Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If any one was curious what Jimmy Carter thought.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:
For some reason Hugo Chavez just has to be a hero or a dire villain. People can't just, you know, see a guy who addressed a number of considerable problems in his country, but did so through political actions that were often very dubious and a threat to the democracy in his own country. Just accept that politics, especially in a country as troubled as Venezuala, produces very complex political figures.

I mean, Hungary is steadily collapsing from a democracy into a one party state, and I've heard not one fething thing about it here from any of the right wingers. But Chavez, oh his abuse of the democratic systems , that bothers you all so very much that you celebrate the man's death.

And at the same time I remember pretty clearly how hypersensitive the left wing was to anything Bush did in office, everything he did other than swinging a golf club was a step towards the collapse of American democracy. But Chavez actually dismantles democratic institutions and he remains a hero.

So... do you want to address how/why he amassed at least 2 billion dollars of personal wealth?

savings jar?

Yea good riddance to bags.

He was a lot better than the regime before him. He was a very good person.

 rockerbikie wrote:
He was a lot better than the regime before him. He was a very good person.

Evidently good to you means arming narcoguerrilas against Colombia.
I'll never forget a bank meeting we went to for an energy company owned by them. The new CEO and CFO didn't speak English, and wore army boots. It was almost laughable.

Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.

But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.

 Frazzled wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
He was a lot better than the regime before him. He was a very good person.

Evidently good to you means arming narcoguerrilas against Colombia.
I'll never forget a bank meeting we went to for an energy company owned by them. The new CEO and CFO didn't speak English, and wore army boots. It was almost laughable.

Columbia is a pretty horrible place. Also, why do you expect others to speak English for you? He rebelled against a corrupt regime.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently good to you means arming narcoguerrilas

Listen, if you want to talk about Ronald Reagan, you really will need to start a different thread.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.

But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.

So... are you saying we can't choose our own friends?

And yes, we're hypocrits... so what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently good to you means arming narcoguerrilas

Listen, if you want to talk about Ronald Reagan, you really will need to start a different thread.

Let's not go there...

He did some good stuff, and he did some bad stuff. Just like the rest of us. In the end, a fellow human completed the journey of life.

Good luck to him, and to those left behind.

 rockerbikie wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
He was a lot better than the regime before him. He was a very good person.

Evidently good to you means arming narcoguerrilas against Colombia.
I'll never forget a bank meeting we went to for an energy company owned by them. The new CEO and CFO didn't speak English, and wore army boots. It was almost laughable.

Columbia is a pretty horrible place. Also, why do you expect others to speak English for you? He rebelled against a corrupt regime.

The CEO and CFO were Venezuelan military, brought in to head a US based company.
Don't bring in the junta's military croniues to a bank meeting.

 Frazzled wrote:


Don't bring in the junta's military croniues to a bank meeting.

Why? Seems like a very good place to start negociations from.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Don't bring in the junta's military croniues to a bank meeting.

Why? Seems like a very good place to start negociations from.

Not if you want to get your deal done with a bunch of US and foriegn banks, and you can't threaten us with machine guns because, again you're in the US.

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.

But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.

So... are you saying we can't choose our own friends?

And yes, we're hypocrits... so what?

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery...

I'd like to remind you all that God does not delight in the death of sinners.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.

But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.

So... are you saying we can't choose our own friends?

And yes, we're hypocrits... so what?

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery...

Didn't say we had problems... just said that we can be hypocrites.

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
I'd like to remind you all that God does not delight in the death of sinners.

Oh contraire, the Great Pasta Being enjoys the boiling of the sinners.

Sturmtruppen wrote:I'd like to remind you all that God does not delight in the death of sinners.

Citation required.

(actually... don't.)

I was talking about him today withthe guys I work with that come from the various South and Central American countries and was surprised by the absolute hate for the manthey have.
A friend from Chile who I have never seen mad about anything fior the 15 years I 've known him became a totaly different person and said he was glad Chavez is burning in hell. I asked him why he hated the man so badly since the news made it seem like he was so well loved. He told me he was there a couple years ago and saw first hand how badly Chavez had screwed up the country to make himself rich and stay in power.
A friend from Puerto Rico who is sympathetic to Castro chuckled about him being dead, which was a real surprise.
These are just a couple of people I talked to, but the spectrum of emotion with the others from down that way pretty much are encompassed between them.
On the other hand, I have a cousin that feels, like her friends that the world has lost a saint.
There doesn't seem much in the way of middle ground that I've observed when it comes to what people feel about the man.

Relapse wrote:
I was talking about him today withthe guys I work with that come from the various South and Central American countries and was surprised by the absolute hate for the manthey have.
A friend from Chile who I have never seen mad about anything fior the 15 years I 've known him became a totaly different person and said he was glad Chavez is burning in hell. I asked him why he hated the man so badly since the news made it seem like he was so well loved. He told me he was there a couple years ago and saw first hand how badly Chavez had screwed up the country to make himself rich and stay in power.
A friend from Puerto Rico who is sympathetic to Castro chuckled about him being dead, which was a real surprise.

Are you aware that Puerto Rico is a part of neither South or Central America, but in fact your Puerto Rican friend is an American citizen from the same country as you?

Anyways, I do see the "no middle ground" thing you guys have been pointing out. I don't get it either. He did some good things, he did some crappy things.

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
I'd like to remind you all that God does not delight in the death of sinners.

As the OP, I'd like to state for the record that I am not God nor do I claim to speak on His behalf. I speak for Bill and Ted - PARTY ON, DUDES!!!

Don't flatter yourself, nobody thought you were

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I was talking about him today withthe guys I work with that come from the various South and Central American countries and was surprised by the absolute hate for the manthey have.
A friend from Chile who I have never seen mad about anything fior the 15 years I 've known him became a totaly different person and said he was glad Chavez is burning in hell. I asked him why he hated the man so badly since the news made it seem like he was so well loved. He told me he was there a couple years ago and saw first hand how badly Chavez had screwed up the country to make himself rich and stay in power.
A friend from Puerto Rico who is sympathetic to Castro chuckled about him being dead, which was a real surprise.

Are you aware that Puerto Rico is a part of neither South or Central America, but in fact your Puerto Rican friend is an American citizen from the same country as you?

Anyways, I do see the "no middle ground" thing you guys have been pointing out. I don't get it either. He did some good things, he did some crappy things.

Easy on son, I'm well aware of that fact since part of my family is Puerto Rican. I just mentioned it because I thought it was interesting since he somewhat likes Castro.

My mother is Puerto Rican (and loves Castro); but I thought the way you segued between the first part to the middle was a little... odd there. No reflection on you specifically was intended, I'm simply continually surprised by how often I encounter people who believe Puerto Rico is a foreign country; so i was wondering it that was the case here.

 Ouze wrote:
My mother is Puerto Rican (and loves Castro); but I thought the way you segued between the first part to the middle was a little... odd there. No reflection on you specifically was intended, I'm simply continually surprised by how often I encounter people who believe Puerto Rico is a foreign country; so i was wondering it that was the case here.

I can see how that would be annoying, especially in light of the election they had on whether or not to go from territory to state.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.

But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.

Well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... are you saying we can't choose our own friends?

Sure you can. And when you pick some absolute monsters, and then moralise about the sins of the guy you didn't pick as an ally, we'll be inclined to laugh at you.

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... are you saying we can't choose our own friends?

Sure you can. And when you pick some absolute monsters, and then moralise about the sins of the guy you didn't pick as an ally, we'll be inclined to laugh at you.

Yep... that's what happened with Saddam/Iraq...

*shrugs*

Back to OP: Will there be real democratic elections? Or is there some Chavez family member jonesing for the job?

 whembly wrote:
Yep... that's what happened with Saddam/Iraq...

Yeah, especially when while doing his worst gak he was your apparently your ally.

Not that this was supposed to be about the hypcrisy of US foreign policy. I mean, that's an old story and not a very interesting one (and seems to be told while ignoring the reality that other countries, relative to their power base, are about as hypocritical).

The point is more that it doesn't make sense to judge the leaders of other countries through the narrow lense of your own politics.

*shrugs*

Back to OP: Will there be real democratic elections? Or is there some Chavez family member jonesing for the job?

His elections have been declared free and fair, that's never been the issue with his rule.

He was a man with noble dreams, he just went about them in a brutal manner. Shame he's dead but unless his successor is a dangerous psychopath bent on world domination this will effect few people outside his own borders.

 whembly wrote:



Back to OP: Will there be real democratic elections? Or is there some Chavez family member jonesing for the job?

I think it said the VP has been named successor or at least is the favourite to become it.

He was a man of great ideals, who sided with the poor of his country and improved their lives. I don't support every action of his but his idealism was something to be applauded.

 djones520 wrote:
...and they don't frequently call my President the Devil.

Not to pick on you, because I respect your opinion on several things, but why should that matter to citizens of the most powerful country in the world?