Montrealxxxtase
Montreal Escorts

Hugo Chavez R.I.P. (1954-2013)

RobinX

Member
Aug 30, 2009
452
0
16
Montreal
cloudsurf said:
Venezuela is now an economic mess and the poor will be in worst condition than when he took power.

Cosmo said:
Chavez was a dictator who emprisonned his own people.

Hugo Chavez was a punk Dictator, who stole property from people who did nothing to him. People who praise Chavez are dishonest.

To those who are obviously struggling to understand Chavez's legacy and why he is so revered by the poor of Venuzuela, here is an excellent article that appeared in the Boston Globe that sheds considerable light on the question:
Boston Globe: What Chavez meant to the poor

Here are some powerful extracts from the article:

... in death, as in life, Hugo Chavez challenges a basic assumption that the United States has long made about Latin America. For more than a century, that vast region has represented a venue for the free market — a place from which to draw resources and to which to sell products. Across eras of dictators, revolutions, juntas, death squads, trade treaties, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and, lately, democratic socialism, Washington has been unflagging in an aggressive protection of its own economic interests. And even as political structures have evolved, as North-South relations have periodically shifted, and as blatant imperialism gave way to subtler neoliberalism, the underlying character of Yankee dominance has never changed.

For the United States, it was all too easy to dismiss Hugo Chavez as a throwback; his anti-US denunciations echoed other self-styled populists such as Fidel Castro or Daniel Ortega, the long-time Sandinista leader and current president of Nicaragua. And Washington could smugly note how Latin revolutionaries have been consistently corrupted by power, betraying those who gave it to them.

Yet underneath the hateful rhetoric and broken politics of the region lies a basic condition to which the United States has always been blind, but which people of the South can never forget. That condition is mass poverty.

“I bring food to the hungry,” the Brazilian cleric Dom Helder Camara famously said, “and they call me a saint. I ask why there are so many hungry, and they call me a communist.” Known as the “archbishop of the poor,” Camara was a prophet of liberation theology, the left-leaning Catholic movement from which Hugo Chavez took inspiration. The Venezuelan leader began by asking Camara’s question. That is why millions of poor people recognize Chavez as theirs, and why there was so much open grief in the streets of Caracas last week.

Over time, Chavez moved from being an idealistic firebrand advocating for the poor, to being a force for the their empowerment, to becoming perceived as the latest reduction to the absurd of socialist self-importance. Across roughly the same period, liberation theology itself went from being the inspiration of millions to a broadly discredited disappointment. Denounced as Marxist, a source of class conflict, unfair to the affluent, too obsessed with material matters, and condescending to the pieties and values of poor people themselves, liberation theology was rejected by establishment Catholicism and marginalized. Chavez and his Christian ideology were alike in falling short and being denigrated.

The failure of ideals can seem inevitable when huge percentages of an entire continent’s population live in hopelessness and deprivation, which no politics or social program can ever seem to improve. Especially when both free-market economics and traditional, otherworldly theology are proudly indifferent to such grinding conditions, the willful North American blindness to the plight of the poor can seem justified.

But that is wrong. “The poor person does not exist as an inescapable fact of destiny,” said Gustavo Gutierrez, the founder of liberation theology. “His or her existence is not politically neutral, and it is not ethically innocent. The poor are a by-product of a system in which we live and for which we are responsible . . . Hence the poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order.” Neither Chavez’s excesses nor, now, his death can disprove what he was right about: the need to grapple with the horrors of mass poverty.
 

Cosmo

Active Member
Jul 3, 2005
1,010
21
38
57
west-island
So i guess you're saying that most world leaders, including Obama & Harper, are dictators.

I dont remember any of those emprisonning their own peoples for political reasons!
Chaves closed down TV stations who refused to show is neverending propaganda speeches.Neither Harper nor Obama did it.
 

Doc Holliday

Female body inspector
Sep 27, 2003
19,942
1,405
113
Canada

Do you include Stalin and Hitler in that group? Why not they all ordered the murder from tens of thousands to millions of people?

The answer to your questions is no, i do not include Joe Stallin & Hitler to that group. Are you saying that Chavez belongs with those murderers? This would be absolutely preposterous!

On another note, if not for Josef Stallin, we all might be speaking German today. He was once one of our greatest allies during WWII.

As for Adolf Hitler, he did a lot of good for his people (and Germany) in his first few years in power, but his ambitions eventually led to the destruction of his country & the murder of millions of people. Heck, even American hero Charles Lindbergh flew over to Germany to meet him once & came back to America raving about him. However, Hitler to this day remains one of the most evil persons in world history.

But that's another story....
 

Doc Holliday

Female body inspector
Sep 27, 2003
19,942
1,405
113
Canada
I dont remember any of those emprisonning their own peoples for political reasons!

Really now. That's quite interesting. Not only have American presidents imprisonned some of their own for political reasons, but they also ordered the killing of some. And this includes the current American President.

However, that's another story.
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,111
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Hello all,

On another note, if not for Josef Stallin, we all might be speaking German today. He was once one of our greatest allies during WWII.

Either side of this statement is true only in the most narrow way. Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union and keeping the Soviet Union in the war was absolutely critical to beating the Germans. Since it was his decision to do so...well...there's where most credit for him ends. But for exactly the same reasons one could equally say: because of his incompetent choices we came very close to speaking German today.

In the Soviet Army purge of 1937-39, Stalin had 90% of the top commanders eliminated, and many lower officers were also purged. The purge shocked the army into near total inability to operate through epidemic fear of acting without direct orders.

Stalin was so pathologically suspicious of anyone he refused to believe the information from his spy network "Red Orchestra" and his top spy Richard Sorge that the Germans would attack in June 1941. Sorge's date for the attack was supposedly just 2 days off. The disaster for the Red Army in the early months of the attack was so bad at one point Stalin thought he was about to be arrested by his closet cohorts and shot. The Red Army lost so much equipment that for a time they were dependent on American materials and weapons to fight on. If Hitler hadn't paused the main German force and redirected the spearhead to surround Kiev in August and September 1941, instead of going straight for Moscow, Stalin's manic paranoia and incompetence would have lost his country to the Germans. Had Stalin not let General Zhukov take control of the Moscow front in October (while also benefiting from a sudden blizzard) the Soviet Union would have been lost and millions of Germans would have been free to go against the Western Allies.

The only thing great about him was the depth of his inhuman brutality, right up to sacrificing his own son when offered by the Germans for an exchange. The film "Enemy at the Gates" accurately depicts Stalin's savagery when his NKVD army units shot their own men trying to run from being slaughtered by the Germans.

As for Adolf Hitler, he did a lot of good for his people...

Yes, by imposing de facto Marshall Law by declaring a constant state of emergency after the infamous Reichstag Fire of February 27, 1933 as he and his thugs set-up to seize permanent control just 4 weeks after becoming Chancellor, seizing all German rights, disenfranchising Jewish citizens and other minorities, forcing everyone into or to be raised on Nazi Principles in every aspect of life, learning, and thinking, while inflicting a constant state of fear...in effect controlling all Germans like one immense well cared for sheep herd to be used as the Nazis might require.

Good one Doc!!! :rolleyes:

Heck, even American hero Charles Lindbergh flew over to Germany to meet him once & came back to America raving about him.

Lindbergh accomplished a then great feat, but it said nothing about his philosophical beliefs. Not only was he a sympathizer with Hitler, he was also involved in the racist theories of eugenics where he approved of the work of a Swedish scientist on developing a hierarchy of races. AMAZINGLY ...taa daa ...the scientist discovered Swedes were most superior. Who could have guessed the outcome. :lol:

On Chavez:

The more I read about him the more he fits the mold of the dictatorial cult figure. Yes, the basic standard of living seems to have improved for many people, but the cost was far too much power in one person and his close clique. While he's certainly not the monster of a Hitler or Stalin, the level of authoritarian control and loss of rights has many of the same governing style earmarks.

phooey Hugo,

Merlot
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
What's wrong with worshipping Castro, Mao, Lenin, Bolivar & Mussolini?

Mao Ze Dong led the most murderous regimes in the history of man. From 1958 to 1962, 45 Million died at the hands of the Red Chinese regime. As for the others in your list, they have blood on their hands. This is what you worship - murderous thugs, including Chavez. Got no respect for you, Doc, if that is what you worship.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
 

cloudsurf

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2003
4,914
2,172
113
Doc is having a Big Bird moment with these bird brain comments of his.
I must admit though that some birds like crows and parrots are among the smartest animals on earth....just not Big Bird.
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,111
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Cloudsurf,

The thread starter should send this to SNL. So much of it looks like a gag, if it wasn't also so sad with anti-American bile. Has it been one of DHs' chain-yanking jokes all along?

Saltydog. :thumb:

To RobinX:

I'm not part of that knee-jerking, demagogic, hyper-pseudo-patriotic, communist-baiting myopics who regurgitate Fox news crowd. Fact: Chavez methods are not the kind that instill positive self-reliance, social growth, or self-sustaining democracy. They are dictatorial, creating a dependency society relying on benevolent (if lucky) strong men while risking a habit of absolutism...based on what I've read so far.

As I've said, I praise those who buck U.S. leveraging that hurts their interests to follow a POSITIVE independent path. France for instance. But to make enemies unnecessarily to where it does more harm than good...STUPID!

Cheers,

Merlot

BTW...I want to thank the mods for not restricting responses as in the usual memorial threads and allowing opposing opinions here.
 

SamKlemmons

Banned
Jul 31, 2011
244
0
0
He was a tin pot dictator.

To liken him to Castro is ridiculous...he was not even fit to shine Castro's shoes.

His main claim to fame was that he was not blindly pro-American.

For that he was bad-mouthed and dragged through the mud.

If he had been America's man, nobody would have paid any attention to him.
 

Doc Holliday

Female body inspector
Sep 27, 2003
19,942
1,405
113
Canada
Mao Ze Dong led the most murderous regimes in the history of man. From 1958 to 1962, 45 Million died at the hands of the Red Chinese regime. As for the others in your list, they have blood on their hands. This is what you worship - murderous thugs, including Chavez. Got no respect for you, Doc, if that is what you worship.

My little buddy!! ;)

My words should not be taken out of context. Of course, it's very easy to twist my words around in order to serve those who disagree with me. In regards that the people i mentionned previously all have blood on their hands, i won't comment on this other than asking you to name a leader (and former leaders) who truly has no blood on his/her hands. The current U.S. President, whom i admire, also has blood on his hands. Witness to this are all the innocent foreign civilians murdered or maimed by bombs dropped onto them by U.S. drones.

The current Canadian PM also has blood on his hands. When he entered Canada into the Afghan War, it resulted in hundreds of brave Canadian soldiers murdered or crippled by IUD & battle wounds. To this day, i'm firm in my belief that Canada had no business going to Afghanistan & i hold Stephen Harper responsible for the death & maiming of so many brave Canadian soliders in that shit hole of a country.

As for Mao Tse-Tung, the great leader of Red China, there is no need for me to say anything other than to give you this:

Guess who liked Mao?

My question to you is: "If Hugo Chavez is a murderous thug, as you've stated, shouldn't Stephen Harper, Barak O'Bama, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair & dozens of others not also fit the description of a murderous thug?"
 

Doc Holliday

Female body inspector
Sep 27, 2003
19,942
1,405
113
Canada
He was a tin pot dictator.

To liken him to Castro is ridiculous...he was not even fit to shine Castro's shoes.

His main claim to fame was that he was not blindly pro-American.

For that he was bad-mouthed and dragged through the mud.

If he had been America's man, nobody would have paid any attention to him.

Amen to that.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
My little buddy!! ;)

My words should not be taken out of context. Of course, it's very easy to twist my words around in order to serve those who disagree with me. In regards that the people i mentionned previously all have blood on their hands, i won't comment on this other than asking you to name a leader (and former leaders) who truly has no blood on his/her hands. The current U.S. President, whom i admire, also has blood on his hands. Witness to this are all the innocent foreign civilians murdered or maimed by bombs dropped onto them by U.S. drones.

The current Canadian PM also has blood on his hands. When he entered Canada into the Afghan War, it resulted in hundreds of brave Canadian soldiers murdered or crippled by IUD & battle wounds. To this day, i'm firm in my belief that Canada had no business going to Afghanistan & i hold Stephen Harper responsible for the death & maiming of so many brave Canadian soliders in that shit hole of a country.

As for Mao Tse-Tung, the great leader of Red China, there is no need for me to say anything other than to give you this:

Guess who liked Mao?

My question to you is: "If Hugo Chavez is a murderous thug, as you've stated, shouldn't Stephen Harper, Barak O'Bama, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair & dozens of others not also fit the description of a murderous thug?"

I am twisting your words?????

What's wrong with worshipping Castro, Mao, Lenin, Bolivar & Mussolini? I believe they all did good things for their countrymen once they respectively got control of their countries. Was Cuba really better off before Castro when it was literally run by a corrupt king (who was also a dictator) who slept with the mafia? Many Canadians & Europeans flock to Cuba every winter.....aren't they somehow worshipping Castro & his communist government by giving him their money by travelling there? As for Mussolini, he did very good things for Italy before he entered WWII.

You live in an alternate world, Doc. It's not reality, even to the things you said only a day ago. Read it. I never twisted any of your words. It's exactly what you have said.

Harper, O'Bama (so far, yet he has said he has authority to attack Americans on US soil until Rand Paul pressed the Obama Administration on it in Congress), Bush, Cheney, and Blair never imprisoned his own people for political opposition. Chavez did.

About Nixon: China had and still has the largest population in the world, about 1/4 of the world's population. Nixon was attempting to open China as a market. Although it's been 40 years since Nixon's visit, China has not become a large market for the US. However, China's wealth has increased considerably. It's people have moved out of the rice fields and probably with India, will become an economic powerhouse in the next 40 years. Nixon actually moved China away from Communism towards Capitalism. It is still state controlled or strongly state influenced, but people have had more freedom in controlling their own destinies and starting their own enterprises. You can thank Nixon for that.
 

Joe.t

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2003
3,875
310
83
Le Chabrol, Saint - Jacques
Visit site
Biggest war criminals of the 21st century, George Bush and Dick Cheney, thanks for the link Doc.

Hugo Chavez, he certainly wasn't perfect but he was the greatest leader that Venezuela has ever had, did much more for his country than any of the previous leaders and much more than that US supported murdering punk Pinochet did for his, here is his fantastic resume, notice the tab that it's listed under.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html
 

Doc Holliday

Female body inspector
Sep 27, 2003
19,942
1,405
113
Canada
This is worthy of mention:

Ten years ago tonight, an American President told a lie in order to send fellow Americans off to die in another country.

God bless these brave young men & women whose lives were sacrificed because of a lie.

Shameful!!!
 

Octavian

New Member
May 31, 2008
234
0
0
Lying is part of the American culture.


http://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-launched-vietnam-war/










Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf — a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."

An exhaustive new book, The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. In an interview, author Tom Wells told us that American media "described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely `tit for tat' — when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North."

Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"

Daniel Hallin's classic book The "Uncensored War" observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account [of Tonkin Gulf events]; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."

What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."

In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam — sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

The rest is tragic history.

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
 

Doc Holliday

Female body inspector
Sep 27, 2003
19,942
1,405
113
Canada
Very good post, Octavian.

I first heard of the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident from former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura during an interview. Oh, how it reminded me so much of the b.s. WMD fabrication by the George W. Bush administration ten years ago.

By the way, Sydney Schanberg was portrayed by Sam Waterston in the great movie "The Killing Fields", which was nominated for many Oscars & won three of them back in 1985.

Speaking of lies & liars, did anyone catch Crazy Michele Bachmann's recent 'performance' at the CPAC conference & how she got caught several times lying about facts in regards to President Obama? Did you catch her running away from questions hurled at her from the CNN reporter yesterday? She looked like a deer caught in the headlights! Hillarious!

Oh Michele, you've become such a clown.....what would we have for entertainment if you weren't around to entertain us every couple of months or so? :D
 

Red October

New Member
Mar 26, 2013
12
0
0
Gas prices have not dropped since he croaked, so all that noise he was making was all BS. He did nothing for his people except ride the oil prices and say see what I did for you.
 
Toronto Escorts