Thread: Chavez moves on

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

....looks like he should have taken some lessons from his deceased S. American buddy in Chile who got too big for his pants as well. Ended up on the receiving end of some Israeli-piloted F-16 heat-seekers!

Are you referring to Allende?

The democratically elected leader who was overthrown by the CIA to install a dictatorship by Gen. Pinochet?

The very same.
And, who was going to nationalize Anaconda Copper and other multinational companies in much the same manner Chavez is taking over Big Oil etc.

Originally Posted by Milkman313116

The democratically elected leader who was overthrown by the CIA to install a dictatorship by Gen. Pinochet?

Boon Me:

The very same.

And, who was going to nationalize Anaconda Copper and other multinational companies in much the same manner Chavez is taking over Big Oil etc.

As Attaboy said, Allende did indeed national the copper industry.

And Pinochet did not privatize it when he took power.

The point for is: the U.S. overthrew a democratically elected foreign government because of its economic interests.

Originally Posted by attaboy

After 17 years of rule, in a referendum whether Pinochet should stay in office the people voted Pinochet out and he stepped down. During his rule he ended the hyperinflation brought about by the mismanagement of Marxist ruler Allende who in 3 years of administering ruined the Chilean economy.

You make it sound as if Pinochet was a capable 'manager' and good guy adhering to democratic principles.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by attaboy

After 17 years of rule, in a referendum whether Pinochet should stay in office the people voted Pinochet out and he stepped down. During his rule he ended the hyperinflation brought about by the mismanagement of Marxist ruler Allende who in 3 years of administering ruined the Chilean economy.

You make it sound as if Pinochet was a capable 'manager' and good guy adhering to democratic principles.

and unlike certain other countries across the Atlantic, Pinochet was an open supporter of Britain during the falklands war.

P.S. Hugo Chavez rocks.

^^Please note I wrote Pinochet ruled while I wrote Allende administered. I acknowledged the difference by which they came about their position. Pinochet did offer the people a choice and he did leave. And who knows maybe he was just a stooge for the capable managers of the CIA.

When the CIA says jump, people don't reflexively ask, "How high?"
Ya know cloak and dagger stuff is very dangerous so most suggestions are followed by a "I'll see what I can do." They urged their Chilean contacts to have the outgoing president pull some political manuveuring to block Allende gaining power and it didn't happen. So I wonder how much influence the CIA and their cash had on people.

We all know commies have got to go. Once they get in how do you vote them out?

I don't know why Pinochet was so popular. You'll have to ask the ladies.






I know. I know. Most of them are old but they remember the misery of Allende.

As for the "Chavez Moves" thread here indeed, Chavez appears to be moving on. Here's an article about the recent shutting down of a TV station that had been operation in Venezuela for 53 years. We still don't know all of the details, if there are anymore:

Venezuelans march against closure of TV station

Sat May 26, 2007 2:33PM EDT

By Brian Ellsworth
CARACAS (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Venezuelan protesters marched on Saturday to the Caracas headquarters of an anti-government television station, which is being forced off the air after President Hugo Chavez's administration refused to renew its broadcasting license.

Waving flags with the logo of RCTV, demonstrators packed the streets of the capital where news anchors and soap opera stars slammed the imminent closure of the opposition channel.
"What is happening here is simply the silencing of a television station," shouted soap opera actress Gledys Ibarra.

The government is not renewing RCTV's license after 53 years on the air because of accusations that the broadcaster participated in a bungled 2002 coup against Chavez, incited violent demonstrations and aired immoral programming.

On Friday Venezuela's top court ordered the military to seize control of some of the TV station's installations and equipment in a show of force that included mobilization of anti-riot vehicles to prevent protests from turning violent.


Critics condemned the closure for silencing an influential opposition voice and called the move evidence that Chavez's self-styled socialist revolution is concentrating power and muzzling the opposition.

Late on Friday a group of demonstrators shouting pro-Chavez slogans spray-painted the headquarters of news channel Globovision, the country's last openly anti-government station, which Chavez has also threatened to take off the air for its critical coverage.

Link & Entire: Venezuelans march against closure of TV station | International | Reuters

Originally Posted by stroller

Hitler was quite popular with the ladies, too.

Another great ruler who improved the economy and reduced unemployment. Kept the commies out as well!

History has shown them to be different. Pinochet didn't believe his neighbors needed him. Please understand I don't have a portrait of Augusto that I kiss.

"Minority groups cannot go against the will of the majority of the Venezuelan people to create uncertainty in the case of RCTV's license," Defense Minister Raul Baduel told state news agency ABN on Friday.

Back on topic:

Here are videos of demonstrations against Chavez closing down that channel, the most popular tv station in Venezuela, one that has been on the airwaves for 53 years: .

Chavez and Thaksin have some similarities....

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Chavez didn't shut down RCTV, its licence expired and the government, with good reason, refused to grant a new one. RCTV incited violence during the coup attempt of 2002 and faked footage of atrocities and deaths in order to encourage more violence. Their whinges about press freedom ring a little hollow after that. Don't forget that Chavez could have shut them down anytime he wanted, instead he waited until their licence expired and a renewal was refused because RCTV had broken its contract with the Venezuelan government. That contract stated that the TV must abide by Venezuelan law, encouraging a coup against a legally elected president is illegal and a breach of their contract. I understand the even in the USA, land of free speech and cheap guns, that it's an offense to advocate murdering the president.

Anybody who thinks this is an issue of free speech really needs to see The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) by a documentary team from Irelands national television station RTE who were in Venezuela at the time of the coup - it shows exactly what this TV station did and why, in my opinion, it should have been shut down at the time. I think Chavez showed far more restraint under the circumstances than most leaders would have done and while there may have been a certain tinge of revenge in the refusal to renew the licence it was, at least, all done legally. The US govt's whinings about free speech and censorship are just another manifestation of the lies and hypocrisy spewed by a group of people who care nothing about freedom, democracy, or justice.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107
Venezuela's RCTV: Sine Die and Good Riddance
We should back Chávez | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited
Letter: Television's role in the coup against Chávez | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited
Is Free Speech Really at Stake? Venezuela and RCTV
Venezuela’s press power, by Maurice Lemoine
Pro and Con Demonstrations Over Venezuelan TV Station’s Demise
Worldandnation: Media accused in failed coup

DrBob,

Thanks so much for the additional info, and it's great to see you back on the board.

More on Chavez's thugocracy's crackdown on free speech. If you like Fidel Castro you'll love Hugo Chavez. Has the left ever met a commie dictator it didn't swoon over?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Has the left ever met a commie dictator it didn't swoon over?

Ever heard of Joseph Stalin, for example?
Google the name!

And what about the license of that violence inciting TV station not being renewed.
Has this got anything to do with 'freespeech'.
Does 'freespeech' in the US include the broadcasting of support for a coup abainst the US government?

The Venezuelan oil belongs to the Venezuelan people, i.e. the state, that's always been so, if that's what you're referring to?

I already mentioned the influence of Spanish law in respect to public utilities and services, Chavez is not outside of Venezuelan history or established practises in the area with that.

Boon Mee, whatever the rights and wrongs of Chavez' government and policies may be your support of a bunch of thugs and liars only because they are against him just weakens your argument. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is just an empty cliche, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a lowdown, thieving, murderous scumbag who deserves everything he gets. If you, and others, really have an argument against Chavez don't cheapen it by mindlessly supporting the anti-Chavez thugs in Venezuela. If you are genuinely opposed to him you should be able to support your position without also having to support thieves, liars, and murderers.

I don't see how any self respecting liberal can support Chavez when he doesn't condone free speech.

I sure wish GWB would shut down CNN though and maybe accidentally bomb BBC ... after all it would be keeping with the trend to bomb friendly British targets.

Come on Dr Bob ... you can't be serious.

Why don't you respond to the arguments instead of blabbering about liberals and Bush?

Chavez's opposition should be held to a higher standard than are Chavez and his vigilante groups. That's only fair because Chavez runs the government.

His opposition should be grateful that he didn't crush them. He just extinguished their means to communicate. So Chavez the magnanimous is no saint yet it is immoral to oppose his strangling of dissent with anything less than saintly means.