The Anti-Empire Report October 1st, 2010

[Coito ergo sum]

Well..Chavez was elected, so not a dictator.

Sure, he was elected, and has since consolidated dictatorial power. That's how he can got to be President for 11 years, and is very much assured of 11 more. He seizes private property without compensation, shuts down media outlets he doesn't like, suppresses free speech and press, and improperly influences elections. Fairly dictatorial, in my book. That's the dictator's typical approach.....they love free and fair elections....once....

As for Castro, I don't think he's 100 percent good (who is) but he hasn't been that bad either. Certainly better than many US presidents.

At least US Presidents participate in elections and step down when they lose. Castro was in power for half a century and handed over his reigns to his brother. Not "that bad?" If you had said, "not ALL bad", well, I might have agreed with you. Most people are not "all" bad. But, to say "not that bad", to me, gives him far more credit than he deserves.

So...when you say:

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

What you mean is : Sandinista doesn't HATE Castro. Thats it. As opposed to "the guys he supports are dictators". Quite the difference.

You give a far different impression than just that you don't "hate" Castro or other Leftist dictators. You give the distinct impression that you prefer them to western democracy, and that you think they are more apt to have the people's interests at heart. You can, of course, correct my misapprehension, if indeed it is a misapprehension.

But, maybe I'll ask it this way: what DON'T you like about Castro and Chavez? What is bad about them?

[sandinista]

Well..Chavez was elected, so not a dictator.

Sure, he was elected, and has since consolidated dictatorial power. That's how he can got to be President for 11 years, and is very much assured of 11 more. He seizes private property without compensation, shuts down media outlets he doesn't like, suppresses free speech and press, and improperly influences elections. Fairly dictatorial, in my book. That's the dictator's typical approach.....they love free and fair elections....once....

As for Castro, I don't think he's 100 percent good (who is) but he hasn't been that bad either. Certainly better than many US presidents.

At least US Presidents participate in elections and step down when they lose. Castro was in power for half a century and handed over his reigns to his brother. Not "that bad?" If you had said, "not ALL bad", well, I might have agreed with you. Most people are not "all" bad. But, to say "not that bad", to me, gives him far more credit than he deserves.

So...when you say:

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

What you mean is : Sandinista doesn't HATE Castro. Thats it. As opposed to "the guys he supports are dictators". Quite the difference.

You give a far different impression than just that you don't "hate" Castro or other Leftist dictators. You give the distinct impression that you prefer them to western democracy, and that you think they are more apt to have the people's interests at heart. You can, of course, correct my misapprehension, if indeed it is a misapprehension.

But, maybe I'll ask it this way: what DON'T you like about Castro and Chavez? What is bad about them?

Well, I hope Chavez is in power for 11 more years, as long as he has the peoples support, length of term isn't an issue. Takes a long time to change an entire economic, political, and social system. Undoing neo-liberalism is not something that can happen over night. None of what you mention is "dictatorial". Seizes property? You must mean nationalization. A good move. You obviously don't know much about the media structure in Venezuela. Not going to get into that since it has been done hundreds of times on forums everywhere. Same thing with "suppression of speech". Both of which are simply not true. "Improperly influences elections"? Really? How so? Should elections be free and unhindered like US elections? (sarcasm...of course). As for Castro...at least he doesn't invade, bomb, occupy, and destroy poor countries. I mean...really? So you think he should have elections...BUT, the RIGHT kind of elections...not like Chavez. What are you looking for? These countries to follow the US model of "elections"? Not sure what your criticism is. Again...what other "leftist dictators"? You keep saying I support this and that dictator but fail to mention any. Castro and Chavez, that's it. Not like I'm the only one who has had positive things to say about either, and Chavez is elected. What are you talking about?

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Iraq wasn't flying F-15s, driving Abrams tanks, and firing M-16s, etc. - who do you think was supplying those? The US?

That would have been Iran, right...

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Iraq wasn't flying F-15s, driving Abrams tanks, and firing M-16s, etc. - who do you think was supplying those? The US?

That would have been Iran, right...

What would have been Iran? Supplying weapons to Iraq?

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Iraq wasn't flying F-15s, driving Abrams tanks, and firing M-16s, etc. - who do you think was supplying those? The US?

That would have been Iran, right...

What would have been Iran? Supplying weapons to Iraq?

No, I have a memory that (a fair while ago), the US was the main arms supplier for Iran, with tanks, planes etc.

Not at the moment, of course...

[sandinista]

The US has supplied weapons to half the world.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm

Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world.[1] The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers. [2 ] U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict.

U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999.[3] The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this violence is immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the period from 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.[4]

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Well, I hope Chavez is in power for 11 more years, as long as he has the peoples support, length of term isn't an issue.

The people don't have a choice. Political dissidents are jailed, and news outlets that publish ant-Chavez pieces have been shut down. Frankly, you bitch quite strenuously about far less egregious violations committed in the US and Canada. You suggested, I recall, that there was "no free speech in Canada." However, there is clearly even less in Venezuela.

Takes a long time to change an entire economic, political, and social system. Undoing neo-liberalism is not something that can happen over night. None of what you mention is "dictatorial". Seizes property? You must mean nationalization. A good move.

Without compensation? That's "seizure."

You obviously don't know much about the media structure in Venezuela.

I doubt my knowledge is much less extensive than yours.

Not going to get into that since it has been done hundreds of times on forums everywhere.

I've never seen you persuasively justify what Chavez has done to media outlets there. You make the general, Chavez party line, allegation that the US is behind all those pesky news outlets. We're just undermining him improperly.....

Same thing with "suppression of speech". Both of which are simply not true.

They are true.

"Improperly influences elections"? Really? How so? Should elections be free and unhindered like US elections? (sarcasm...of course).

Which is it? Are they free and unhindered, or are they unfree and hindered like you think the US elections are?

As for Castro...at least he doesn't invade, bomb, occupy, and destroy poor countries. I mean...really? So you think he should have elections...

Yes. Perpetual Presidents that are never subject to popular or republican election are dictators.

BUT, the RIGHT kind of elections...not like Chavez. What are you looking for?

An election where people cast ballots, together with a free press that allows unrestricted dissent.

These countries to follow the US model of "elections"?

Not necessarily. Maybe the British or French models. Maybe Holland's model. I'm not too concerned about that. We were just talking about whether Chavez was a dictator. He is.

Not sure what your criticism is.

That Chavez is a dictator who shuts down media outlets and imprisons political dissidents and dissentors, all justified because he thinks his socialist revolution is so important that those who would oppose it should be put down.

Again...what other "leftist dictators"? You keep saying I support this and that dictator but fail to mention any.

I mentioned two. Castro and Chavez. That hardly constitutes "not any."

Castro and Chavez, that's it. Not like I'm the only one who has had positive things to say about either, and Chavez is elected. What are you talking about?

Did you miss the part where Chavez seized additional powers since being elected? Dictators can be elected - they are elected and then become dictators. That's what Chavez has become in the last 11-12 years. That's what messing with free speech and the press, jailing political opponents, and seizing private property without just compensation, and fucking with elections, makes a person...a dictator. He's a thug, and a scumbag.

What kind of a tool goes on his silly rants and tirades? Bush is the Devil! LOL... the guy is a loudmouth, power-hungry, tyrant, and he's only getting worse.

[Coito ergo sum]

....duplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Iraq wasn't flying F-15s, driving Abrams tanks, and firing M-16s, etc. - who do you think was supplying those? The US?

That would have been Iran, right...

What would have been Iran? Supplying weapons to Iraq?

No, I have a memory that (a fair while ago), the US was the main arms supplier for Iran, with tanks, planes etc.

Not at the moment, of course...

Not for about 35 years, of course. We've had a total boycott on Iran since 1979.

[sandinista]

[

Well, I hope Chavez is in power for 11 more years, as long as he has the peoples support, length of term isn't an issue.

The people don't have a choice. Political dissidents are jailed, and news outlets that publish ant-Chavez pieces have been shut down. Frankly, you bitch quite strenuously about far less egregious violations committed in the US and Canada. You suggested, I recall, that there was "no free speech in Canada." However, there is clearly even less in Venezuela.

Takes a long time to change an entire economic, political, and social system. Undoing neo-liberalism is not something that can happen over night. None of what you mention is "dictatorial". Seizes property? You must mean nationalization. A good move.

Without compensation? That's "seizure."

You obviously don't know much about the media structure in Venezuela.

I doubt my knowledge is much less extensive than yours.

Not going to get into that since it has been done hundreds of times on forums everywhere.

I've never seen you persuasively justify what Chavez has done to media outlets there. You make the general, Chavez party line, allegation that the US is behind all those pesky news outlets. We're just undermining him improperly.....

Same thing with "suppression of speech". Both of which are simply not true.

They are true.

"Improperly influences elections"? Really? How so? Should elections be free and unhindered like US elections? (sarcasm...of course).

Which is it? Are they free and unhindered, or are they unfree and hindered like you think the US elections are?

As for Castro...at least he doesn't invade, bomb, occupy, and destroy poor countries. I mean...really? So you think he should have elections...

Yes. Perpetual Presidents that are never subject to popular or republican election are dictators.

BUT, the RIGHT kind of elections...not like Chavez. What are you looking for?

An election where people cast ballots, together with a free press that allows unrestricted dissent.

These countries to follow the US model of "elections"?

Not necessarily. Maybe the British or French models. Maybe Holland's model. I'm not too concerned about that. We were just talking about whether Chavez was a dictator. He is.

Not sure what your criticism is.

That Chavez is a dictator who shuts down media outlets and imprisons political dissidents and dissentors, all justified because he thinks his socialist revolution is so important that those who would oppose it should be put down.

Again...what other "leftist dictators"? You keep saying I support this and that dictator but fail to mention any.

I mentioned two. Castro and Chavez. That hardly constitutes "not any."

Castro and Chavez, that's it. Not like I'm the only one who has had positive things to say about either, and Chavez is elected. What are you talking about?

Did you miss the part where Chavez seized additional powers since being elected? Dictators can be elected - they are elected and then become dictators. That's what Chavez has become in the last 11-12 years. That's what messing with free speech and the press, jailing political opponents, and seizing private property without just compensation, and fucking with elections, makes a person...a dictator. He's a thug, and a scumbag.

What kind of a tool goes on his silly rants and tirades? Bush is the Devil! LOL... the guy is a loudmouth, power-hungry, tyrant, and he's only getting worse.

holy quote mine. Again, this has been done to death in previous threads and none of what you claim has ever held any water...the press, free speech, elections etc. This is truly a laugh:

Frankly, you bitch quite strenuously about far less egregious violations committed in the US and Canada

You really believe that Venezuela has had more human rights violations than the US? Wow.

[Robert_S]

If I recall, the US never made any stir about Saddam's behavior during the Iran-Iraq war. He might have genuinely been surprised to find we cared.

[Coito ergo sum]

holy quote mine.

An accurate quote is not a quote mine, unless I took it out of context. What in the world is the context you're claiming changes the meaning?

In a speech Wednesday morning to the Assembly, Chavez, as he has done several times before, called President Bush "the devil." Referring to Bush's own U.N. speech yesterday, Chavez said, "The devil came right here... And it still smells of sulfur today."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 57,00.html LOL - did I leave something out that changes the meaning entirely? He didn't mean to refer to Bush as the Devil?

Again, this has been done to death in previous threads and none of what you claim has ever held any water...

...held any water TO YOU, because you dismiss it all as an imperialist running dog plot to oust the nice and kindly, only-want-to-help-the-people, Mr. Fairness, Hugo Chavez and prevent him from doing good and wise things for the people of Venezuela...

the press, free speech, elections etc. This is truly a laugh:

Chavez shuts down opposition television: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6215815.stm Chavez, of course, says that he won't tolerate news outlets that are working towards a coup against him. LOL - so, we have a single man who can shut down media outlets by giving an order.....and based solely on his claim that the media outlets are working on a coup, you think it "doesn't hold water?" LOL. Riiiiigghhhht....and if Obama said "I'm shutting down CBS because they're working on a coup against me, and I won't tolerate that...." all good, right? No worries! He means well! Damn those coup-working news outlets!

And, I can cite the Huffington Post - not a particularly conservative media source - for the "new generation of Venezuela's political prisoners": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-am ... 77684.html and here's Amnesty International in April describing Chavez's government targeting political opponents: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-upda ... 2010-04-01

Amnesty International urged the Venezuelan authorities to stop targeting government critics following a series of politically motivated arrests.

At least three individuals seen as opposed to President Hugo Chávez were arrested and charged in March alone.

Here is item after item calling for Chavez to respect human rights, lay off the press, and stop arresting political opponents: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/venezuela

None of this, however, "holds water" with you, because Chavez says it's all the US coming to get him and oust him....

Amnesty International - all lies. Huffington Post - Conservative mouthpiece of the American government.

[sandinista]

US Media Intensifies Campaign Against Chavez

Regarding coverage of Venezuela, television is even worse. Two weeks ago, CNN International premiered a docu-report titled “The Guardians of Chavez”, during which the international network falsely associated armed groups, criminals, terrorists and paramilitary forces with the Venezuelan government.
On Monday, September 13, just one and a half weeks before the upcoming legislative elections in Venezuela, CNN en Español’s primetime anchor, Patricia Janiot, conducted a live interview with an escaped convict from Venezuela, who just two years earlier had been tried and sentenced for terrorism.
In a clear showing of yellow journalism, Janiot referred to the terrorist fugitive as a “political prisoner” and “student persecuted” by the Chavez government. The escaped convict, Raul Diaz Peña, was sentenced in 2008 after a lengthy trial proving his guilt as one of the material authors of a terrorist attack with C4 explosives against the embassies of Colombia and Spain that took place February 25, 2003 in Caracas.
Diaz Peña escaped from his Venezuelan jail cell on September 5 and after arriving in a commercial airliner at the Miami International Airport, was somehow able to easily enter the US, despite his status as a convicted terrorist and fugitive from justice.
A mere week after his US arrival, CNN broadcast him in prime time.
“How many other students are political prisoners in Venezuela”, Janiot asked of the terrorist. “Were you tortured”, she inquired, with concern in her voice. At the end of the interview, the stellar journalist of the US network wished the fugitive terrorist “good luck”, lauding him for escaping Chavez’s “terrible dictatorship”.
It’s a wonder that an international television network can conduct a live interview with a convicted, fugitive terrorist, and wish him “good luck” in public, without a concern for any kind of consequence. But this type of irony is only possible when it comes to US media treatment of Venezuela.
According to CNN, in the case of Venezuela, terrorists are “political prisoners” and fugitives from justice are “immigrants”.

http://www.zcommunications.org/us-media ... a-golinger


Yah...to think the US media lies or exaggerates when it comes to Chavez...who would ever think that??? huffington post I mean, of course things are not perfect anywhere, but if you want to look at human rights abuses the US is far worse, or even look at the uS's ally in the region, Columbia. And no, I don't believe a word coming from the mouth or pen of the US media regarding Chavez. Why would I?

[Coito ergo sum]

US Media Intensifies Campaign Against Chavez

Regarding coverage of Venezuela, television is even worse. Two weeks ago, CNN International premiered a docu-report titled “The Guardians of Chavez”, during which the international network falsely associated armed groups, criminals, terrorists and paramilitary forces with the Venezuelan government.
On Monday, September 13, just one and a half weeks before the upcoming legislative elections in Venezuela, CNN en Español’s primetime anchor, Patricia Janiot, conducted a live interview with an escaped convict from Venezuela, who just two years earlier had been tried and sentenced for terrorism.
In a clear showing of yellow journalism, Janiot referred to the terrorist fugitive as a “political prisoner” and “student persecuted” by the Chavez government. The escaped convict, Raul Diaz Peña, was sentenced in 2008 after a lengthy trial proving his guilt as one of the material authors of a terrorist attack with C4 explosives against the embassies of Colombia and Spain that took place February 25, 2003 in Caracas.
Diaz Peña escaped from his Venezuelan jail cell on September 5 and after arriving in a commercial airliner at the Miami International Airport, was somehow able to easily enter the US, despite his status as a convicted terrorist and fugitive from justice.
A mere week after his US arrival, CNN broadcast him in prime time.
“How many other students are political prisoners in Venezuela”, Janiot asked of the terrorist. “Were you tortured”, she inquired, with concern in her voice. At the end of the interview, the stellar journalist of the US network wished the fugitive terrorist “good luck”, lauding him for escaping Chavez’s “terrible dictatorship”.
It’s a wonder that an international television network can conduct a live interview with a convicted, fugitive terrorist, and wish him “good luck” in public, without a concern for any kind of consequence. But this type of irony is only possible when it comes to US media treatment of Venezuela.
According to CNN, in the case of Venezuela, terrorists are “political prisoners” and fugitives from justice are “immigrants”.

http://www.zcommunications.org/us-media ... a-golinger


Yah...to think the US media lies or exaggerates when it comes to Chavez...who would ever think that??? huffington post I mean, of course things are not perfect anywhere, but if you want to look at human rights abuses the US is far worse, or even look at the uS's ally in the region, Columbia. And no, I don't believe a word coming from the mouth or pen of the US media regarding Chavez. Why would I?

Err..... I cited the BBC and Amnesty International for the bulk of what I posted, I added Huffington Post because it is a very left leaning website. Nobody needs to exaggerate, with all due respect to "zcommunications" (a leftist "alternative" website), I think it's not unreasonable to rely on Amnesty International, no? Or, are they part of the American media conspiracy too?



I wouldn't believe a word coming from the mouth of Chavez. Why would I?

Just the mere fact that he has assumed the power to unilaterally shut down news outlets is ridiculous. He's a scumbag, and you don't need to believe the "US media" - I love how you laugh at the Huffington Post but ignore the host of articles I linked to through Amnesty and the BBC, neither of which is right wing and neither of which is American. You really seem to be living in a "wish" mentality - you wish that Chavez was Mr. Savior and socialist hero. Give it another few years, and hopefully even you will not be able to continue supporting him. It happened to the Leftists in the 20th century who thought the Soviet Union and China were workers paradises, and that the western media lied about them to make communism look bad.....it'll happen again....

And, I'll leave it to you to present the evidence and sources you have for whatever human rights violations you're asserting.

[Trolldor]

Sandy is 'another one'. Somebody who supports a paradise they've never been to.