Cites as provided by Dictatorofthemonth.com (thougth I’d get a funny out first…), a cite of Amnesty Int’ls opinion about Chavez, a cite of the same opinion, from a source other than NewsMax, Amnesty International…again… Human rights watch seems to agree, as does the World Movement for Democracy.
I hope these are enough.
Perhaps, give me some time to chew them over.
Because that 400 tons were used on legitimate military targets. As opposed to civilians on busses. In resturants. On streetcorners. In shopping malls. In the Underground (oh…wait…Bagdhad doesn’t have a subway).
Also, there’s the issue of just how much explosive 800,000 pounds in bombs is. A single F-15E can carry 8 GBU-10 “Paveway II” munitions. Those are 2,000 pounders. Or, 1 ton. A single F-117A carries a pair of those same 2,000 pounders. A single B-2A carries sixteen of them. All told, 400 tons isn’t a hell of a lot of munitions expended, especially for a two day air campaign. And, mind you, it would have been fairly easy to pack that same amount of explosives into only 16 B-52’s, bombed neighborhoods indescriminantly, and really shocked the fuck out of someone. But, as that’s not an efficient way of defeating an enemy’s C3, it wouldn’t have worked.
The only people listening to Belafonte are rightwing kneejerkers. I don’t know any intelligent people (read: liberals) who take him seriously. He only represents Clothahump’s imaginary liberal boogyman, not any real-world liberals. Jon Stewart played the clip and his audience–a pretty liberal bunch–erupted in derisive hoots. Liberals are laughing at him, hump; only rightwing wackos take him seriously enough to be offended.
But there’s nothing about legitimate targets in the definition quoted, right? We may say that definition isn’t a good one, but Zoe’s presentation jives with it. I also seem to remember that insurgents who were attacking our forces (not civilian targets) when we invaded Iraq were called terrorists by our government. And an invading army would definitely be a valid military target, right?
My thoughts on the OP:
A link to an article really isn’t a topic. Based on past postings, I think we can assume what Clothahump’s opinion’s would be on this subject but he really should offer some commentary along with the link.
Chavez was elected. If Venezuela wants to have a socialist government that’s their decision and they’ll live with the consequences, good and bad.
The United States does not equal George Bush and George Bush does not equal the United States. You can have opinions about one and have different opinions about the other. Conservatives have to accept that liberals feel about George Bush the same way they felt about Bill Clinton - they don’t like him being President of the country but they still like the country he’s President of.
President Bush has done some silly things and he’s done some stupid things and he’s done some wrong things and he’s done some criminal things. But, all that aside, he’s not a terrorist. It seems foolish to condemn Bush for something he’s innocent of when there’s many more relevant things to condemn him for.
Harry Belafonte is just a singer. His opinion only matters to you if you let it matter to you.
These articles seem to have two themes:
Certainly, the Chavez government has given Amnesty and HRW plenty to criticize, but it’s also important to look at the situation in context. We’re talking about harsh reactions to opposition violence, and overzealous prosecution of people working to overthrow the government. Still, these things do not make a dictator. You will find similar concerns from Amnesty and HRW regarding the actions of democratic governments practically any time there’s a WTO or G8 Summit and their attendant protestors.
Look at the players: Chavez is democratically elected. His policies have the popular support of the Venezuelan people. The “human rights groups” we’re talking about are working to overthrow that government in support of ex-president Carlos Andres Perez, and are financially supported by foreign interests.
Perez has gone on record advocating a violent overthrow of the Chavez government, dissolution of the courts, and an indeterminate period of actual, literal dictatorial rule – maybe “five years or so.” He says Chavez needs to “die a dog’s death.”
Venezuela is as fucked up as it is right now because it’s been in the hands of self-interested plutocrats for decades. Chavez’s popularity is based on his stated goal of getting past the corruption that has resulted in Venezuela’s considerable resources being exploited without significant benefit Venezuelans in the main. His new oil policy is strengthening the economy.
The people on the shitty end of this New Deal are a few Fat Bastard Venezuelan oil execs (whom nobody gives a rat’s ass about) and multinational corporations who’d grown used to getting a great deal with a bit of well-placed graft. Now the oil money is flowing into goverment coffers, where it’s being converted into a wide array of new social programs aimed at lifting the majority of Venezuelans out of the abject poverty in which they live: Education, job-training, small business loans, health care, farm programs, housing, transit infrastructure. Stuff like that.
This is very good for Venezuela. It’s not so good for the most powerful lobby in Washington.
This is why Chavez is a no-good dirty dictator when viewed from the North, and there’s little light thrown on his opposition’s goals, or their entirely serendipitous accord with the best interests of those who don’t have to actually live in Venezuela.
I hate to get dirtied up with relativism, but it’s kind of inevitable when you’re talking about Venezuela. I wouldn’t vote for a Hugo Chavez in the upcoming Canadian election – but his goverment is the best thing Venezuela’s had for a long time. Which is why people, you know, voted for him – and why he continues to poll well.
If his policies don’t pan out, and the public gets disillusioned with him, they’ll vote for someone else. Republics are awesome that way.
If you Righties care so much about what Amnesty has to say, I’m sure this is because America has a spotless AI report card, right?
Right?
Right!
Finn, magellan, over here!
It’s backpedalling, not backpeddling. 
Although backpeddling has interesting connotations.
Mang, if I come up with a similar list of cites from similar organizations criticizing current US human rights activities, will you concede that W. is a dictator? If not, why ought I accept that Chavez is a dictator from your list of cites?
“Dictator” is a word with a specific meaning. That meaning is not “very bad man.”
Daniel
That’s a pretty edited quote that we can’t see the context nor the entirety of.
I’m still stuck on this bullshit OP. If the article speaks for itself, it didn’t even require a POST, let alone its own THREAD.
Clothahump, you’ve posted a couple more times in this thread to elaborate or expand upon your OP. Couldn’t you have made a couple of those points in your OP instead of forcing your OPs readers to go to another site just to find out what the fuck you’re talking about?
There have been some interesting discussions in this thread, but I’d say they’re in SPITE of your uninformative OP, rather than because of it.
Meanwhile, I just wish our news services would go back to reporting news, rather than Hollywood gossip disguised as news. Why do I know more about what Harry Belafonte thinks of our foreign policy than most of our federal government - all branches? Does he have more clout with the general public because he’s an entertainer? Do we just feel pity for his daughter Shari’s unproductive acting career? Was it his famous appearance on “The Muppet Show?” Does Chavez watch “The Muppet Show?” Does Bush? Is HE setting his foreign policy with help from The Gospel According to Gonzo?
It would appear that the article doesn’t speak for itself. It barely raises its hand and coughs for attention until a few people with severe cranial-rectal inversion start yelling and pointing at it.
IMHO, It’s more like, “I’m a has been celebrity and this is the only way I can draw any attention to myself”
Beautifully put
Either way, I’m finding it hard to get my blood pressure up over it.
He was an active support of Martin Luther King, so yes.
Boy does this some up the specific **Belafonte ** issue nicely. I completely agree and I saw the Jon Stewart piece also.
Bullshit: It was a war that was declared base on false information that the admin supplied itself but not an act of terrorism. If we accept your definition then the difference between war and terrorism disappear. You can claim it was an unjust war, but stretching that to terrorism is an unfair use of the word terrorism.
If you want to call Bush a stupid jerk, please do so, I will even chorus in with you. But Operation Shock and Awe was not an act of terrorism.
Jim
Cite? I’d really like to see your train of thought that leads you to make a statement like that.
In the first place, that is not what I said. Your statement is totally incorrect. If I were a liberal, I’d be screaming about how you were lying, but I’m not, so I won’t.
In the second place, I’m not concerned in the slightest about how Belafonte came to hold any belief whatsoever. What does concern me is his actions. You claim he is an “intelligent, thoughtful person”. Why would an “intelligent, thoughtful person” have done something as stupid and shameful as he did?
And how was it “stupid and shameful” again?
Let’s go over the facts, as stated by Windchill, that you so easily missed.
Bush does something shameful and stupid. Also, harmful.
A pop-singer calls him on it. Somewhere, a person assumes that the pop-singers remarks are caused by blind hate, and not in reaction to actual actions taken by Bush.
Which is shameful? The free speech, which only improves the world’s image of America, or the blindness to truth?