Troops Clash With Venezuelan Protesters

Troops Clash With Venezuelan Protesters

www.breitbart.com

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Soldiers used tear gas, plastic bullets and water cannons to scatter tens of thousands who massed Thursday to protest constitutional reforms that would permit Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely.
Led by university students, protesters chanted "Freedom! Freedom!" and warned that 69 amendments drafted by the Chavista-dominated National Assembly would violate civil liberties and derail democracy.

It was the biggest turnout against Chavez in months, and appeared to revive Venezuela's languid opposition at a time when the president seems as strong as ever.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Here we go. The not so democratically elected leader of Venezuela is at it again. I still don't understand how everyone thinks we here in the US are living in a society repressed by our Government. Just showing up at one of these events is taking your life into your own hands. These people are heroes in my eyes. When we are done in Iraq, maybe we could lend these democracy seeking people a helping hand.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

As much good as I've seen him do down there, he's quickly losing my support. He can't go into an office with all these claims of fairness and reform, than immediately renig because the people are unhappy. Let the people speak, it's how it should be.

reply to post by traderonwallst


you mean like how the US aided the democracy of Nicaragua or Chile?

Chavez may be headed down the wrong path to dictatorship, but US "support" is not what is needed.

Perhaps a coalition of forces from more democratic nations than the US should step in.

reply to post by InSpiteOf


More democratic than the US? OK, now you have me stumped.

reply to post by traderonwallst


How bout the Netherlands?

I know it comes as a shock to you, but democracy is more than just the proceedures of voting. There are some contries who's democratic content far surpasses the US's supposedly pluralistic system. The fact that few if any dissident political theories get no hearing on national TV, and any debate on class power is non-existant should be a red flag to you.

I mean come on, Slobodan Milosovic in the Former Yugoslavia faced more opposition publications than any US leader. And thats not because he was a tyrant, its because the media wasnt hindered by the same constraints that are faced in the US.

As Castro once said "We will allow Capitalists on our radio, when you allow Communists on yours."

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

As Castro once said "We will allow Capitalists on our radio, when you allow Communists on yours."

OK. Fair enough.

We have Air America on the radio in the U.S..

Now Fidel, put up or just shut up.

And now for all those naive enough to think chavez was some kind of saviour for venezuela, welcome to the truth.

It bites when your idealism gets shattered by reality ...

reply to post by centurion1211


Regardless of what he is doing now, Chavez did do good things for the people in the past. Leaders and pundits alike betray the ideologies they say they believe in all the time.

Believing in a political leader is stupid, believing in a political philosophy or idea is smart.

reply to post by InSpiteOf


The last part of my post was in reference to the people that can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong about chavez, even when faced with mounting evidence that he is in fact the opposite of what he says he is. I mean come on, the guy openly wants to be like castro - hardly a democracy poster boy himself.

reply to post by centurion1211


Gotcha, I agree both of them are hardly forces for democracy. But some (limited) good has come from both of their reigns.

The previous system that oppressed the Cubans and Venezuelans was crushed threw revolution and social agitation largely by the people. The hope was to create a system that provided for the people, unfortunately, power politics got involved and th needs of the people go largely ignored.

Hard to be like the Netherlands, when the rest of the world expects you to play police man all the time. Then when you do, your accused of all kinds of attrocities. Trust me, I be the US would love to be left alone. But everytime something happens, the first question is WHERE ARE THE AMERICANS?

We are expected to get involved, if not by one party, by another. Its sucks being the top dog!

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Hard to be like the Netherlands, when the rest of the world expects you to play police man all the time. Then when you do, your accused of all kinds of attrocities. Trust me, I be the US would love to be left alone. But everytime something happens, the first question is WHERE ARE THE AMERICANS?

We are expected to get involved, if not by one party, by another. Its sucks being the top dog!

No one asks US leaders to play an imperialist power. The people of Nicaragua were quite happy with their socialist government untill US leaders sponsored right wing military junta and death sqauds. The people of Chile were cozy with their government until their leader was murdered by CIA proxy forces. No one asked the CIA to sponsor RENAMO in Mozabique (killing 1,000,000 or more people) in order to destabilize the revolutionary but democratic government. Angolans didnt ask US leaders and the CIA to support UNITA and FNLA to destabilize the newly created and democratic but marxist MPLA government. I could go on and on. But hopefully you see the pattern.

US leader dont play world police, they play world bully.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

No one asks US leaders to play an imperialist power. The people of Nicaragua were quite happy with their socialist government untill US leaders sponsored right wing military junta and death sqauds. The people of Chile were cozy with their government until their leader was murdered by CIA proxy forces. No one asked the CIA to sponsor RENAMO in Mozabique (killing 1,000,000 or more people) in order to destabilize the revolutionary but democratic government. Angolans didnt ask US leaders and the CIA to support UNITA and FNLA to destabilize the newly created and democratic but marxist MPLA government. I could go on and on. But hopefully you see the pattern.

US leader dont play world police, they play world bully.

You don't really have a clue as whether any of you wrote is actual fact or not.

But I take most exception to calling the U.S. "imperialist".

The generally accepted definition of "imperialism" (mine as well):

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Your definition of imperialism?

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism according to those of us following Lenin and his book by the title of "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism."

Oh yeah, U.S. foreign policy has historically been thuggish, I should know because I'm an American, but that does not in any way make Hugo Chavez any less of a thug.

Costa Rica is the country we should be admiring in the hemisphere.

Originally posted by centurion1211
You don't really have a clue as whether any of you wrote is actual fact or not.

How do you figure? Theres information about the CIA's involvement with groups like UNITA, RENAMO, and Allende's overthrow all over the net and in publication.

But I take most exception to calling the U.S. "imperialist".

Thats ok, we're allowed to disagree. But from your own source:

or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

It is true that the US dropped the burdens of direct colonial rule years and years ago, but imperial rule still applies. Successive US administrations have persued policies in dozens of countries (especially in South America) that have lead to destabilization of democratically elected governments, in order to stop egalitarian reforms and impose a harsh economic austery apon the citizens. The goal of such actions is to crush those egalitarian reforms and make sure those markets stay open for foreign capital penetration, at the most favorable terms to the investors and corporations.

There is no sure way to do this, but generally a comprador class of leaders is installed, they remain loyal to US leaders and investors (as these are the mainstays of their power.) These comprador leaders initiate regressive policies and crush labour organization and rebellion.

By installing these leaders who provide open markets and labour at liquidation prices US leaders have effectively ensured hegemonic control of the economy and the political climate.

Everyone always bashes the US and then expects us to come save the day ... one day the UN will finally do something about Chavez and once again the world will scream for the US to do something.

We are NOT the only nation with a military, despite popular belief almost all nations have one (even those that claim they dont, really do - ex. Iceland claims they have no military yet they have the Icelandic Defense Force and a Coast Guard as well). Its time for someone else to step up to the plate for once.

Im not critizing US citizens or the soldiers that have to sacrifice themselves and their families. Im critizing the US aministration and its constant foreign policy.

Not once has a US citizen organized a rally demanding more interventions across the world, quite the contrary, they've organized against such interventions.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
There is no sure way to do this, but generally a comprador class of leaders is installed, they remain loyal to US leaders and investors (as these are the mainstays of their power.) These comprador leaders initiate regressive policies and crush labour organization and rebellion.

By installing these leaders who provide open markets and labour at liquidation prices US leaders have effectively ensured hegemonic control of the economy and the political climate.

Your premise would be laughable if it wasn't so naive.

There are so many exceptions to what you just posted that I don't know where to start. OK, I'll give it a try:

Cuba
Phillippines
North African countries
Italy
Belgium
Netherlands
France
Germany
Japan
China

In and for all these countries, we've shed blood and paid big bucks to liberate, rescue, restore their economies, etc. One could hardly say all these countries are now part of some "U.S. hegemony".

OK, OK, I'll give it a try anyway ...

The US goverment to the best of my knolege supports or supported war lords in somalia, this war lords treat people there like slaves and decide who gets food and water and who does not, and of course they kill any one there they please.

The CIA is well known for this kind of tactics, same story with afganistan they suported the people they are virtualy fighting now.

Same with iraq, you can see the curent vice president greating sadam and giving him weapons all this was in the past so they can fight iran.


It's really no surprise to me, the branch of the US goverment was allways corupt, there are no freedom values, only intrests, if they need to swich a free elected president with a dictator in some country they will do it, this with the home of the brave the land of the free is BS

They just let people eat at mecdonalds and talk a bunch of crap, and as long as they do nothing no one is upset talk talk... bud doing something is another story, when people try doing something against the sistem they end up dead or in prison , this si not freedom it;s just an ilusion, your free only when you can make changes.


My favorite quote would be" you know I can talk behind bars about anything as long as I like like, but does this mean I'm free"

Personally, I believe that removing Term limits is a very democratic thing to do... as long as your elections are run fairly. If the people want to elect someone into office over and over, what's the problem? It's their choice. If they don't want him there, vote him out.

Remember, there has been no charge of election rigging against Chavez. Ever. Unlike Bush.

As for the protest turning violent, give me a break. I've been teargassed and injured at a protest and I'm not going to claim that Canada is a dictatorship! Clashes between protesters and police are common, even right here in the west. It's hardly a sign of dictatorship. Most of the time, it is the protesters that cause the violence... and I'm saying this as someone who has been there. Are police not supposed to do anything when they are being pelted with rocks, bottles, and the like? As I say, I've been there chanting slogans and waving signs. I strongly support protest as a form of political action. The fact remains, however, that the police must step in when things get out of hand.

A tyrant doesn't use plastic bullets.
He uses the real thing.

Finally, the comment about "helping these people out after done in Iraq" makes me sick. It's their country. Stay the hell out of their business unless things get seriously out of control AND the people request help. Otherwise, YOU are the tyrant forcing your ideas on others.

And you say you support Democracy?
PULEEZ!
You don't even understand what it means.