What about Venezuela?

[Switch625]

I'm curious about what people think of the events in Venezuela. How do you feel about the ouster of President Chavez?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Good riddance to bad commie rubbish.
You can always rely upon the armed forces in South America to ensure that this democracy thing isn't taken TOO seriously.
His policies were bad for the country, and he had lost control. So, the military came to him and said "Chavez, all your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive, make your time." or the Spanish equivalent. At least I think they said that, but the recording from the bug was a bit scratchy.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Good riddance to bad commie rubbish.
You can always rely upon the armed forces in South America to ensure that this democracy thing isn't taken TOO seriously.
His policies were bad for the country, and he had lost control. So, the military came to him and said "Chavez, all your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive, make your time." or the Spanish equivalent. At least I think they said that, but the recording from the bug was a bit scratchy.

Cute. What happened to the ZIG?

Anyway, I pretty much agree with you. Chavez is (or was) a power mad flake who thought he was the new Simon Bolivar or something. Bankrolling the FARC guerillas in Columbia, getting chummy with Castro, praising Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein, and being a real pest in general.

He'd still be in power if he hadn't taken a page from the Chinese playbook and tried gunning down a bunch of unarmed protesters. 15 dead and more than 150 injured. A real winner of a human being, that one.

 

[Greadius]

At least he has some place to go for political asylum.

Democracy, nonviolent protest, and capitalism win out again.

Well, hopefully democracy will take a step up next...

Chavez would have been a problem if he would have stayed in long enough to consolidate power. to the Venezuelan people.

Only curiosity I had about the situation... the military appointed a successor? Isn't there a line of succession to the presidency like in most democracies?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm not familiar with the situation, but perhaps his subordinates were just as bad? The fact that the military is not openly creating a new military dictatorship is a very good sign. Let's hope for the best for Venezuala.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
At least he has some place to go for political asylum.

Democracy, nonviolent protest, and capitalism win out again.

Well, hopefully democracy will take a step up next...

Chavez would have been a problem if he would have stayed in long enough to consolidate power.

What the hell are you talking about?
He was democratically elected and being ousted by the military!
How is that a win for Democracy?
It's interesting that Democracy only seems to be favourable as long as non-left candidates are elected.
Maybe he would have done this or that, I don't know, but fact is that he was in his elected term and that should be it. If there's so much opposition they could have impeached him according to how far that is possible in their constitution. A military coup against an elected head of state is hardly a democratic action, and I don't see how someone who calls himself a Democrat can favour that.
It's always the same...

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
You can always rely upon the armed forces in South America to ensure that this democracy thing isn't taken TOO seriously.

Although I don't embrace that as much as Simon it's simply a fact.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Hitro
What the hell are you talking about?
He was democratically elected and being ousted by the military!
How is that a win for Democracy?
It's interesting that Democracy only seems to be favourable as long as non-left candidates are elected.

I think this situation is a little different from the usual latino "golpe," Hitro. The military opposed him for awhile, as did the conservative part of the country. But that said, no one ousted him then. When the military chose to oust him was the other night (was it two nights ago? I was up too late playing civ to remember clearly). It was only after it was clear that Chavez's policy of arming paramilitaries for his own political defence had led to the death of large numbers of peaceful protesters, and that he wasn't backing away from that policy.

I am a hardcore democrat, and I voted "unfortunate but necessary." The reason: militaries exist in democracies in part to defend the constitution. If - as in Chavez's case - there is lots of evidence that the President is using the power of the state to prevent legal opposition to it, who then is the lawbreaker? And who will watch the watchers then? Are you really supposed to wait for impeachment to work in a situation where the President has shot opponents for less?

Provided they stick to their fine promises and high rhetoric, it is actually likely in this case that the actions of the army may have done more to protect Venezualens from dictatorship than silence would have. Elections aren't an absolute license to rule by decree until someone is brave enough to force you into a new election.

This has got me all excited to play Tropico now, but I digress.

R.III

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Hitro

What the hell are you talking about?
He was democratically elected and being ousted by the military!
How is that a win for Democracy?

Pro-Chavez supporters opened fire on people protesting, at the orders of President Chavez. I wouldn't exactly call that "democratic."

Chavez was a constant supporter of Fidel Castro, and, communist or not, no decent government should be supporting the whims of a totalitarian dictator like Castro.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

He believe in military intervention in the government. He had hiself some years ago led a failed military coup against the government. Currently, his private forces had also begun seeking out and murdering political opponents. Apparently his only use for democracy or law was when it benefited his ambitions, and he was willing to discard them whenever they thwarted him. Just another would be tim hat dictator, intercept fortunately before he could do most of his damage.

 

[Hitro]

Your arguments aren't wrong, but they apply to most other so-called democracies as well. The only difference is that usually, when a rather right-wing "President" is in power, the military is on his side. In many countries clashes have taken place where the police and/or military fired on and killed protesters. But does the military then revolt against the President? Of course not.
You say he armed militias in his own defense. Well, obviously he had good reasons for it, didn't he?
As far as I know Chavez did nothing so blatantly unconstitutional that a military coup could be justified. If so many disagree with him as it was claimed (in fact he also has many supporters, who clashed with the police and military after the announcement, also some dead) there must be legal proceedings against him.
I'm not a supporter of Chavez and I have nothing to do with Venezuela. I just dislike this inconsistent view that most in the West have. Just to disagree with some President doesn't justify an armed revolt against him. I disagree with Bush alot but I wouldn't like to see the U.S. Army taking control (not that they' do it, but even theoretically).
If you're against military intervention against a democratic leader you HAVE to be against this. There's no excuse for it. Or you can agree with it but then you shouldn't have the right to say anything against similar cases in other countries.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
The only difference is that usually, when a rather right-wing "President" is in power, the military is on his side.

Chavez was on the fast track to becoming a communist dictator. He consulted with Castro almost daily... if I was in the military, and I knew the history of how communist dictators treat officers, I'd have been worried for my life too.

Originally posted by Hitro
As far as I know Chavez did nothing so blatantly unconstitutional that a military coup could be justified. If so many disagree with him as it was claimed (in fact he also has many supporters, who clashed with the police and military after the announcement, also some dead) there must be legal proceedings against him.

Venezuela isn't an established democracy; those legal proceedings would have been interupted by a power grab.
And it was NOT a military coup, it was a popular uprising. The military is NOT in power, but they supported his ousting. The military didn't organize or conspire the uprising, and didn't force Chavez to order the death of peaceful protestors.

Originally posted by Hitro
I just dislike this inconsistent view that most in the West have. Just to disagree with some President doesn't justify an armed revolt against him.

As far as I know, there has yet to be a Chavez supporter killed or wounded. How is that an armed revolt? The hundreads of thousands of peaceful protestors that forced his fall were not armed.

Originally posted by Hitro
If you're against military intervention against a democratic leader you HAVE to be against this. There's no excuse for it. Or you can agree with it but then you shouldn't have the right to say anything against similar cases in other countries.

It wasn't a military intervention, the military took over to make sure the state didn't dip into anarchy and IMMEDIATELY, INSTANTLY gave power away. When is the last time a military gave power away when they could have easily propped up general ______.
They stood up for the people of Venezuela who peacefully protested the impending dictatorship of Chavez. The Venezuelan military is a model of self control and humility, and the Venezuelan people a model of nonviolent resistance.

Its too bad the people in some other parts in the world can't seem to catch on to that whole benevolent leadership/nonviolent resistance jive, since it works so much better. But then you support their struggle.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Hitro
Your arguments aren't wrong, but they apply to most other so-called democracies as well. The only difference is that usually, when a rather right-wing "President" is in power, the military is on his side. In many countries clashes have taken place where the police and/or military fired on and killed protesters. But does the military then revolt against the President? Of course not.
You say he armed militias in his own defense. Well, obviously he had good reasons for it, didn't he?
As far as I know Chavez did nothing so blatantly unconstitutional that a military coup could be justified. If so many disagree with him as it was claimed (in fact he also has many supporters, who clashed with the police and military after the announcement, also some dead) there must be legal proceedings against him.
I'm not a supporter of Chavez and I have nothing to do with Venezuela. I just dislike this inconsistent view that most in the West have. Just to disagree with some President doesn't justify an armed revolt against him. I disagree with Bush alot but I wouldn't like to see the U.S. Army taking control (not that they' do it, but even theoretically).
If you're against military intervention against a democratic leader you HAVE to be against this. There's no excuse for it. Or you can agree with it but then you shouldn't have the right to say anything against similar cases in other countries.

Well, I judge each case by its merits, and I would have been just as happy to see temporary coups by whatever force - police, churches, parent-teacher associations, etc. - against right-wing authoritarians as left wing, if those right wingers crossed the line.

I actually was unusually careless about following events in Venezuela, so it's not fair to insist that I, at least, want him overthrown because he's left wing or right wing or defence of goalie or whatever. I had no clue. When I saw the reports about (a) the shootings and (b) the suspension of independent media broadcasts by Mr. Chavez, I thought, hey, that sounds like a great excuse to me, cause that's what south american caudillos in the making do. If the government I work for in Ontario did the same thing, I would be the first - literally - to march down the street to the armory and knock the rotten bastards over. And when I saw the military toss Chavez out and promise all sorts of fine things, I though, good on them. Put it in perspective, like I said. The moment an elected official starts to (a) take the law into his own hands, as arming a paramilitary is, and (b) suspending TV broadcasts, that's it. He's no democrat no more. Put him in the same cell as Pinochet, as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, as far as creating militias for his own political defence, maybe I was being too charitable with my language. I was talking about arming political murderers to advance the views of the ruling clique. So, to look at this your way, the regime in El Salvador was right to arm paramiliaries for their own defence because, after all, those nasty guerrillas who were trying to end the dictatorship were trying to overthrow them?

R.III

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Richard III
So, to look at this your way, the regime in El Salvador was right to arm paramiliaries for their own defence because, after all, those nasty guerrillas who were trying to end the dictatorship were trying to overthrow them?

Notice the in my last post, from THEIR point it makes sense.
But interesting that you mention it. Exchange the 'El Salvador' with a 'Columbia' in your quote and you have a nice description of the current situation there. Of course the FARC are using methods no democratically minded person can approve, but the government supports (and arms) militias to oppress any resistance. No you ask where's the connection? It's in the western viewpoint. We (especially the US) support Columbia for their 'great effort in the war on drugs', despite they're doing all the things you guys disliked about Chavez, and they are definetely and without question doing this for years, while Chavez was only accused of it. That's the double standard I hate, that doesn't mean I support either Chavez or Columbia.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
We (especially the US) support Columbia for their 'great effort in the war on drugs', despite they're doing all the things you guys disliked about Chavez, and they are definetely and without question doing this for years, while Chavez was only accused of it. That's the double standard I hate, that doesn't mean I support either Chavez or Columbia.

If you look at it from THAT viewpoint it does look inconsistant, but highly impractical.
Foreign policy by the U.S. has always had a base in what is practical, instead of consistancy; since there is very little global consistancy and rules that bind by previous decisions would be completely debilitating.

To put it simply, Columbia plays by our rules, and Venezuela didn't. That is why nobody on this side of the equater is particularly upset about Chavez's ouster.

And I checked into WHY the military rebelled: Chavez ORDERED them to shoot at the protestors and they REFUSED. If they had followed orders, we would have had a slaughter in Venezuela... instead they 'usurped a democratically elected leader' and saved a country from anarchy and murder.

 

[Richard III]

Well Hitro, that's one of the few reasons why I consider myself a Canadian second and not just a-through-and-through British Columbian. I had serious issues with that policy in Chile, Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and so on. Nicaragua was botched, and while the Sandinistas were pigs, the Contras were ditto. See, I can wave the maple leaf, and I don't have to justify the inconsistencies of US foreign policy. All I have to do is justify the inconsistencies of Canadian foreign policy, which is much easier. But in general, I agree - FARC sucks, the oligarchy in Salvador sucked, and Chavz was just evolving into a left-peronist version on the theme.

But on the face of it, this is not an idealogically motivated coup. Like I said, if it had been, it would have happened a long time ago.

R.III

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
And I checked into WHY the military rebelled: Chavez ORDERED them to shoot at the protestors and they REFUSED. If they had followed orders, we would have had a slaughter in Venezuela... instead they 'usurped a democratically elected leader' and saved a country from anarchy and murder.

Greadius, that is what they claim. How can you or I know if that's true? I mean, you don't expect them to say 'we're powerhungry enemies of democracy' as a justification, even if that should be true?
And usually the military in that region is not very hesitant about shooting at protesters, as long as it serves their goals.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
Greadius, that is what they claim. How can you or I know if that's true? I mean, you don't expect them to say 'we're powerhungry enemies of democracy' as a justification, even if that should be true?

Well how can you know if ANYTHING that doesn't happen infront of you is true? Sheesh...
All things being equal, I tend to believe those who don't murder protestors.
And like I said before, the military didn't take power.