Chávez deal to aid low-income Londoners

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, back to Chavez, Chavez was the one to implement the Avila plan, which is a military plan in case of incvasion or when the president of Venezuela calls to use violence against demonstrators....

You have just proven two things here:

First - that you did not watch the documentary. Because in this film, you can actually see what was happening on that day, when the cameraman was filming the pro-Chavez gathering infront of presidentdal palace and then the anti-Chavez crowds came there too (which was NOT planned, but was only a provocation to create a confrontation between the two opposing sides on the streets and create chaos). Then suddenly EVERYBODY came under fire from SNIPERS - including the cameraman, who filmed the documentary and including the soldiers, who you claim where shooting at the crowds. And you can see soldiers looking up to the high floors and windows, since everybody was under heavy fire on the streets. And because one in four Venezuelans carry weapons, some started shooting back in the direction of the sniper fire. Of course - the good old PRIVATE TV stations (owned by western intelligence agencies and other private contractors) did montage the footage in such manner, that it looks like the pro-Chavez crowd is shooting at the anti-Chavez crowd - when actually if you check out the bigger picture, they are shooting at an empty street with a sniper hidden somewhere.

Second - that you are not even an inch better then these privatly owned TV stations from Venezuela, who spread anti-Chavez propaganda, which is directed from Washington - as was this coup which failed in the year 2002. Funny how the president became the man, who was once the biggest private contractor for selling Venezuelan oil to United States. A coincidence? I think not.

Anyway - I strongly suggest that you try and watch this documentary. But I think you ego shall not allow you to do that. Just like in the case of Michale Moores SICKO.

[edit on 24/8/07 by Souljah]

It's obvious who's been poisoned by the lies of the media when i read through these posts. Chavez is no worse than Bush or Brown, he's probably more compassionate and knows what his people want. He's standing up against the bullies of the world, and i say fair play my man, somebody has too.

reply to post by paul76


You really should read up on the man he is disliked highly according to a CATO article

Source

Hugo Chavez is rejected by 43% of those polled and approved of by 39%;

Attacks against the U.S. by Chavez are rejected by 75% of participants and approved of by 14%;

To give money away to other countries, as Chavez is doing from the Venezuelan oil largess, received the support of only 9% of those polled, while 87% rejected it;

The pretense of Chavez to re-elect himself indefinitely by modifying the existing constitution is rejected by 63% of those asked and approved of by 19%.

81% of Venezuelans would generally like to see new political leadership in the country.

According to the survey by Hinterlaces, the political style of Hugo Chavez is starting to rub Venezuelans the wrong way, since he is increasingly being perceived as a dictator. A poll conducted by a reputed Chilean company, Latinobarometro, in January 2007, indicated that Venezuelans clearly prefer democracy to any other political system.

So much for the theory he is well liked by his own people.

Thought I would highlight the qualifiers in your piece.

Originally posted by shots
You really should read up on the man he is disliked highly according to a CATO article

Source

Hugo Chavez is rejected by 43% of [color=dark blue]those polled and approved of by 39%;

Attacks against the U.S. by Chavez are rejected by 75% of [color=dark blue]participants and approved of by 14%;

To give money away to other countries, as Chavez is doing from the Venezuelan oil largess, received the support of only 9% [color=dark blue]of those polled, while 87% rejected it;

The pretense of Chavez to re-elect himself indefinitely by modifying the existing constitution is rejected by 63% [color=dark blue]of those asked, and approved of by 19%.

81% of Venezuelans would generally like to see new political leadership in the country.

Did they not poll that last stat, 81%...? Given the majority of Venezuelans live in the Barrios and it was those that Chavez seeks to help most, I find this figure the most ludicrous of all the above spurious stats.

So much for the [color=dark blue]theory, he is well liked by his own people.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Koka]

reply to post by shots

Oh, all of the sudden poll numbers do not lie? How convenient! Anyway, 80% of the population in Venezuela is poor - and all of them support Chavez. That is something you have to bear in mind, when talking about Venezuela. But then again, more then 80% of the world population is poor - I bet they would like to have a Chavez leading their country too.

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by paul76

 

You really should read up on the man he is disliked highly according to a CATO article

Source

Hugo Chavez is rejected by 43% of those polled and approved of by 39%;

Attacks against the U.S. by Chavez are rejected by 75% of participants and approved of by 14%;

To give money away to other countries, as Chavez is doing from the Venezuelan oil largess, received the support of only 9% of those polled, while 87% rejected it;

The pretense of Chavez to re-elect himself indefinitely by modifying the existing constitution is rejected by 63% of those asked and approved of by 19%.

81% of Venezuelans would generally like to see new political leadership in the country.

According to the survey by Hinterlaces, the political style of Hugo Chavez is starting to rub Venezuelans the wrong way, since he is increasingly being perceived as a dictator. A poll conducted by a reputed Chilean company, Latinobarometro, in January 2007, indicated that Venezuelans clearly prefer democracy to any other political system.

So much for the theory he is well liked by his own people.

Lol i suppose it depends on what section of the population there asking. If the people didn't want him, he wouldn't be there. He wouldn't keep winning the vote, it's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Souljah

Oh, all of the sudden poll numbers do not lie? How convenient!

Yes isn't it? However allow me to point out there are always two sides to every story you claim they love him while others claim they do not , that is something you have to live with wither you like it or not.

Chavez rejects the USA and for that reason they want him out of office. The failed coup was an example of the USA and it's elites interfering in Venezuelan interests. They hatched up a plot, tried to replace Chavez with a man that was in the USA's pocket. So in turn they could control the oil. Chavez is doing alot for the poor people, who in the past had no voice or hope. The poor people are happy, they have hope for the first time in there lives. The Rich elite who controlled the oil in the past aren't happy for obvious reasons and are engaging in a propaganda war which basically involves all western media. As I've said in another post, the best comparison is Iran. There is always two sides to a story and I know from past examples that the mainstream media can't always be relied upon to give an honest portrayal of what is going on. If you viewed the Documentary earlier, you would have seen that the common people can't be duped and won't be, That gives me hope for the future.

Originally posted by shots
Yes isn't it? However allow me to point out there are always two sides to every story you claim they love him while others claim they do not , that is something you have to live with wither you like it or not.

I think whatever angle we view this from, we can all agree there are those who love him and those that hate him, I can't think of a country where that doesn't happen.

On a smaller scale, but very much on topic, Ken Livingstone, often referred to as Red Ken due to his socialist stance, is both, much loved and much hated by the populous of London, opposed by those of a corporate or governmental nature and loved by the majority working class.

reply to post by paul76


That video is pure propaganda written and produced by a supporter of Chavez hardly what I would call an unbiased view.

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by paul76

 

That video is pure propaganda written and produced by a supporter of Chavez hardly what I would call an unbiased view.

I'm not just basing all my observations on one video. I actually take a big interest in world politics and I've done some research on Mr Chavez. All I'm saying is Chavez is not the devil he's being portrayed as, he's a down to earth genuine bloke who has his own peoples interests at heart. How many world leaders of the west can you say that about?

reply to post by paul76


Well you can think as you wish about him, but as far as I and others are concerned he is nothing more then a jerk and yes even a devil to some.
Sugar coat him all you will he still comes out tasting like a lemon.

edit to add. If he has his own peoples interest in mind then kindly explain why he is giving cheap oil to others instead of rebuilding his slums as he should?

[edit on 8/25/2007 by shots]

reply to post by shots


I'm just seeing the bigger picture, and as far as I'm concerned the only reason Chavez has so much hostility is because he's doing a bloody good job!! So good he's still in office and still popular with the majority of his people. It takes a big man to stand up to the USA, and Chavez in his peoples eyes is colossal. The rest of South America quietly watch in appreciation.

Originally posted by paul76
The rest of South America quietly watch in appreciation.

Who ae you kidding

Peru's president Bitch Slaps Chavez

I believe he also had some problems with other countries in the region so take your sugar elsewhere it still tastes like lemon

[edit on 8/25/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by paul76

 

That video is pure propaganda written and produced by a supporter of Chavez hardly what I would call an unbiased view.

Maybe you would be so kind as to provide a source for this unbiased statement?

I did a quick search and was unable to find any such claims, although it would matter no differently, and as we all know, there are two sides to every story, sometimes more, or is only one side relevant when it tells the story you want to hear?

I only knew of Chavez through the western media until I delved further to find out what heinous crime this man had committed, these documentaries, tell a story of a corrupt empire, this is the bitter pill that you and others are finding so hard to swallow.

I don't expect anyone here to change their viewpoint, I've only met a couple of people on here who were brave enough to open their eyes on certain subjects, they are few and far between.

Its one thing to be blind, but to hold your eyes tightly shut when you have sight, just foolish.

Originally posted by Koka

Maybe you would be so kind as to provide a source for this unbiased statement?

I got the informatin off one or two sources wiki was one of them. If you have a problem just do a search of his name and supports/support chavez

Wiki Info

reply to post by shots


Ah, you are talking about John Pilger, as you were replying to Paul76 I assumed you were talking about the makers of "The Revolution will not be Televised".

For a greater understanding of: John Pilger, check his home page, not that you'll like anything he says.

reply to post by Koka


I think it goes without saying the documentary was biased just read the synopsis on wiki it portrays him as a hero or whatever you care to call it total fabrication as far as I am concerned .

Hugo Chávez is depicted as a "colorful unpredictable folk hero", beloved by Venezuela's working classes and opposed to "a power structure that would see him deposed". Filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donacha O'Briain were inside the presidential palace on 11 April 2002 when Chávez was deposed and two days later when he returned to power, recording "what was probably history's shortest-lived coup d'état."[1]

Source

I mean how much more does one have to say then that. I will however bring up another point he lied to the people back in the 90s when he was elected they show him making statements promising the people he would use the money from his oil to fix major problems and he never kept those promises typical lying politician.

It also looks like he lied again this time using the same ruse and they fell for it again. He is giving the oil to others at discount rates so he can more or less attempt to buy friends and is doing nothing but attempting to make himself seen as a good guy when he has other motives and those motives would put him in power for life and turn the country into a haven for communists.


[edit on 8/25/2007 by shots]

reply to post by marg6043


According to stat's on the oil reserves (proven) in the area of Alaska wilderness that some want drilled, it amounts in total to about one (1) year of our present oil consumption in America.
Of more interest would be why the Oil-Cartel (like BP and Exon/Mobile) in year 2004 cut oil production about 25%, from these Alaskan reserves then in production.
I can still remember an Alaskin News Service saying in Nov of 1998 that the In'tl oil glut that had Int'l oil prices at $9.46/bbl would prevent cutting oil production by world oil producers. Texas independents were saying they needed $8.00/bbl to break even.
Thank goodness we got involved in Iraq by year 2003, with non-contract (Haliburton) Kellog Brown and Root putting Iraq Oil reserves back into production, dropped the Int'l oil prices from $30.00/bbl down to $76.00/bbl.
I would say the oil that would come out of the Alaska wilderness area would line the pockets of the Int'l Oil Cartel, now known as the Four-Sisters, without effecting energy needs but "a drop in the bucket" for Americans.

reply to post by shots


It is interesting reading some of the PSYOP's that has to be part of the Astroturf (Corp/Gov-PR agencies) being put out about Veneveula and President Chavez.
In the failed attempt to keep Chavez from being elected, the same US-Gov methods were used that actually worked back in 1973 to have the elected President of Chile assassinated, to put in a front named (dictator) Augusto Pinochet. The nation of Chile began Fed-Court trial of this man in 2005 for the atrocities of that period from 1973-1999. Unfortunately the poor guy died before the Chilean Courts could bring in US criminals involved such as Henry Kissinger.
Regardless, the US-Gov sponsered (and US Taxpayer funded) overthrow of Chavez failed, Chavez began putting factories and businesses (closed down in attempt to overthrow him) back into operations, the elite who would not open these businesses Chavez said the gov would open instead and turn the operation over to the laborers.
Chavez then did a very unDemocratic thing, he went to China, and instead of building factories in China using slave labor, Chavez began Trade Agreements giving the Venevuela factories and jobs a push in building Venezuela economy. I am not sure what Chavez knows that US-Corp CEO's who transferred factories and jobs to Communist China... didn't know.
It would appear to be time that some Americans began admitting, we live in a nation whose government is Fascist, as Mousillini in Itally called the marriage of big business with government.