Right alongside Mugabe, Arap Moi, Galtieri and every other money grubbing, power mad third world jackass who has ever taken advantage of their population’s right to a fair, just and prosperous society. The difference with Bush? Context only, if Bush were president of Venezuela I am betting he would look a lot like Chavez.
Chavez is just another demagogue who is going to run his country into the ground just like Mugabe. And just like Mugabe he will increasingly blame the former colonial powers for the results of his kleptocracy, anti democratic policies and gross economic mismanagement.
He is right in one respect of course, the US and UK order the world to their liking having adapted the British Empire’s method of using corporations to do the dirty work backed by State power, we just do it more subtly now. Bush being a notable exception, not being capable of subtlety. Of course, given that most populations are ridiculously stupid and that their only real care is cheap consumer goods and a decent sized discretionary income, Bush, Chavez, and Co. are not required to be particularly subtle.
I am a liberal libertarian, but after my trip to Cameroon in January of 2005 my ideas about how to lift the third world out of poverty have radically changed.
One just cannot grasp the depth and breadth of corruption by western standards until one travels there. The poverty makes EVERYONE into completely corrupt thieves.
My knew solution for the third world? Draw the curtains and let them go through the centuries of blood shed, warfare, poverty and epidemics that Europe and the USA required to settle things down. Venezuela, you are next.
Certainly stop sending them money of any kind. They have to die and kill in wholesale lots, that is just the way it is. We are certainly not going to graft any version of western civilization on them. And lets face it, Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur/Sudan, Ethiopia/Somalia, Yugoslavia. What the hell have we achieved for all our billions. Our efforts are always after the fact, and the cost of our help comes with our own corrupt strings attached. What is more, most of our aid ends up in the pockets of the kleptocracy. Or, like the Bush AIDS initiative, which required that 2/3 of the 15 billion pledged be spent on abstinence programs, our aid is so tied up with conditions designed to satisfy western “needs” that what little does trickle down is largely useless.
For instance to send aid to the now starving people of Zimbabwe agencies must purchase the local currency through the central bank at the official exchange rate, which is less than one tenth of that on the black market. The result, the central bank effectively pockets over ninety percent of any aid sent to Zimbabwe, and before a single bribe has been paid to get food or medicine to those who need it.
Once one of the great economic powers in Africa Zimbabwe is now a starving beggar, with an estimated 3 million economic refugees having left a country of only 12 million citizens: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=3451.
As soon as the oil price drops and president for life Chavez has had twenty years to screw things up Venezuela will be in exactly the same place Zimbabwe is in now.
Of course if America, Britain, et al were not such unprincipled assholes with respect to foreign policy shitheads like Chavez and Mugabe would never stand a chance of getting elected in the first place, or prove so popular for taking anti western stances with their populations. An easy way to stir up the locals and gain popularity and at the same time shift blame to foreigners.
Herman Goering said it best: Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Obviously George Bush does read something, and likely the same things Chavez does.
Hahahahaha.
Oh yeh, I forgot, millions are dying.
[QUOTE=casdave]
OK then, so what about the gross inadequacies and injustices of his regime ?
Does he kidnap and imprison and torture foreign nationals and deny it all like the fictitious Guantanamo torture or the ficticious ‘rendition’ ? For all I know he does, proof please.
Is his regime any more inadequate or unjust than any other that preceded his, or is pretty much par for the area - or is he substantially worse than his predecessors or neighbours ?
Given some of the competition he has in South American nations, including US supported ones, he has some low standards to keep down to - is he any worse than them?
All I ever seem to see is lots of hyperbole about how bad, evil and terrible Chavez is, but with precious few facts.
It may be that he is not the worst, or the best, but somehow he has gained the support of his populace, why did that happen, could it be that others before him hoarded the nations wealth for a small elite and he made promises (which doubtless he didn’t keep - in common with most politicians)
You made an assertion that his regime is grossly inadequate and unjust, ok then, you have your audience, its time to put it up there.
[/QUOTE]