Hugo Chavez and the CIA?

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Well ,i saw a documentary yesterday on dutch telivision that really the story that well ,i almost got sentimental by it.He is a very popular leader ,especially among the general poppulation.Some month's ago ,he was disposed of the presidency by a millitary coup ,though the opposition towards this coup imposed by the poppulation was so overwhelming that the millitary eventually had to give in.Though there is ,and always been ,great suspicion that te CIA was activly involved ,if not the starters in the whole coup itself.

Chavez want's to nationalize the Venezualen Oil industry.Venezuela is the 5th biggest supplier of oil in the world.This would directly hit the American company's having interrests in the Venezuelan oil industry.

Would the U.S dare to stage a coup in Venezuela just for it's oil interrests?

An American (granted probably leftist) newspaper on the matter:
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0414.html

Another article ,Independant new-Zealand press:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0204/S00059.htm

In anyway ,i just got such respect for this man and the Venezuelan people ,that small period of transition in the Coup just showed the hunger of the Venezuelan people for real democracy in there country.

 

[mazzz]

WHAT ABOUT THIS!?!?!?!?!?

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Well ,Berlusconi has been with Saddam multiple times before ,and you don't see the CIA trying to overthrow the Italian gouverment don't you?
It's not an argument because so many country's ,including the U.S have had diplomatic talk's an agreement with Iraq and Saddam.

The point is ,do you think that the CIA has been actively involved in staging an anti-democratic revolution in Venezuela?

 

[mazzz]

good point

 

[Cecasander]

yeah, the mustard and nerve gas the western countries sold him

 

[jack merchant]

Probably . Even if they weren't, though, the official American reaction to the coup was damaging enough. Chávez was democratically elected by a large majority, and even if he shared a car with Saddam (what is the background behind that picture anyway), that doesn't make him a dictator. There are also pictures of Rumsfeld on a friendly visit to Saddam during Gulf War I (Iran-Iraq).

edit: sorry, I didn't see the above post while composing this one

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I bring's up thought's about the current Iraq crisis though.IF the U.S would have been activly involved for trying to get regime change in Venezuela to protect their interrests in the Venezuelan oil industry ,what would be the underlying reason then for pressing for regime change in iraq?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

If the US were interested in war for oil, we would have been in Venezuela months ago, where we get many time the oil that we get from Iraq. And where the Country is split about 50-50 in highly polerized pro and anti Chavez factions. Much of the anti Chavez sentiment comes from pro democracy forces, becasue of his increasing ly autocratic regime, attempt suppresion of the courts, attempt to supress media and other free speech, harrasing and murder of political opponents, rewriting the constituion to increse his power and extend his term, nor has Chavez ever been a champion of democracy, having led his own failed military coup about 15 years ago.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

If the US were interested in war for oil, we would have been in Venezuela months ago, where we get many time the oil that we get from Iraq. And where the Country is split about 50-50 in highly polerized pro and anti Chavez factions.

Iraq has much more oil reserve's than venezuela ,and in a lot of the Iraqi desert's isn't even searched for oil yet where many think it's probably full of it.
And Venezuela is more like split 80% pro Chavez then 50-50.

And it would have been way more impossible for the U.S to justify an all out war against venezuela than against Iraq ,given iraq's previous agression's.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The USA goverment had no part in the coup against Chavez, after he was arrested the officers involved ask for USA support and were denied, with the USA saying we do not like Chavez, and will be happy if he is replaced, but you guys are on your own. If the USA had supported the coup to any extent it would have been won at that point.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

The USA goverment had no part in the coup against Chavez, after he was arrest the officers involved ask for USA support and were denied, with the USA saying we do not like Chavez, and will be happy if he is replaced, but you guys are on your own.

That is an argument where the opposite can't be proven 100% ,and the rest of my argument's are depending on this fact.Yet most country's and press around the world see it as Most likely that the CIA was involved.

A quote from the N.Z article:

At the present time, whether there is evidence or not, there is not a political person in Latin America who doesn't believe that the CIA played some kind of role in the short-lived ouster of Venezuela's President Chavez. This assumption was strengthened by the National Security Advisor and White House Press Secretary's comments that Chavez brought the coup on himself and which in no way condemned the extra-constitutional termination of a democratically-elected president . So much for the White House's drive on promoting democracy in the region.

The line in Bold raises some suspicion ,and also detere's the U.S justification for a war against Iraq with the goal to get rid of a un-democratic leader.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
And Venezuela is more like split 80% pro Chavez then 50-50.

Bull, nearly half the unionized working class support the strikes against Chavez, and he has got nearly none of the middle class or upper class. He has so little influence with the union labor that he is threatening with TREASON charges fo r their striking.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Bull, nearly half the unionized working class support the strikes against Chavez, and he has got nearly none of the middle class or upper class. He has so little influence with the union labor that he is threatening with TREASON charges fo r their striking.

Granted that argument ,but those people arn't 50% of the Venezuelan poppulation ,Most venezelan's are poor class.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The is ZERO evidence of any contact of consultation by the coup menbers with any part of the USA goverment before the coup. It is nothing but biased assumption and rumor, with no fact to support it, not even made up ones in thoses articles.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

The is ZERO evidence of any contact of consultation by the coup menbers with any part of the USA goverment before the coup. It is nothing but biased assumption and rumor, with no fact to support it, not even made up ones in thoses articles.

I'm not stating there is proof on that matter ,i said that before ,so youre argument is perfectly viable.I just created this thread to discuss the assumption's of so many Press organization's and politician's around the world.Though the line that i put in bold some previous posts ago review's that officially the U.S never condemed the ousting of a democraticly eleted leader ,wich create's some suspicion.It also deterres the U.S argument of millitary action in iraq to oust an un-democratic leader.

Given the secrecy nature of the CIA ,could one ever proof it's action's with 100% certainty?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Far from proof , there is no evidence. And why should we comdomn the removal of leader who although once democraticly elected was assiduously suppressing democratic instituions and usurping powers from the courts and legislature, leanthening his own term while in office, threatening judges who rule against him, attacking all opposition media, using violence and intimdation against all oponents, having political hit squads murdering opponents. Usuing all the traditional means of setting up a dictatorship. Once a democrat (for a small phase of his carreer, in between his attempted coup against a fully democratic administration, and his current authoritatian consolidation) does not make he a democrat today.

 

[lord_byron_nz]

I've suspected CIA involvment in this since it happened. Like DoF says though, it can never be proven. But it would be consistent with similar US moves in Latin America.

The recent strike was much more of a lockout as well. The majority of people who stopped the oil industry etc. where the bosses and supervisors rather than the actual workers. It's possible also that the US was involved somehow in organising this.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

And why should we comdomn the removal of leader who although once democraticly elected was assiduously suppressing democratic instituions and usurping powers from the courts and legislature, leanthening his own term while in office, threatening judges who rule against him, attacking all opposition media, using violence and intimdation against all oponents, having political hit squads murdering opponents. Usuing all the traditional means of setting up a dictatorship.

Now if you gonna put this forward as an argument ,then i expect proof on it.
Withought evidence ,this argument won't stand.Especially considering that an millitary coup would certainly havn't brought a democratic rule neither ,au contraire a millitary coup would have only worsened the situation ,even if you consider Chavez not all that democratic.

quote from NZ article:

If President Chavez had done damage to his country by contributing to a divisive political atmosphere, he must be condemned for it. But it also must be recognized that he made a substantial contribution to his country by adhering much closer to the democratic rules of the game than his political predecessors and would-be successors, , who talked a good line, but misused the decades in which they ruled Venezuela. During his presidency, Chavez acted as the people's tribune, challenging the vested interests in a society notorious for its insidious corruption at every plateau of public life, in which he has never been tainted.

edit: added the last quote.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Chavez has been much less democratic politically than his predecessors, the quote above is likely using 'democracy' in the sense of "social democracy" (redistribution of weath) rather than political freedom. I do not suppose you have paid much attention to Venezuela until recently.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Chavez has been much less democratic politically than his predecessors, the quote above is likely using 'democracy' in the sense of "social democracy" (redistribution of weath) rather than political freedom.

I see "social democracy" as the actual best form of democracy ,and think it automaticly grant's more political freedom for ALL classes ,rather than giving more political potential to certain classes.
I understand youre argument ,given youre American background ,though i gennerally see the American system more as intellectual or financial technocracy rather than true democracy ,yet this is just an oppinion.Eventually democracy mean's that "the people decide's" (demos cratien ,or the people rule) ,where the people are most of the time's the poor and middle classes.In america people tend to think more that one must create his own "freedom" with the intellectual potential he has ,while in europe people think more that people of any intelectual backgroud (so even the stupid) should have right on basic economical equality.

yet the argument that i was wanting to make is that there wouldn't have been a more democratic alternative for Chavez.A president that would have more supported the rich classes and the "middle class" (wich is in comparison to venezuela's general poppulation still pretty rich) more ,would have eventually not givin enough support to the poor classes who still are the majority of the Venezuelan people ,and thus would have been less democratic than Chavez ,who would have supported the biggest poppulation group and thus wo would have ben the most democratic.

Remember ,social democracy has nothing to do with Communism.If the majority of a country's poppulation feel's that the Country's wealth should be devided more equally ,then it's a democratic move for a president to follow those wishes ,and it would be un-democratic to not to.