Hugo Chavez is a capable and dynamic man. A man who is transforming his country with his Bolivarian revolution. His style of leadership is for us (leftists) a living idol. Obviously the Bush administration is seeing Chavez a treat for their free market economic system. But Chavez and his recently formed party PSUV are strong enough to continue consolidating their Socialist revolution, even though they lost the referendum about the constitutional reforms, they are strong enough to stay and continue their mission. I believe that Chavez has the absolute majority of his country behind him, most of the people that didn’t vote or even voted No, did this to protest against such little tings not because they disagree with the referendum proposals. The PSUV party, who was formed 3 months ago, already has a membership of about 5.8 million people, and that is just after 3 months! Chavez maybe seen too radical or even crazy by some brain washed people, because he called George W. Bush ‘a donkey’ and ‘a drunk’, but if these people think that these sayings are too tough, what do they think about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Chavez has been president of Venezuela since 1998, and he never did any wars against some country. Bush has been president of the US since 2001, and he made two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed thousands of innocent people with the terrorism excuse supporting him! Who is the dangerous leader? I think that Chavez is one of the best leaders in today’s world, his dynamism, his style, his 21st century Socialism concept made him a great leader, a man of the people. I can say in certain, that if I was a Venezuelan citizen, I would be a great supporter of Hugo Chavez!
7 comments:
the terrorism excuse supporting him
Are you implying that 9/11, Al Qaeda, the Baath Party, the Mojahedin, Hamas, Hezbollah and the threat they pose to world security are all excuses?
First of all, why do you think that these 'terrorist' groups are agaisnt US so much? Who knows, maybe because the US always gave their countries a hard time! Esp on the case of Palestine-Israeli conflict. I think that no army can ever destory terrorism, because the terroist is an enemy that one could never know his identity completely, because one will be fighting agaisnt an enemy they wouldn't know. In my opinion, the more you fight agaisnt terrorist groups, the more they become aggressive and violent. I ask you one simple question: Why are these people capable to end their lives if they aren't desperate and angry agaisnt other people? You may answer me because of their fundamental religion but, I mean really Andre, who wants to die and leave his loved ones behind!!!
Don't assume that a terrorist is a rational being. A person who joins a group which flew four airplanes into three civilian buildings looses all that. These individuals are persuaded that by loosing their lives they are given eternal life in heaven. This after all shouldn't be difficult to understand since it is the same rhetoric used by Christians during the crusades.
I can't imagine why you are trying to justify terrorism!
Islamic terrorism has few aims - to destroy Israel, to destroy the western way of life and to establish an Islamic state. Such "ends" are really non-negotiable ends - hence the need for force. 9/11 was a reaction to the "live and let live" attitude adopted by the west for too many years.
I believe that history, and the people who make it, should be viewed as objectively as possible. Allowing strong emotions to cloud rationality does not serve to conduct a proper analysis of events. Furthermore, as stated in previous discussions, it is important to make a distinction between rhetoric and fact. Politicans are experts at waxing beautiful speeches about the most noble concepts, but such words are rarely reflected in everyday practice.
When it comes to analysing suicide bombers, it is very easy to brand them as a group of "crazy" people. Unfortunately, the media barely ever explores the stories behind the countless suicide bombers who have died in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I once read a book about female suicide bombers and it was extremely interesting in shedding light on the socio-economic issues which trigger such behaviour. It is way too easy for us comfortable guys to judge people and events from afar without having first-hand experience of their surroundings! I am not saying that I support suicide bombers; far from it! I am simply asserting that when looking at historical events, one needs to make a distinction between explaining and justifying. I always try to explain.
Talking about Chavez, I believe that he has accomplished many good things for several poor people in Venezuela. I am still not so convinced about his "21st Century Socialism" since it appears to be a repetition of Bernstein's philosophy. Indeed, I had read an article written by Stephen Gowans which stated: "Really-existing socialism of the 20th century – the implicit foil to 21st Century Bernsteinism -- had the advantage of accomplishing deep transformations that materially advanced the human condition, until counter-revolution, celebrating Bernstein’s concepts of freedom and democracy in the abstract, threw the whole machine into reverse gear. 21st Century Socialism, in its 19th and 20th century guises, can lay claim to no such transformations – only minor modifications around the edges, often instigated by the capitalist class and its representatives, but claimed by the reformers as fruits of their own efforts." (http://gowans.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html)
I guess that time as well as an objective analysis will tell us whether Chavez is really succeeding in Venezuela...
Andre: First of all, i would like you to know that i am all out agaisnt terrorism, and i will never justify terrorism. But i am also agaisnt the wars that are hapening in Afganistan and Iraq. I don't know the exact information, but it would also be interesting to know, where most people died, if in 9/11 attacks or in the Afganistan and Iraq wars (whom people are still dying nowadays). I believe that the one and only solution to 'fight' terrorism is to try to understand them and listen to what they have to say and by trying to build trustfull bonds with these people, and this certainly isin't done by trying to destory them. We are all living in the same time and in one world, and we can't make a lough out of these people just because we maybe more civilized then they are.
Red: I think that for us to really understand Chavez's ideology is by time to tell us. But in the meantime i believe that he is leading Venezuela towards Socialism, even with democratic means.
I have studied Latin American story a lot and I believe that these new governments so different to the military dictatorship-extreme right (set up to benefit the oligarchy only) ones are a bit of fresh air.
I am not saying they are perfect but you must understand what Latin America has gone through to see how different and promising governments like Evo Morales, the new Chilean government ( a woman by the way), Venezuela, even Guatemala now, truly are. I hope my country also follows the trend and will decide to put an end to decades of decay and poverty.
What is terrorisismss?
http://sandrovella.org/2008/01/it-tramuntana-fil-kenya.html
Post a Comment