Venezuelan opposition march

[El León]

Surely even you get irony?
When you dismiss logic, I feel tempted to dismiss logic with you. But that takes us into "long live death lane" (it's a historical reference from your country, so you should know it better than me).

Please read your recent post and see if you can tell me what the faulty argument is, according to the non-communist, conservatibe rules of logic-

Do you understand what I'm trying to say or do you want me to explain it? Can you say it in your own words? The offer is sincere.

And I'm sorry to be so annoying, but I am dying of curiosity, and it is really relevant to this discussion:

Fez, do you realize why Fezzing is wrong? And whay do you think of Efraín Rios-Montt?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by El Leon
Surely even you get irony?
When you dismiss logic, I feel tempted to dismiss logic with you. But that takes us into "long live death lane" (it's a historical reference from your country, so you should know it better than me).

Please read your recent post and see if you can tell me what the faulty argument is, according to the non-communist, conservatibe rules of logic-

Do you understand what I'm trying to say or do you want me to explain it? Can you say it in your own words? The offer is sincere.

And I'm sorry to be so annoying, but I am dying of curiosity, and it is really relevant to this discussion:

I am not explaining anything to you. Now or ever. You dismiss whatever I say even if I backed it up.

Take that damn question and flush it down the toliet. I don't want to see it.

[El León]

Re-read the whole thread, and I have not dismissed anything of what you have said. I only said it was conjecture, and I'm trying to help you engage in a constructive, intelligent discussion. It seems like you are feeling a little bit challenged and angry right now, so I will stop asking.
If you don't explain things, you make yourself look like you cannot explain things, which makes you look silly.

Please don't be offensive to me, I am not trying to attack you personally.

[Giancarlo]

I am not talking to you and refuse to answer whatever you say.

You are attacking me personally... whatever fun you are finding out of this, I think it is sick. Now back off.

[El León]

AAAnyway,

'm curious to why people think chávez is close to a dictatorial solution... what are the arguments?

Are there any news sources on the militias?

[Giancarlo]

I am ignoring whatever you say Leon, infact you earned a place on my ignore list.

So anyways... The Economist on the Venezuela:

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1501967

Venezuela's Supreme Court has provisionally backed President Hugo Chavez in his struggle to end a general strike. But the economy continues to suffer VENEZUELA'S Supreme Court has made a provisional ruling in support of Hugo Chavez, the country's embattled president, but his opponents have vowed to continue with a general strike now in its third week. This will cause further damage to the economy. The stoppage, called in the hope of ousting Mr Chavez, has practically halted exports of Venezuelan oil; as a result, an increasing number of the country's firms face the prospect of losing business and market share. International oil prices are being nudged higher by the uncertainty caused by the strike. And as rival groups of demonstrators clash in the streets of Caracas, the capital, there is an increasing risk of bloodshed.

On December 19th, the Supreme Court ordered officials at Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the national oil company, to return to work and guarantee supplies of oil. But the leaders of striking employees said they would continue the stoppage. “What are they going to do? Put us all in prison? The strike continues,” said one. Earlier, the Supreme Court had decided in a separate ruling that Mr Chavez must return control of Caracas's police to Alfredo Pena, the capital's mayor and an opponent of the president. Mr Chavez shrugged off this setback, vowing to defend his “revolution”. In a typically rambling speech, he told a crowd of supporters that he would purge PDVSA of those he described as a “coup-plotting oil elite”.

So far, such talk has done little to get the country back to work. Earlier this week, Sidor, Venezuela's largest steelmaker, said it had been forced to halt production because of a shortage of gas caused by the strike. Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana, the country's only producer of alumina, suspended output for the same reason. Dozens of other firms are in a similar plight. Production of crude oil, on which the country's livelihood depends, has been reduced to a mere 15% of its normal levels. Refining has more or less ground to a halt in Paraguana and El Palito, where 70% of the country’s oil is processed. Little or no petrol or fuel oil is being distributed. Queues for petrol are lengthening. Flights are also being disrupted.

Instead of quelling the strikes, Mr Chavez’s misguided attempts to restore order and keep the country’s oil flowing have simply fanned the flames of unrest. Earlier this week, the president ordered army commandos to storm an oil tanker and arrest its crew. Although a handful of tankers have so far managed to break the strike, another 40 or so are still lying idle at anchor. This is blocking the Orinoco river’s navigation canal, causing problems for industry further upstream. It is not just oil that is being held up. Other export goods are piling up in Venezuela’s ports because ships are unable to leave.

So far at least, Mr Chavez has enjoyed the backing of the army. In a message to the nation at the beginning of the week, General Julio Garcia Montoya, a senior army officer, condemned the strike as “sabotage against Venezuela's principal source of wealth”. He pledged the army's support for Mr Chavez's efforts to counter the protest, accusing the strikers of trying to “kidnap Christmas”. The general's words were undoubtedly a boost for Mr Chavez, himself a former paratroop officer. But he is far from home and dry.

Mr Chavez has made a difficult situation worse by trying to break the strike. On December 18th he issued a decree authorising the armed forces to commandeer any ships, trucks or planes they needed in order to transport urgent supplies. Opponents described the decision as an attack on private property. As happened in April, when Mr Chavez—the country’s democratically elected president—was briefly deposed by the army before being reinstated, crowds loyal to the president have surrounded television stations in the capital and other cities, protesting about their anti-Chavez coverage. In reply, thousands of Venezuelans opposed to what they regard as Mr Chavez's despotic rule have taken to the streets after dark, clanging pots and pans in a noisy protest.

Elected initially in 1998 and then under a new constitution in 2000, Mr Chavez considers he has a mandate for change. Even though he has fudged the opportunity and allowed many in the country to become poorer, he is still backed by one Venezuelan in four (which is more than any single leader of the fractious opposition). His current term as president lasts until 2006, but the constitution allows for a referendum in August 2003 on his progress to date. That is too late for many in the opposition: they want elections in the spring. On December 17th, America's State Department said that “a solution must be found quickly to avoid further polarisation that could erupt into violence.” On the same day, the British government warned its citizens not to travel to Venezuela unless they had to and urged those already in the country to avoid the street demonstrations.

Indeed, as the strike goes on, there is an increasing threat of violence. Some 2,000-3,000 members of the Bolivarian Circles, a grassroots organisation set up by Mr Chavez, are said to have weapons and are ready to use them. Since October, moderates on both sides have been pushing for some sort of vote or referendum before the summer. The Organisation of American States has called on Venezuela to find “a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution” but neither side has yet shown a willingness to compromise.

Even if the strike were called off today, it could be nearly a week before the flow of oil is up to full strength again. In the meantime, the shortages will continue to build up and the economy will suffer. The government is already trying to cope with a sinking currency, rising inflation and a severe recession. During the nine months to the end of September, the economy shrank by 6.4%. Economists reckon the decline could be close to 10% for the full year. Unemployment is 17% and rising.

On December 19th, the country's National Assembly authorised just over $2 billion in emergency aid for PDVSA, but at its current rate of losses this is unlikely to last for long. Mr Chavez has little room for manoeuvre. He has already persuaded the central bank to take steps that could stoke inflation. If prices start rising out of control, then even the one in four Venezuelans who would currently give him their vote may be tempted to roll the dice.

That is probably the most credible source on the internet.

READ BOLDED SECTION.

[Kontiki]

I still think this is particularly interesting:

But what would happen to people who hijacked an oil tanker from Exxon-Mobil in the United States? They would be facing a trial and a long prison sentence. Military officers who stood outside the White House and called for the overthrow of the government (and this just six months after a military coup supported by a foreign power) would end up in Guantanamo facing a secret military tribunal for terrorism.

It's kind of hard to argue this. Why is Chavez held to such a different standard?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I still think this is particularly interesting:



It's kind of hard to argue this. Why is Chavez held to such a different standard?

Because a strike this large (population percentage wise) has never occured in the US so violently.

[Kontiki]

No, but there have certainly been instances where the US government has used lethal force to stop protests (Kent state, etc) and they weren't accused of being a dictatorship.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, that was a Ohio National Guard (at Kent) thus the Ohio government, not the US government.

[El León]

Some 2,000-3,000 members of the Bolivarian Circles, a grassroots organisation set up by Mr Chavez, are said to have weapons and are ready to use them.

I don't doubt that they are armed, even if the source seems tentative ("are said"), but if I were Chávez, I would be an to only arm such a small section of the population.

Anyway, someone please remind me of why he is a dictator? For the oil tanker thing?

Nobody accused the governor of Ohio of being a dictator, either. And threatening to militarize the docks to pressure a union into settling with management would seem very dictatorial in any case. I don't see Chávez using his powers except to protect the economy... If he really wanted to clamp down on opposition... Well, try Chile in 1973.

[JCG]

Originally posted by El Leon
but if I were Chávez, I would be an to only arm such a small section of the population.

Thank goodness you are not Chávez.

[chequita guevara]

Yep, I'd arm the whole population. Then let's see those elitists try and bring down the government.

[JCG]

Now that sounds like a mighty good way to conjure up a rev.....err civil war, doesn't it?

Funny, and I thought some people would rather arm the whole population to bring down other governments....but yet they'd complain when those other governments arm their own population.

Interesting...

[El León]

Ok, for a third time and competing for a from me,

Why is Chávez a dictator again?

Why should he be deposed at all costs?