high paying positions to help hide the thefts.
Pay terrorists around the world to get his agenda done.
And have Caracas still have a very high crime rate .. it's not safe to walk the streets.

Yep ... he certainly did show people what a South American socialist can do.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Take away freedom of speech.

There are many threads here that are complaining many western governments are and have done the same

Take away freedom of the press.

The press and media are owned by very few moguls such as Murdoch. There is no such thing a free press

Take over oil profits and the accountability of the oil profits.

As opposed to the USA demanding cheap Venezuelan oil in return for reward of a handful of elite. The West has waged wars and looks likely to wage many more wars to take over control of oil and many other resources that is not even theirs

Steal 2 Billion $$ in oil profits.

Still no proof on offer.

Appoint family members to key high paying positions to help hide the thefts.

Like Bush Snr, Bush Jnr, Bush senator. Like the Kennedy political clan and the so familiar names in British politics. He may not be alone in that then.

Pay terrorists around the world to get his agenda done.

You cannot be serious. The USA and its Allies have supported Saddam Husain, Bin Laden, Pinochet, al qaeda to name but a few. Employ private armies, fund the CIA activities with drug money. Support, arm and train rebel factions to overthrow democratically elected governments and employ propaganda to destabilise democracies.

And have Caracas still have a very high crime rate .. it's not safe to walk the streets.

Name one city where it is

Please if you are going to play those cards then at least do it honestly. If your claims for Chavez are true they are also true for the governments you are supporting. Your views are very conflicted to say the least

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I have read most of the things you have posted on this thread and you seem to have added nothing of value at all.

How could you expect "value" in a thread the premise of which doesn't have much value, either? Chavez is dead. Don't expect me to cry. Then there are the truly amusing claims of his demise at the hands of the CIA by mechanism of cancer. That's just hilarious, the lack of critical thought put into an accusation like that.

Please do as you have been asked and comment on the videos supplied.

No one asked me to view any videos, but I wouldn't have anyhow. I can't get that hour of my life back when I get to the end of it and find that it wasn't educational OR entertaining. Instead, this being a discussion forum, how 'bout discussing instead? Articulate your thoughts into words - even if you have to have your thoughts issued to you by the aforementioned videos, and we'll discuss.

1. Please give me your views on the incident at the bridge and the reporting of it by western media.

What bridge? I don't like bridges as a general thing. they're scary, easily blown up, and prone to collapse. That's my views on "the bridge". The last one I saw a report on by "western media" was Galloping Gertie, I believe, and that was some years ago and didn't turn out well.

2. Please tell me if you believe as shown in both videos that the USA actively taking part and funding the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government ok and something you support.

No such thing as an "illegal" overthrow, but it depends on the situation, I suppose. In general, I absolutely detest democracies (because democracies hate minorities, and never protect them, since they are not "the majority"), so I've no real problem with their overthrow other than the fact that it's still someone meddling in other folks' business, any way you cut it. As an example, I'm against the US/UN involvement in Syrian internal affairs, and what's going on there IS an internal Syrian matter. None of our damned business. It's no different than the Cuban/Soviet destabilization of Somoza's Nicaragua, which ALSO ought, by rights, to have been an internal affair. Countries dabble in the internal politics of other countries all the time, and the US doesn't have a monopoly on that particular sport. "Socialists" are pretty big on destabilizing and overthrowing other governments, too.

When it's the US's turn - and have no doubt that is coming... we can already see the destabilization efforts at work - I would expect there will be other countries meddling here, "helping" one faction or another in hopes of jockeying a favored position in whatever comes out the other side. That's just what countries do when they get bored or scared.

3. After watching either or both of those video's can you hand on heart tell me the only villain is Chavez and the only truth is the propagandist war the USA has raged against him after he told them their cheap oil is no longer cheap

Saying that Chavez is... er. was a villain (which he most assuredly was) is not the same as saying he's the ONLY villain. I never said he was, because I don't believe there's just one. This isn't a comic book with super heroes and arch villains. So no, it would be ludicrous the say he was the ONLY villain - just as ludicrous as saying that he wasn't a villain at all. You can hang it on Venezuelan oil all you like, but understand that's a misdirection. that is NOT why he was "propagandized". He was "propagandized" because he really WAS an asshole. Not all propaganda is lies... as a matter of fact, the very BEST propaganda is truth, because it's impossible to combat. As far as "no cheap Venezuelan oil" goes, I can drive a couple miles and buy all the Venezuelan gas I like. No, it's not "cheap", but neither is it expensive - no more so than any other oil. Therefore, that argument is fallacious. Venezuelan oil as sold here is the same price as any other oil, yet there isn't a "propaganda war" on against all of the other suppliers.

Originally posted by colin42

Not my argument, but a couple of things need to be corrected.

Appoint family members to key high paying positions to help hide the thefts.

Like Bush Snr, Bush Jnr, Bush senator. Like the Kennedy political clan and the so familiar names in British politics. He may not be alone in that then.

There would appear to be a difference between posting relatives to political positions, like the Bush Dynasty, Kennedy Dynasty, or Stewart Dynasty and posting them to private corporations which govern only their own businesses, rather than an entire country, but I suppose in the end "keeping it in the family" can never be a GOOD thing, either way.

Pay terrorists around the world to get his agenda done.

You cannot be serious. The USA and its Allies have supported Saddam Husain, Bin Laden, Pinochet, al qaeda to name but a few. Employ private armies, fund the CIA activities with drug money. Support, arm and train rebel factions to overthrow democratically elected governments and employ propaganda to destabilise democracies.

While the US DID support Hussein, they did NOT support either bin Laden or Al Qaeda. They are, however, at this instant making a strategic error in the sides they are choosing to support in places like Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. They really ought not to meddle in those places internal affairs, or choose any side in someone else's internal battles at all. I'm not sure which private "Armies" you are referring to, but the US already has a very PUBLIC army.

Regarding "support, arm, and train rebel factions" et al, that is not the exclusive provenance of the US. There is a REASON that the ubiquitous AK series of rifles is so widespread that it has come to be associated with revolutions of all sorts, and factors into rebel symbolism and even some national flags. That reason is NOT because it was the US supplying AKs to rebels. I can think of two instances where we supplied AKs or variants to rebels, but that doesn't even BEGIN to cover the domain of the Kalashnikov. Someone else supplied the bulk of those. Think deeply upon it, and you will eventually stumble upon who that might have been.

Destabilize democracies? You betcha - any way I can, just as long as I don't actually have to step onto their dirt to do it. Propaganda seems ideally suited to that task of giving them hell without going into their house... provided that the propaganda is of the truthful variety. Luckily, the pitfalls of democracy leave no shortage of truthful material to employ as negative propaganda. I'm all for giving them more trouble than they can stand if they step outside their own borders, but not in favor of actually having to haul my carcass INSIDE their borders. Democracies are a menace to the planet, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to run their own houses as they see fit - so long as they don't cross into my yard and try to run mine, and provided that I'm not forced to interact with them in any way.

Unfortunately, proponents of democracy seem to think that's just not sporting, and they SHOULD be allowed to run MY house, and so trouble always develops. I wouldn't have any problems with them if they'd just keep their mess at home. If they don't want me destabilizing THEIR country, it only seems fair that they would stop mucking about in MINE, and I just can't quite see why they don't think that's fair.

Please if you are going to play those cards then at least do it honestly. If your claims for Chavez are true they are also true for the governments you are supporting. Your views are very conflicted to say the least

Yes, honesty IS the best policy, isn't it? The converse of your statement is also true - if your claims for these other governments are true, then they are also true for Venezuela. There aren't any saints any where.

Conflicted views indeed!

reply to post by nenothtu
So as I thought you have no intention of looking at either video.

No intention to address how the world press edited the footage of Chavez supporters purposely telling the world his supporters opened fire on innocent protesters omitting the part that clearly showed it was the police and snipers and they were defending themselves against them. Still it seems you are happy to spout your uninformed hatreds. That much is obvious

No such thing as an "illegal" overthrow, but it depends on the situation, I suppose. In general, I absolutely detest democracies (because democracies hate minorities, and never protect them, since they are not "the majority"), so I've no real problem with their overthrow other than the fact that it's still someone meddling in other folks' business, any way you cut it.

So you hate Chavez because he is the head of a democracy but you should support him as he stood for the majority and you claim he ignores democracy. You have made two conflicting statements at least

The USA funding, training and advising the REBELS that tried to oust Chavez was more than meddling but you would not know about that as you refuse to watch either video that explains it and gives proof of it

As an example, I'm against the US/UN involvement in Syrian internal affairs, and what's going on there IS an internal Syrian matter. None of our damned business. It's no different than the Cuban/Soviet destabilization of Somoza's Nicaragua, which ALSO ought, by rights, to have been an internal affair. Countries dabble in the internal politics of other countries all the time, and the US doesn't have a monopoly on that particular sport. "Socialists" are pretty big on destabilizing and overthrowing other governments, too.

Quite. Unless another country is directly threatening another how they choose to run their country should not be our concern. The USA dabbling was far more than dabbling but again you refuse to look

Saying that Chavez is... er. was a villain (which he most assuredly was) is not the same as saying he's the ONLY villain.

Where is your proof? If you have none then you should prefix your statement with 'IMO'

I never said he was, because I don't believe there's just one. This isn't a comic book with super heroes and arch villains. So no, it would be ludicrous the say he was the ONLY villain - just as ludicrous as saying that he wasn't a villain at all. You can hang it on Venezuelan oil all you like, but understand that's a misdirection. that is NOT why he was "propagandized". He was "propagandized" because he really WAS an XXXXX.

Really and you call others naive

As far as "no cheap Venezuelan oil" goes, I can drive a couple miles and buy all the Venezuelan gas I like. No, it's not "cheap", but neither is it expensive - no more so than any other oil.

You really are not making a good case here. The USA paid a few, large amounts of money on the basis that they supplied the USA cheap Oil. They 'removed' anyone that tried to change that. The poor although living in a resource rich country never saw a penny of it. Chavez changed that.

Therefore, that argument is fallacious. Venezuelan oil as sold here is the same price as any other oil, yet there isn't a "propaganda war" on against all of the other suppliers.

Nope. Your argument fails as you demonstrate yet again you do not know what you are talking about. Of course Venezuelan oil is sold to you at the same price instead of subsidising the N American prices because Chavez put a stop to it. That is the same time Bush decided he was a devil and more dangerous than Bin laden and Saddam put together.

So I will leave you to carry on hating without being in procession of a reason to hate. Jeeze that's sad.

reply to post by nenothtu


Oh, I know very well the warmongering of the Cuban dictatorship has been equal to that of China, and other socialists/communist systems. Two of my uncles in Cuba were sent to fight for "the revolution in Angola", to this day one of them still gets nightmares, and has nevours ticks and ptsd from seing the attrocities that he witnessed.

I find it ironic how leftwingers LOVE to proclaim "only the U.S. does black operations to destibilize nations, but the truth is several nations do the exact same thing, and even worse. From the Chinese, the Russians, the castristas, and the chavistas among many others... They too have been actively trying to force their way into nations, not only by lying to people but through violent revolts that they instigate, and then they put the blame on the U.S. or "capitalism"... But of course leftwingers LOVE to ignore these facts and instead just LOVE to blame it all on the U.S. and capitalism...

reply to post by Exitt


I find it ironic how you come here and make these claims about the socialist system you were in. could you tell us where it was?... Did you have free unrestrictive internet access? As for the "free medical and education"... I know EXACTLY what it is under a socialist system... Firts the brainwashing that "capitalism is evil and must be avoided", Second you get the WORSE medical attention anywhere on the planet, unless you are a brat from one of the socialist/communist elites in the socialist/communist system where you lived. That would be the one good reason for loving such socialist/communist system. Another fact about for example Russia is that after the so called "fall of communism" the same people who were in power under the KGB became the Russian mafia and they are the ones still calling the shots there, and they only allow some people to see some success, but not for the mayority...

Putin, and ex-KGB agent himself has talked many times about missing the old days of communist mother Russia, and they have been doing things to change the opinion of the Russian people to AGAIN accept the old system.

Heck, I presented several times in these forums how for example under Putin Stalin is being hailed as a hero despite the attrocities he committed. The brainwashing is so deep, and working so well that government agents raided the largest Human Rights building in Russia and took away files, and files which had detailed accounts of the attrocities that Stalin caused on the Russian people...

School books in Russia have even been changed to proclaim that Stalin had to do those things he did "for the good of all and mother Russia"...

The brainwashing in Russia is still ongoing for people to accept a socialist/communist system...

Since the Russian mafia/KGB are in control they can make things harder for people in Russia to make them believe that true capitalism is a bad idea and to make them think that "socialism/communism is better"...

Heck, we have had high ranking Russian defectors who for decades were telling us how the Russian elites and other elites in the world had this in mind EXACTLY as is happening right now...

For example, Anatoli Golitsyn, one of the highest rank Russian military to defect to the west even wrote a book about the future plans that the socialist/communist elites had for Russia, the U.S. and the world. Most of what Golitsyn wrote on his book decades ago would happen, have happened

...
More recently, Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Soviet defector of high status, has suggested that the Soviet Union is capable of disinformation on such a massive scale that even the Borkenau system is no longer viable.2 In a book first published in 1984, and of necessity written before then, Golitsyn argues that the leadership of the whole Communist bloc came to an agreement in 1958 in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West, a monumental scam.

Golitsyn maintains that the goals of the master plan were to provide a more profound political stabilization of individual communist regimes by developing wider mass support, the rectification of economic weakness of the bloc by increased international trade and the acquisition of credits and high technology from the West, the creation of a substructure for an eventual world federation of communist states, political isolation of the US from its allies, developing influence among socialists in Western Europe and Japan, the dissolution of NATO, and an alignment between the Soviet Union and a neutral, preferably socialist, Western Europe; concerted action with nationalist leaders in the Third World to eliminate Western influence as a preliminary to absorbing them in a communist federation, shifting the balance of power in favor of the Communist world, and the ideological disarmament of the West to create favorable conditions for convergence of East and West on communist terms.3

Golitsyn predicts that the Soviet regime will be stabilized by the creation of spurious, controlled opposition movements and the use of those movements to neutralize genuine internal and external opposition, and that it will encourage communist parties to establish united fronts with socialist parties throughout the world thus increasing Soviet influence in parliaments and trade unions.4

Some of the techniques, according to Golitsyn, will be dissension within the bloc, unity of action behind disunity of words, a show of weakness before meeting with Western leaders or before major initiatives or negotiations, and the heavy use of disinformation.5 This disinformation will emanate from official Communist sources, unofficial Communist sources, and "secret" communist sources, much of it retrospective. It is to be delivered through Western newspapermen, scholars, officials, and the Soviet intelligentsia.

It is interesting to note, in this regard, that most of what we believe to be happening in the Soviet Union still comes from Soviet sources, which are delivered directly to the West and are not always available internally, glasnost notwithstanding. Boris Yeltsin's book, Against the Grain,6 was published in the West in English, apparently to establish his bono fides as a dissident candidate just before he was elected president of the RSFSR. It has not been released in the USSR in any language whatsoever.


The final phase of the master plan, according to Golitsyn, is a disinformation and deception campaign of such magnitude that it would be "beyond the imagination of Marx, or the practical reach of Lenin, and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, the Soviet Union, and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland."7

Golitsyn predicted the "breakup" of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe as a technique to be used by the Soviet government to entice Europe to move more towards socialism and to align itself eventually with the USSR against the United States.8 The Third World would then join communist Russia and socialist Western Europe against the US and its allies. Then there would be a joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to push the US out of Europe and into nuclear disarmament. A powerful world federation of communist states would emerge and the US would be induced to "converge" on communist terms.9

Such a plan would not only exceed the imagination of Marx, or the practical reach of Lenin, and be unthinkable to Stalin, but also defies credulity altogether. Still, despite its incredulity, it must be admitted that at least a year before Gorbachev came to power Golitsyn predicted in writing the breakup of the communist bloc and dissension within the Soviet Union. Since apparent change has come to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at a pace unimaginable only a few years ago -- unimaginable except, we must add, to Anatoliy Golitsyn -- perhaps it is worth the attempt to test the Golitsyn hypothesis in the light of what is currently happening in Europe and the USSR.

We should be aware, Golitsyn warns, that much of the information that is being served up in the Soviet Union and even in Eastern Europe is being prepared by the same cooks who fed the West lies in pre-glasnost and pre-perestroika times; hence the title of his book, New Lies for Old. Why should we, asks Golitsyn, believe that the same people who lied to us in the past are now telling us the truth? Is it not possible that glasnost is nothing more that a cover for a new set of lies, lies that the West wants to believe, the lies that Communism is dead and the USSR is mellowing? This information, which the Soviets themselves distribute, must be information that the Soviets want distributed. Is it not possible that perestroika is that limited restructuring described by Gorbachev in his book, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World,10 and not the stampede to capitalism which American pundits think they are witnessing?
...

www.umd.umich.edu...

edit on 8-3-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So as I thought you have no intention of looking at either video.

Nope. I never did have any intention to do so, nor have I said at any point that I did. I was pretty clear about that, I think. If I want to watch videos, that's what my TV is for.

No intention to address how the world press edited the footage of Chavez supporters purposely telling the world his supporters opened fire on innocent protesters omitting the part that clearly showed it was the police and snipers and they were defending themselves against them. Still it seems you are happy to spout your uninformed hatreds. That much is obvious

Chavez supporters were shooting at police? Well isn't that special! Seems to be a definite conflict of interest there, then.

So you hate Chavez because he is the head of a democracy but you should support him as he stood for the majority and you claim he ignores democracy. You have made two conflicting statements at least

Could you please point out for me where I said that I "hate Chavez because he's head of a democracy"? I don't recall saying any such thing. Why would I support ANY form of dictatorial regime, whether democracy or... whatever sort of dictatorship Chavez was running? It's true that "majority rule" is nothing more than a way of beating less fortunates into submission and then plundering them, but that doesn't mean that autocratic rule has any different effect on minorities.

The USA funding, training and advising the REBELS that tried to oust Chavez was more than meddling but you would not know about that as you refuse to watch either video that explains it and gives proof of it

And you can't articulate your own thoughts in the matter? Start here: tell me why YOU think it was "more than meddling".

Quite. Unless another country is directly threatening another how they choose to run their country should not be our concern. The USA dabbling was far more than dabbling but again you refuse to look

No, it was just dabbling, jockeying for position, and the US doesn't have a monopoly on that sport, as I've said before. Why single them out and give all the rest a pass? I don't support it in any case, and have actively fought it in some. I have "looked" at things you'll never see in a youtube video, and remain unswayed by propagandistic efforts that contradict what I have seen and know to be factual. Again, how is US dabbling "more than dabbling", and what makes it any worse or better than the dabblings of other governments?

Where is your proof? If you have none then you should prefix your statement with 'IMO'

Well that's cute. You can't contradict the statement, so you'll attack the presentation instead. ain't that special?

Really and you call others naive

Yes I do. Care to point out the naivety in that statement, or shall we just let it stand as an unsupported accusation?

You really are not making a good case here. The USA paid a few, large amounts of money on the basis that they supplied the USA cheap Oil. They 'removed' anyone that tried to change that. The poor although living in a resource rich country never saw a penny of it. Chavez changed that.

Care to tell me who owns CITGO, and where the money from that enterprise goes to? Why is it our concern either way where the money goes when it's paid to the Venezuelans? Why would we care if it goes to Chavez or to "the Venezuelan People"? And if there isn't any reason you can come up with for our concern for their internal distribution, why would we "remove" anyone? So we "make a few large payments" to purchase oil, why is it any of our concern what they do with what is then THEIR money? And if we got all this "cheap oil", where is it? Why isn't CITGO gas any cheaper than EXXON?

Nope. Your argument fails as you demonstrate yet again you do not know what you are talking about. Of course Venezuelan oil is sold to you at the same price instead of subsidising the N American prices because Chavez put a stop to it. That is the same time Bush decided he was a devil and more dangerous than Bin laden and Saddam put together.

You're not very old, are you? I can recall CITGO gas from long before Chavez, and it wasn't "cheap" then, either - no cheaper than any other gas. You don't have a very firm grasp on how oil markets operate, do you?

So I will leave you to carry on hating without being in procession of a reason to hate. Jeeze that's sad.

I presume you mean "possession" rather than "procession", which is another thing entirely. Here's an idea - give me some reason to LIKE Chavez. I already have my reasons to dislike him. Override them with some form of logic. Who knows - you might win!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Oh, I know very well the warmongering of the Cuban dictatorship has been equal to that of China, and other socialists/communist systems. Two of my uncles in Cuba were sent to fight for "the revolution in Angola", to this day one of them still gets nightmares, and has nevours ticks and ptsd from seing the attrocities that he witnessed.

Angola was a beautiful country at one time, but not a "pretty place to be" if you get my drift. Your uncles have my sympathy - now. Maybe not so much back then. Angola was much like many of the little brushfire wars back then. Too much external meddling. Cuba sent troops, but the US never did - not even "advisors". It was left to "private adventurers" to fill that gap, and the results were often disastrous. All of Africa was a playground for such back then when the colonial powers bailed out and left town. There was a lot of money to be made when this guy or that wanted to take over a country. It didn't matter which side you took, someone was willing to pay. Most guys simply took the "anti socialist" side because they had seen the results of socialism in other places.

Buy your uncle a beer some time, and tell him it's from me - the opposition. We may have been on opposite sides of the fence at some time or in some place, but now we're BOTH used up old farts. No reason not to have a beer!

I find it ironic how leftwingers LOVE to proclaim "only the U.S. does black operations to destibilize nations, but the truth is several nations do the exact same thing, and even worse. From the Chinese, the Russians, the castristas, and the chavistas among many others... They too have been actively trying to force their way into nations, not only by lying to people but through violent revolts that they instigate, and then they put the blame on the U.S. or "capitalism"...

But of course leftwingers LOVE to ignore these facts and instead just LOVE to blame it all on the U.S. and capitalism...

edit on 8-3-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Didn't Chavez arm and help some rebels in some of his neighboring countries not too long ago? I seem to recall something about Bolivia or Ecuador, and way too many arms purchases (AK-74M's from Russia among them) for use by Venezuelan forces. I may be mistaken on that - but if it's so, I reckon it's OK, since it was Saint Chavez and not the Evil Old US!