Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
When was Castro elected? Like I said bruh - ERRONEOUS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/1/newsid_2479000/2479867.stm

Castro didn't come to power via any election. He came to power via armed struggle and stayed there. He said he'd have elections at first but always pushed it back. Clearly Chavez has not duplicated any of the actions of the persons you posted and that list is pretty incindiary considering some of those guys killed millions of people.






Initially? The only reason he is in power is because of his being democratically elected in fair elections right? How can you claim he is a dictator/war criminal to be if he isn't doing anything undemocratic? Hardly a moot point since elections aren't abolished, he hasn't blown up parliament or had a kristallnacht or setup a congress of soviets.




wtf? Terrible leap. What nations do not reshape their laws to suit themselves? I'm not familiar with such static systems. What evidence do you have to backup your claims about his Hitleresque thirst for power? Youre wylin out. Break it down if you have proof otherwise how can anyone take shit like that seriously? :lol: You sure you arent talking about Pol Pot instead of Hugo Chavez?



You are beating a dead horse imo because you are still discussing it and you aren't the first person to forward this argument about a power grab. Your friend(sarcasm) GW and his folks often say the same shit about him.




When did Chavez suspend the constitution???????????? That's a newsflash I surely missed.
You have some links for that? Google draws a blank. How did he slip that one by?

Hold up. If he suspended the constitution why would he pursue changing laws democratically? Doesn't make sense. In his buckwild thirst for power wouldnt he just do what he wants since his Hitler like dictator mentality would pretty much control him right?

:lol:

Like I said Khaddaffi. He's not the first indigenous leader to nationalize resources after the removal of colonial rulers or their descendants.




Im not saying he can do no wrong. I dont like Khadaffi and he literally is the South American Khadaffi down the line except he didnt come to power in a coup because he failed in that attempt.
Im sure he does plenty of shit I couldnt stomach morally. It goes with the job. He's attempting to rebuild his nation after centuries of colonial oppression- thats a dirty fucked up job. He's a better leader than anyone I see in office in my country so maybe thats why my standards are lower ;)

He may be all the things you say, but you merely saying it is so does not make it so. I could easily see him grabbing all power if he was confronted militarily by the US or faced with some other great threat so I dont think youre nuts in your analysis. I just dont see the majority of his nation worse off under his bullshit oppression(if it manifests itself) than I do under the old style.

Man..I'm glad you put that sarcasm on that Bush shit... I would likely drown that mofo right over here in the Black Sea in Turkey:lol::lol:


I didn't say Chavez "suspended" the constitution. I said he is attempting to modify their constitution for his own political game. I didn't say he pulled a Mushariff.


I also didn't say that he IS a dictator. What I did say is that Chavez is promoting policy and taking steps to become an absolute ruler..he is slowly consolidating power solely into his hands. That is a huge difference between what you said I said.

I called him a caterpillar that is looking to become a butterfly. He has not sprung from the cocoon.. but he damn sure looks like he is going to start a metamorphoses.

Most of the shit you said I said in this post I didn't say..so I'm not going to address is line by line.

I said that Chavez is laying the groundwork to become an absolute ruler...didn't say he was one yet.

The correlation between him and other dictators was not a correlation in terms of being tyrants... it was a correlation between the slow progression to absolutism...and their policies have much in common with that Chavez is promoting...

You guys keeping making the mistake of extrapolating things that I never even typed. I did not in any way compare the behavior of Chavez and Hitler or Lenin, etc.

What I did say is that there were steps they have all taken on their road to absolute power..Chavez is taking many of those same steps. I have a problem with concentrated power..you know that Makk... I have NEVER called dude a TYRANT... an absolute ruler and a tyrant are mutually exclusive... one MAY be the other...but to be an absolute ruler does not presuppose that you are a tyrant...just many of them just happen to be.

The problem is absolutism..period...and Chavez is definitely on a power grab in Venezuela...I can't even imagine his proponents denying that..
 
Last edited:

kimchifunk

Potential Star
Registered
Exactly. Are you getting the point.... the Germans voted for all those ratifications that Hitler made until they unknowingly surrendered their country over to a dictator.

This is the sentiment of an "apologist".. did Hitler hold a gun to the head of the germans...the guns didn't come out until after they surrendered their power.

no jackass. the fucking reichstag was blown up (a la wtc) to create the environment that facilitated that. you keep leaving this part out. one second you say "false flag doesn't matter because we are talking about one particular leader" as if these events unfold in some vacuum, the next second you compare him to hitler whose unchecked power was directly tied to a false flag event. fear and paranoia was the gun pointed at the german peoples' head. do you think the german people voted on storm troopers? hitler was able to silence the opposition from the reichstag fires. do you get it now?

There are checks and balances there NOW...however, if his legislations continues to pass...the checks and balances will continue to exist...

so one second a majority vote for an elected official is not necessarily the best option because it can yield an oppressive leader, but checks and balances from elected officials influenced by outside interests are any less oppressive? you are talking in circles and don't even realize it. think dude. you are taking an imaginary set of ideals and imposing them on the reality of another people. you are not fooling anyone.

let me be clear, democracy works until the elected officials become influenced by money. then democracy becomes a guise for an oligarchy or nepotism. in that instance, it is debatable whether democracy is best for the people. a dictator, whether you want to include monarchy or not, just might be the best solution for a state until it disintegrates into nepotism.

he is now pushing beyond nationalization of industry and now looking to directly control the central banks...and now he is attempting to eliminate term limits so that he can rule indefinitely. The painting is on the wall whether you admit to it being there or now.

it is a reason for the venezuelan people to be skeptical, yes. that is why they must use their judgement to determine if the usefulness of the checks and balances in expediting the change to better their lives. if they determine it is a hindrance, then so be it.

The associate is not fallacious. Chavez, as well as the others I mentioned, were elected heads of states..who then went on to claim absolute power.

somewhere along the line you lost context.

Most dictators in modern times come to power as elected officials....even more so now during the last several decades.

the last part is correct, but go back and read, no they haven't. there have been more dictators from coups in latin america, africa, and asia. the cia has put more dictators in power than dictators that achieved power through elections.


The elimination of checks and balances is not something in the real of "relativism". If you have even a rudimentary understanding of philosophy, I don't need to explain that. That is judged by the policy. The policy he is promoting speaks for itself.

which is why the venezuelan people without a gun to their head just might approve it?

You can't be that dense..you can't be. We are taking about semantics. The semantics of absolute power...why do you keep running to relativistic theory to support your argument when we are speaking on objective reality.

the objective reality is that when i go to vote in america, i am voting for a leader whom i believe to to do what is right for the benefit of my country. what someone in turkey, argentina, brazil, germany, or laos thinks about my vote is irrelevant. would i vote for bush to be given that kind of power? fuck no. if a leader came along who epitomized my ideals and showed and proved as much but whose executive power was hindered by unnecessary legislative checks and balances then fuck checks and balances. in that case, i just might.


Whether you kill people or not does not determine whether or not you are a dictator. It may be a quality of "some dictators", but by definition, you do not need to be a "killer" to qualify. Do you understand what a dictator is by definition? Then tell whether the murder count matters?:smh::smh:

now you go back to semantics. fine. i could post the definition of dictators, but you need to understand that it is just a word whose meaning and context have evolved the mean something negative. do you understand that there are dictators who are considered benevolent? there are no benevolent tyrants. that is the point. would you rather choose your own dictator or allow another country to choose your tyrant?

He is eradicated checks and balances within the system for his own political gain.

again, you've made the same bad assumption over and over again. the phrase "for his own political gain" rings a bell here.


Is the constitution being modified to "help the people"? A damn 2 year old know the only reason this is being proposed for modification is to further Chavez' power play in Venezuela..otherwise..what is the point of it?

you mentioned the point of it in the form of a question in the first sentence. how does he benefit? does he get more bitches? more money? is he planning on invading other countries? qualify this statement. any 2 year old can namecall and make erroneous assumptions without justifying them.

The modification is not the problem... the reason for the modification is the problem

brilliant! thats the most on-point thing you've said and that's precisely my point. you just made my fucking day. the reality is that ultimately it is up to the venezuelan people to decide on the merits of said modification by weighing the example and effectiveness of their leader with respect to history.

peace.
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
no jackass.

Slow up and do a search on my username brah. I have probably forgotten more than you know. Makk is on your side in this post....ask him about the last person that got out of line in an argument with me.... Stick to your point.

You started your entire argument on a fallacious point: The Ad Hominen attack:smh::smh:

the fucking reichstag was blown up (a la wtc) to create the environment that facilitated that.

Do a search on a post called "The Real Reason why we are in Iraq". I wrote it here years ago. I was in Baghdad in October 2003. I'm not in the military. You can't tell me anything about that situation and the neo-conservatives that I haven't seen first hand or already proposed on this very board. Slow down brah. Don't take a debate and then get yourself in way over your head. I don't respond kindly to insults. I'm on vacation which means I will give you a pass this time.

you keep leaving this part out. one second you say "false flag doesn't matter because we are talking about one particular leader" as if these events unfold in some vacuum, the next second you compare him to hitler whose unchecked power was directly tied to a false flag event. fear and paranoia was the gun pointed at the german peoples' head. do you think the german people voted on storm troopers? hitler was able to silence the opposition from the reichstag fires. do you get it now?


Maybe you need to take a lesson in argumentation.

If you are not clear.

Was Hitler or was he not elected by his people and then systemically promoted policy in order to become an absolute ruler.

The Why, If, etc. is irrelevant champ. Whether they were duped or not under a false flag is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that HE WAS VOTED into power.

All that other bullshit rambling is a smokescreen..it does not change the fact of what we are debating. Nice try... but that type of shit does not work on me. I don't let people cloud the argument with baseless suppositions.



so one second a majority vote for an elected official is not necessarily the best option because it can yield an oppressive leader, but checks and balances from elected officials influenced by outside interests are any less oppressive? you are talking in circles and don't even realize it. think dude. you are taking an imaginary set of ideals and imposing them on the reality of another people. you are not fooling anyone.

What the hell are you talking about?

What imaginary set of ideas. Do you want to argue Democracy vs. any form of statism? Do a search.. I've already done that argument several times. I don't have the inclination to have it anymore on this board and it was not the argument here.

You clearly suffer with clarify.

To get back to the point.

Is Chavez or is he not promoting policy that directly helps him become the ruler of Venezuela for indefinite amount of time. Is he or is he not promoting policy that promotes the aggregation of more power into his hands?

Answer that. Keep the relativism talk for a philosophy message board.

The irony if you using the constitution and slavery argument and then arguing for relativism is not only a huge contradiction but laughable. You can't have your cake and eat it to in an objective world.



let me be clear, democracy works until the elected officials become influenced by money. then democracy becomes a guise for an oligarchy or nepotism. in that instance, it is debatable whether democracy is best for the people. a dictator, whether you want to include monarchy or not, just might be the best solution for a state until it disintegrates into nepotism.

Why is concentrated power in the hands of one individual who has the power to deny people individual rights ever the best solution? please answer that:confused::confused::smh:



it is a reason for the venezuelan people to be skeptical, yes. that is why they must use their judgement to determine if the usefulness of the checks and balances in expediting the change to better their lives. if they determine it is a hindrance, then so be it.

The first question, with the response, was all that needed to be said.




somewhere along the line you lost context.

See post above. You lost context. I've been extremely clear on my point. In an emotional tirade to defend Chavez, you've leaned on relativism.


the last part is correct, but go back and read, no they haven't. there have been more dictators from coups in latin america, africa, and asia. the cia has put more dictators in power than dictators that achieved power through elections.

Please see my post about the CIA...their involvement in the Afghan Wars and my long post about about the book: "Ghost Wars" It does not change the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc were elected officials and those were the ones I gave. We can start an entirely new thread on all the fuckery that the CIA has been behind..but that is not the point of this thread.

Do you know the irony of many of our CIA implants..they were often "elected"...



which is why the venezuelan people without a gun to their head just might approve it?

Be serious man..be serious... The Venezuelan people are much less educated than americans. Now, go to your average American and ask them what was in the Patriot Act? Even our Senate passed it without feeling examining it. Do you think Chavez has a bill in placed called the " I can rule until I die" bill in front of the people... However..the photos that Que posted show to you that there are many Venezuelans that see what is going on and will oppose this power play by Chavez.




the objective reality is that when i go to vote in america, i am voting for a leader whom i believe to to do what is right for the benefit of my country. what someone in turkey, argentina, brazil, germany, or laos thinks about my vote is irrelevant. would i vote for bush to be given that kind of power? fuck no. if a leader came along who epitomized my ideals and showed and proved as much but whose executive power was hindered by unnecessary legislative checks and balances then fuck checks and balances. in that case, i just might.

I don't care of a damn angel opened the sky and said this particular person would be the best president of all time.. I would never vote to give one person absolute power.

You do realize that an absolute ruler has just that.power of your life... individual rights cease to exist...you become a property of the state...and when the state is controlled by one individual..that person literally has a mortgage on your life as all natural and individual rights cease to exist...literally...





now you go back to semantics. fine. i could post the definition of dictators, but you need to understand that it is just a word whose meaning and context have evolved the mean something negative. do you understand that there are dictators who are considered benevolent? there are no benevolent tyrants. that is the point. would you rather choose your own dictator or allow another country to choose your tyrant?

See point above. I don't believe in absolutism PERIOD. I just came from Egypt...two weeks ago (going to make a long post about...you also mentioned Brasil (check my Brasil 303 post) but getting back to Egypt...many Egyptian rulers,specifically Rhamsees II, were considered benevolent...and even to this day Egyptians consider him the greatest Egypt that ever lived... HOWEVER, I still don't agree at all...on any principle..with absolutism...or statism.. I don't believe there is ever a warrant for giving a person or institution absolute control over your being ..and when you have a dictator...you have absolutely that.

My argument is not about intentions. My argument is about absolutism: period. I don't care what the ruler does with the power when he has it.... he should never have the power to begin with. I've already typed pages on that argument..don't care to retype it..do a search on my username or "statism" to reread the shit if you want to know my position on it.

Before you say I went off point...YOu mentioned this...I didn't start it..I just expounded on your point.



again, you've made the same bad assumption over and over again. the phrase "for his own political gain" rings a bell here. .

For what other reason is there to suspend term limits:lol::lol::lol:

There is only one result when using logical deduction on that.... unless you want to offer an alternative :lol:




you mentioned the point of it in the form of a question in the first sentence. how does he benefit? does he get more bitches? more money? is he planning on invading other countries? qualify this statement. any 2 year old can namecall and make erroneous assumptions without justifying them.

First of all...no one namedcalled in this thread but you.

However, how does any ruler benefit from consolidating more power into this hands... he wants to prolong his fucking rule...that's the most important benefit..fuck out of here dumbing this argument down talking about "will he get more bitches"


brilliant! thats the most on-point thing you've said and that's precisely my point. you just made my fucking day. the reality is that ultimately it is up to the venezuelan people to decide on the merits of said modification by weighing the example and effectiveness of their leader with respect to history.

peace.

:smh::smh::smh: @ you thinking that statement helped you
 
Last edited:

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
and I personally want to thank you and Makk for fucking up my Friday night here in Istanbul... neither have I gone out or gotten any work done fucking with you two :lol:
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
and I personally want to thank you and Makk for fucking up my Friday night here in Istanbul... neither have I gone out or gotten any work done fucking with you two :lol:
:lol: the women are blah for my taste in Turkey so good luck with the night life- you might find a kardashian in the crowd :lol:

man i just scrolled by all that shit above- bout to reply to your reply - you and kimchi are given me a colin powell
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
Man..I'm glad you put that sarcasm on that Bush shit... I would likely drown that mofo right over here in the Black Sea in Turkey:lol::lol:


I didn't say Chavez "suspended" the constitution. I said he is attempting to modify their constitution for his own political game. I didn't say he pulled a Mushariff.


I also didn't say that he IS a dictator. What I did say is that Chavez is promoting policy and taking steps to become an absolute ruler..he is slowly consolidating power solely into his hands. That is a huge difference between what you said I said.

I called him a caterpillar that is looking to become a butterfly. He has not sprung from the cocoon.. but he damn sure looks like he is going to start a metamorphoses.

Most of the shit you said I said in this post I didn't say..so I'm not going to address is line by line.

I said that Chavez is laying the groundwork to become an absolute ruler...didn't say he was one yet.

The correlation between him and other dictators was not a correlation in terms of being tyrants... it was a correlation between the slow progression to absolutism...and their policies have much in common with that Chavez is promoting...

You guys keeping making the mistake of extrapolating things that I never even typed. I did not in any way compare the behavior of Chavez and Hitler or Lenin, etc.

What I did say is that there were steps they have all taken on their road to absolute power..Chavez is taking many of those same steps. I have a problem with concentrated power..you know that Makk... I have NEVER called dude a TYRANT... an absolute ruler and a tyrant are mutually exclusive... one MAY be the other...but to be an absolute ruler does not presuppose that you are a tyrant...just many of them just happen to be.

The problem is absolutism..period...and Chavez is definitely on a power grab in Venezuela...I can't even imagine his proponents denying that..
bruh I know what you say and dont say and some other things are ambigous but when you say dude is Hitler Thirsty cmon :lol:

"Ni*** you thirsty like Hitler!" :roflmao: im gonna tell someone that shit- a huge sellout tryin to get ahead

Man I understand where you're coming from but you can't invoke dudes like that and be generalizing and not have someone be led astray on your meaning.
Good luck finding a chick without taco meat on her legs arms and chest :lol:
 

kimchifunk

Potential Star
Registered
Slow up and do a search on my username brah. I have probably forgotten more than you know. Makk is on your side in this post....ask him about the last person that got out of line in an argument with me.... Stick to your point.

You started your entire argument on a fallacious point: The Ad Hominen attack:smh::smh:

do you want a cookie for that lame appeal to authority? then you proceed to accuse me of an adhominem attack. in post #237 you began a paragraph with this: "You can't be that dense..you can't be." is that not an ad hominem attack?

Whether you kill people or not does not determine whether or not you are a dictator. It may be a quality of "some dictators", but by definition, you do not need to be a "killer" to qualify. Do you understand what a dictator is by definition? Then tell whether the murder count matters?

the defining characteristic of a dictator is oppressive rule. if chavez obtains absolute power and uses it for the benefit of venezuela, sure, you could call him a dictator, but effectively that means nothing. you are relying on an imprecise, negative connotation of the word and not any practical meaning.

Do a search on a post called "The Real Reason why we are in Iraq". I wrote it here years ago. I was in Baghdad in October 2003. I'm not in the military. You can't tell me anything about that situation and the neo-conservatives that I haven't seen first hand or already proposed on this very board. Slow down brah.

okay, you are changing the subject. this isn't about teaching you usa foreign policy from 2001-2007. i brought up the false flag of 9-11, relating it to hitler's rise to power. i assumed (rightfully so) you understood how that applies to the us, hence the a la 9-11 part. you can talk about elected leaders obtaining absolute power, but your leap in logic occurs by assuming that chavez follows the same path yet the oppressive self-interest that marks those other regimes are missing here. if you want to make the point then show how chavez has silenced opposition or set up an oppressive secret police force or imposed an ultranationalistic ideology on his people or how he plans on using his power to invade other countries for imperialistic purposes. then the comparison sticks. dismissing the point ruins this whole discussion because of the presumption that he is just like hitler or stalin or whoever when the evidence to support that doesn't exist. i'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist, but the probability based on his track record doesn't lend credence to your argument.

Don't take a debate and then get yourself in way over your head. I don't respond kindly to insults. I'm on vacation which means I will give you a pass this time.

dude, as far as i'm concerned we can stick to the points of contention that remain. if we can't, fine. i look forward to being enlightened by your evidence not your appeal to authority.


Was Hitler or was he not elected by his people and then systemically promoted policy in order to become an absolute ruler.

this is absolutely true and nobody has been arguing this all day.

The Why, If, etc. is irrelevant champ. Whether they were duped or not under a false flag is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that HE WAS VOTED into power.

again you go on to remove the context. the false flag was the preliminary step to the accumulation of hitler's power. then he received absolute authority because the people were scared. the catalyst for the rise absolute power in nazi germany was not hitler's election. the catalyst was the reichstag fire after which hitler got the power.

What imaginary set of ideas. Do you want to argue Democracy vs. any form of statism? Do a search.. I've already done that argument several times. I don't have the inclination to have it anymore on this board and it was not the argument here.

no, frankly that argument bores me because democracy, just like any other form of government, ultimately degenerates into another form of nepotism and/or oligarchy. the short cut or the scenic route will get you to the same final destination.

Is Chavez or is he not promoting policy that directly helps him become the ruler of Venezuela for indefinite amount of time. Is he or is he not promoting policy that promotes the aggregation of more power into his hands?

true.

The irony if you using the constitution and slavery argument and then arguing for relativism is not only a huge contradiction but laughable. You can't have your cake and eat it to in an objective world.

sorry, my example has been overcomplicated with bombastic terms. this isn't about relativism vs pragmatism. all i was saying was that the us constitution has been changed/amended 27 times to reflect the will of the people. thus, with just one example (or 27 depending on your perspective), my implication was that, in and of itself, a change in the constitution is not necessarily bad with the condition that the people willingly agree to it. how relativism seeps into the discussion bewilders me.

Why is concentrated power in the hands of one individual who has the power to deny people individual rights ever the best solution? please answer that:confused::confused::smh:

well, for one, this begs the question of whether or not that power would even be used. is the will of the people in line with the intent of the leader? kenneth kaunda in zambia. some would call julius nyerere (tanzanian) and salvador allende (chile) dictators. josef pilsudski in poland. my point here isn't to promote dictatorship. my only point is that there are exceptions to every rule.

See post above. You lost context. I've been extremely clear on my point. In an emotional tirade to defend Chavez, you've leaned on relativism.

i am defending the people of venezuela's right to determine constitutional limits for their own leader. again, fuck relativism.


Please see my post about the CIA...their involvement in the Afghan Wars and my long post about about the book: "Ghost Wars" It does not change the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc were elected officials and those were the ones I gave. We can start an entirely new thread on all the fuckery that the CIA has been behind..but that is not the point of this thread.

again, you're changing the subject. i am not testing your knowledge of cia covert ops. the point was simply that the cia has propped up more tyrants than free and fair elections have. this was in response to your assertion that "A majority of dictators BEGIN as elected leaders and slowly eliminate policies that could even remotely eradicate their power." in which i referenced a wikipedia source stating that coups in latin america, africa, and asia were responsible for more dictatorships than elections were.

Do you know the irony of many of our CIA implants..they were often "elected"...

that's not my idea of a free and fair election. not that this helps your argument any, but good fyi nonetheless.


Be serious man..be serious... The Venezuelan people are much less educated than americans.

okay, seriously, besides the fact that there is no objective means to make this statement, if we then use the literacy rates as an objective measure, then you have usa 99% - venezuela 93%. that looks like the score to a competitive basketball game, not a blow out victory. the fact that venezuela is even at 93% is a direct result of chavez's social reforms.

Now, go to your average American and ask them what was in the Patriot Act? Even our Senate passed it without feeling examining it. Do you think Chavez has a bill in placed called the " I can rule until I die" bill in front of the people...

you can't deny that the president rushed the legislature into the passing of the patroit act six full weeks after 9-11 and three weeks after the afghanistan invasion. there was very little discussion of it. now compare that to how long this issue has been examined in venezuela in their non-state controlled media. hell, even compare the overall tone of the media. venezuelan media critiques chavez way more than american media critiqued bush after 9-11. there is no comparison.

However..the photos that Que posted show to you that there are many Venezuelans that see what is going on and will oppose this power play by Chavez.

does that gathering of thousands represent the majority opinion of 26,000,000 venezuelans? that's all that matters.

I don't care of a damn angel opened the sky and said this particular person would be the best president of all time.. I would never vote to give one person absolute power.

ima be real here. i am hardly a religious person, but that scenario would hardly necessitate a vote to determine who was in charge. apparently the gods have already made that decision.

You do realize that an absolute ruler has just that. power of your life... individual rights cease to exist...you become a property of the state...and when the state is controlled by one individual..that person literally has a mortgage on your life as all natural and individual rights cease to exist...literally...

See point above. I don't believe in absolutism PERIOD. I just came from Egypt...two weeks ago (going to make a long post about...you also mentioned Brasil (check my Brasil 303 post) but getting back to Egypt...many Egyptian rulers,specifically Rhamsees II, were considered benevolent...and even to this day Egyptians consider him the greatest Egypt that ever lived... HOWEVER, I still don't agree at all...on any principle..with absolutism...or statism.. I don't believe there is ever a warrant for giving a person or institution absolute control over your being ..and when you have a dictator...you have absolutely that.

interesting, so you are in principle an absolutist anti-absolutist?

My argument is not about intentions. My argument is about absolutism: period. I don't care what the ruler does with the power when he has it.... he should never have the power to begin with. I've already typed pages on that argument..don't care to retype it..do a search on my username or "statism" to reread the shit if you want to know my position on it.

dude, you just spent your last four paragraphs babbling on about absolutism and why you dont agree with it under any circumstance. i get your position. i dont need to read another thread expounding upon that.

However, how does any ruler benefit from consolidating more power into this hands... he wants to prolong his fucking rule...that's the most important benefit..

and, by extension, that unanimously proves what? what have you proven with this statement: "he gets to prolong his fucking rule"? that would matter to the majority population that believes in him and wants him to stay in power to continue his social programs how? so far, he has stayed in power because the people have supported him overwhelmingly. if he then consolidates power and proceeds to oppress the people, then that automatically makes him vulnerable to a coup supported by an overwhelming majority of disgruntled venezuelans. he is under the microscope already. wouldn't you agree that it would be exponentially easier for chavez to be deposed if he becomes absolute ruler and doesn't live up to his part of the bargain? aren't the powers that be salivating at any excuse to invade venezuela and take control of their oil by proxy? in a world of limited natural resources, thats the check and balance right there.

:smh::smh::smh: @ you thinking that statement helped you

you just wasted yet another paragraph babbling on about how intent doesn't matter at all when you had already said this:

The modification is not the problem... the reason for the modification is the problem


wrong. from the perspective of the venezuelan people, the reason for the modifications is either justified or not justified by chavez's intent. you are letting your personal feelings about it cloud how you perceive the dynamics of a decision someone else has to make, approve, etc.
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
Is Chavez or is he not promoting policy that directly helps him become the ruler of Venezuela for indefinite amount of time. Is he or is he not promoting policy that promotes the aggregation of more power into his hands?
.



The rest of your response wasn't even necessary if you agree with that.

And :smh::smh: @ you thinking you can give me a lesson on U.S. foreign policy. :lol::lol:

The reason for the mention of the post was to even make the reference to the false flag meaningful. Read that post if you want to know the reason reason WHY we had that false flag (WTC). It should be all so clear NOW but no one made the connection when I made the post years ago. You, as well, are probably referring to a false flag (wtc) and there is a good chance that you don't even know the real reason why it occurred and what was really meant to be eroded in the process.


You obviously didn't read my posts I pointed you to brah.

"interesting, so you are in principle an absolutist anti-absolutist? "

In an attempt to be clever, your contradiction in terms fails. However, I don't have time to put them into a logical framework and explain why as this applies to metaphysics. This is metaphysics as applied in philosophy and fundamentally involves political systems. Does believing an axiom make you an absolutist?

I try to stay away from this long-winded shit on BGOL now..... you can chat for days and everyone walks away with the same opinion they came to the discussion with..regardless of that is said.

The reality of the matter is that you don't disagree with my reply to Que's post. The rest of it is all supposition and really all unnecessary. You and I could go back and forth like this for years...

You wrote:
"thus, with just one example (or 27 depending on your perspective), my implication was that, in and of itself, a change in the constitution is not necessarily bad with the condition that the people willingly agree to it. how relativism seeps into the discussion bewilders me."

Because you don't know what I mean by relativism.

"Relativism, the philosophical view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference"

Your entire argument (If Venezuelans agree to it, then it is ok) is based on a relativistic premise. If Venezuelans also agree to give Chavez the authority to commit genecide, is it ok because they have agreed to it as a majority? If Americans vote and agree to give Bush the authority to invade Iran, it is Ok because "it works for Americans". See how easy it is to break that. But again, that is an entire new argument about moral relativism....

I'm done with this thread.


but I will at least answer your questions

You wrote
"he is under the microscope already. wouldn't you agree that it would be exponentially easier for chavez to be deposed if he becomes absolute ruler and doesn't live up to his part of the bargain? aren't the powers that be salivating at any excuse to invade venezuela and take control of their oil by proxy? in a world of limited natural resources, thats the check and balance right there."

I don't think so personally. I wouldn't agree with that. The invasion on Iraq has been an abysmal failure and has only furthered the pressure on the U.S. dollar. The reality of the matter is that although much of our "representatives" and our citizens were duped supporting the war in Iraq, there is no room to duping the American population into another war. "Pre-emptive" theory is not going to cut it either. And there is nothing (as even outrageously flawed as linking Saddam and Bin Laden (enemies) that the New American Century could link him to that could even stir up as much paranoia as the entire 9/11 situation. That type of "toppling" of a dictator through military means is not going to happen in the near future under similar circumstances. I don't think that Chavez really fears a military invasion. I'm sure he know that there are individuals and organizations that would like to see him dead... but it would not be through a military invasion...although I love how he talks about fighting Bush on the battlefield man to man to whip up the emotions of Venezuelans..

So I think his main concern (in terms of losing power) would be from within. However, through nationalization of the industry..further restrictions on media outlets (making negative comments about his forbidden), killing term limits, tightening his grip on the central banks, etc, etc... he is focusing on the most important issue: controlling Venezuela from within.

The U.S. is not going to invade to take over the oil...even the invasion of Iraq was only partially about Oil... oil was a means to an end...we wanted to use the oil to attempt to kill one organization and supplant the momentum of an entity that is our greatest enemy..the real weapon of mass destruction..the only thing that can topple the deck of cards and supplant the hedgestone that holds us up: our status as the world's reserve currency..and that enemy, my friend, is the Euro.
 
Last edited:

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Know your history man. So was Hitler.... they were all ELECTED....then consolidated power through other means AFTER they got elected by the people...they didn't come into power after a COUP. When don't need to talk about "false flag" etc. It is irrelevant. We are discussing this particular leader and how he is attempting to become an "absolute leader". I've already thoroughly discussed the neo-conservative power grabs in the U.S. in other threads... but none of that shit takes anything away from what Chavez is attempting to pull in Venezuela

I scoured the thread, from it's most recent posts and came to the conclusion, that what eewwl says here, about the situation holds the most logic, I have to add that GWB, is attempting the exact same, here in the U.S....
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
I scoured the thread, from it's most recent posts and came to the conclusion, that what eewwl says here, about the situation holds the most logic, I have to add that GWB, is attempting the exact same, here in the U.S....

If Bush and the neo-conservatives could pull that same shit...no term limits, they would. But even as gullible as Americans can be, they would be too much of a red flag. However, the invisible hand will just attempt to put a new figurehead in place to continue the march to their long-term goals.. and one of those goals..the decline of the U.S...has come a lot faster than I anticipated.....but as with many of the fallen empires... just follow the "FIAT":yes:
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
If Bush and the neo-conservatives could pull that same shit...no term limits, they would. But even as gullible as Americans can be, they would be too much of a red flag. However, the invisible hand will just attempt to put a new figurehead in place to continue the march to their long-term goals.. and one of those goals..the decline of the U.S...has come a lot faster than I anticipated.....but as with many of the fallen empires... just follow the "FIAT":yes:
yeah that's why the name on the presidency doesnt really matter - im sure the Bush and Clinton families enjoy the throne but the invisible hand can use others to accomplish the same tasks

You know what bugged me out a lil? I compared John Edwards to Bobby Kennedy a little in his style and wondered if he'd get bodied if he beat Obama and Billary
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
yeah that's why the name on the presidency doesnt really matter - im sure the Bush and Clinton families enjoy the throne but the invisible hand can use others to accomplish the same tasks

You know what bugged me out a lil? I compared John Edwards to Bobby Kennedy a little in his style and wondered if he'd get bodied if he beat Obama and Billary

Makk..what's the sentiment in the U.S. with the democratic nomination race right now..I know it's still early...but I've been reading that Hillary is creating some space between her and the others... damn I don't want that chick to get the bid..but I have this sickly feeling she will :(:(

I also wonder how, especially with this current economy, does Edwards plan to pay for all those social programs he wants to implement...besides just raising the shit out of taxes...
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
Makk..what's the sentiment in the U.S. with the democratic nomination race right now..I know it's still early...but I've been reading that Hillary is creating some space between her and the others... damn I don't want that chick to get the bid..but I have this sickly feeling she will :(:(

I also wonder how, especially with this current economy, does Edwards plan to pay for all those social programs he wants to implement...besides just raising the shit out of taxes...
Edwards is doing well in Iowa. I stopped reading about Hillary since most dem political writers and other media whores are doing what they are paid to do regarding her.


That invisible hand plans on taking everything so they need a seemingly left wing leader to hand out bread and soup to the masses while they continue running shit into the ground behind the scenes.

How does govt pay for anything? Sometimes societies need things done for the good of its members. I'd rather my tax money pay to house the homeless than kill babies in Iraq. But hey Im cooky like that ;)
 

nittie

Star
Registered
America is too rich and powerful to be defeated militarily we have to lose our dominance by imploding. A series of events could make it happen. Russia and China becoming nationalisitic along with the Middle East and South America. If they unite and undermine America's economic power then a devaluation of the dollar, inflation, budget deficits and a powerful Black market could cause our economy to collapse. We could wake up Monday and find ourselves a third world country.
 

kimchifunk

Potential Star
Registered
just a few corrections.

Is Chavez or is he not promoting policy that directly helps him become the ruler of Venezuela for indefinite amount of time. Is he or is he not promoting policy that promotes the aggregation of more power into his hands?

to these questions i answered true, but i did a poor job of explaining the position.

from Constitutional Reforms in Venezuela:
"Article 230 of the 1999 Constitution establishes that the presidential term limit will be of six years and that any president can be re-elected once. Under the proposed reform, the presidential term would be extended to seven years and any sitting president would be allowed to seek another consecutive term."

"While this reform has been criticized as being undemocratic, it is important to note that various mechanisms will remain in place to ensure that the country’s president is legitimately elected and held to account by the Venezuelan people. The president will still face re-election, and the recall referendum – an innovative democratic tool that allows voters to cut short an elected officials’ term – will remain in the constitution. It’s worth noting that the recall referendum was successfully activated by members of the opposition in August 2004, when 60 percent of the Venezuelan people voted to allow President Chávez to finish his first full term in office."

so term limits dont exist provided the sitting president is re-elected. and checks and balances do remain including the recall referendum allowing voters to cut short an elected officials term.

but ima post the entire document which also expands on the central bank reform, the suspension of individual rights during emergencies, as well as other reforms.
 

kimchifunk

Potential Star
Registered
i'm posting this to be critiqued by the board and to provide a frame of reference that states the reforms in consideration, the aims of those reforms, as well as the electoral procedures used in the emplementation of them. please comment as you feel inclined.

Constitutional Reforms in Venezuela
Embassy of Venezuela in US
October 26th, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2764

On August 15, 2007, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez proposed a number of reforms to the 1999 Constitution. Focusing on a small segment of the constitution’s 350 articles, the reforms aim to speed the redistribution of the country’s resources to benefit the poor and widen the base of direct citizen participation in the democratic process. They are also intended to move Venezuela towards a new model of development – known as “Socialism for the 21st Century” – in peace and democracy. This model embraces participatory democracy, a mixed economy, meeting the country’s social needs and promoting a multi-polar world.

History

In 1999, the Venezuelan people overwhelmingly voted to install a constituent assembly with the express purpose of re-writing the country’s constitution. As part of an attempt to break with the past and create an equitable and fully representative democratic system, citizens, community groups and civic associations actively provided input regarding necessary changes. Of the 624 proposals the Venezuelan people submitted, over 50 percent were eventually included as part of the new constitution’s 350 articles.

The resulting 1999 Constitution expanded the rights of all Venezuelans, formally recognized the rights and privileges of historically marginalized groups, reorganized government institutions and powers, and highlighted the government’s responsibility in working towards participatory democracy and social justice. In a national referendum, 71 percent of the Venezuelan people voted to adopt the new constitution.

Copies of the 1999 Constitution are widely available in Venezuela, and even more widely read. According to one journalist’s account, “You can buy a plastic-bound copy of the Venezuelan Constitution for 60 cents, a leather-clad copy for $3, a coffee-table edition for $5. Not that you really need a copy of your own, since someone standing near you on the subway in Caracas will have one in his pocket. Or you can always listen to one of the ongoing debates at a downtown park. ‘Look at this article,’ someone will shout, and a half dozen people will flip through the constitution's 35,000 words and 350 articles to find the pertinent passage. ‘Yes,’ someone else will cry out. ‘But this one here is more to the point.’”

Democratic Process

According to Article 342 of the constitution, the National Assembly, the president or 15 percent of registered voters – roughly 2.5 million voters – can propose reforms to the constitution. The proposals must be debated by the National Assembly in three rounds – the first round began on August 21 – and voted upon with a two-thirds majority, after which they will be put before the Venezuelan people in a national referendum.

On October 25, the National Assembly completed the third round of debates on the proposed reforms. On top of the three rounds of debates, members of the National Assembly had also traveled throughout Venezuela to discuss the proposed reforms with community groups, civic organizations, opposition activists and regular citizens. From August 16 to October 7, some 9,020 public events – over 192 a day for 47 days – were held throughout the country to provide information and take citizen input on the constitutional reforms. Similarly, a special hotline established by the National Assembly took over 80,000 phone calls – over 1,700 a day for 47 days – in which Venezuelan citizens were able to offer critiques of the proposed reforms or offer reforms of their own. Additionally, the National Assembly distributed 10 million copies of the proposed reforms to interested citizens. Due to those combined efforts, 77.8 percent of the Venezuelan people reported having read and being informed about the reforms.

Based on the national process of consultations with the Venezuelan people, 25 additional reforms were proposed and 11 smaller changes were made, for a total of 69 proposed reforms. The proposed changes will be sent to the National Electoral Council on November 2, and a national referendum will be scheduled for early December 2007 will allow the Venezuelan to either approve or reject the reforms.

Reform of Presidential Term Limits

Article 230 of the 1999 Constitution establishes that the presidential term limit will be of six years and that any president can be re-elected once. Under the proposed reform, the presidential term would be extended to seven years and any sitting president would be allowed to seek another consecutive term.

The purpose of the reform is to allow the wishes and preferences of the voters to be fully respected when it comes to electing a president. As President Dwight Eisenhower noted in 1956 in reference to debate over presidential term limits in the U.S., “The United States ought to be able to choose for its President anybody it wants, regardless of the number of terms he has served.” More recently, in 2005 Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. James Sensennbrenner (R-Wisc.) introduced legislation to do away with presidential term limits. In reference to the legislation, H.J. Res. 24, Hoyer, who now serves as the Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, stated, “I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of [term limits]…Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.”

While this reform has been criticized as being undemocratic, it is important to note that various mechanisms will remain in place to ensure that the country’s president is legitimately elected and held to account by the Venezuelan people. The president will still face re-election, and the recall referendum – an innovative democratic tool that allows voters to cut short an elected officials’ term – will remain in the constitution. It’s worth noting that the recall referendum was successfully activated by members of the opposition in August 2004, when 60 percent of the Venezuelan people voted to allow President Chávez to finish his first full term in office.

Economic Reforms

During the last three years Venezuela has seen consistent and record economic growth and diversification. More importantly, new forms of economic activity, business and entrepreneurship have been facilitated, allowing more Venezuelans productive opportunities. A number of proposed reforms to articles 112, 113, and 115 of the constitution would expand upon these initiatives and formalize an economic model centered on social welfare and a diverse range of enterprises.

Article 112 currently guarantees the freedom of all Venezuelans to engage in economic activity, while mandating that the government promote private enterprises that “create and guarantee the just distribution of wealth” and direct economic activity towards the integral development of the country. The proposed reform would mandate that the government work to secure an economic system that is “diversified and independent” and founded on the “human values of cooperation and the preponderance of the general interest.” The reform would expand the scope of economic activity to not only include private enterprise, but also socially oriented, cooperative and community-based models of activity.

Article 113 currently states that economic monopolies will not be permitted. The proposed reform would formally prohibit economic monopolies and other actions to concentrate economic power or resources. Moreover, the reform would mandate that the government protect socially oriented, cooperative and community-based models of economic activity – the number of cooperatives has increased from 800 to over 180,000 in recent years – and would formalize the government’s ability to exploit the country’s natural resources for the general good. Private enterprises would still be allowed to exploit natural resources, though in conjunction with government enterprises.

Article 115 currently articulates the right to private property, while stating that any property may be taken by the government if just cause – the public good – is given and adequate compensation granted. The proposed reform would leave the right to and protection of private property unchanged while adding a number of new classifications of property. According to the reform, property not held in private hands can be classified as follows:

* Public: Fully owned and managed by the government.
* Social: Owned by the Venezuelan people and either managed by the government or by communities or other institutions.
* Collective: Owned and managed by groups of individuals for their particular uses.
* Mixed: A combination of ownership and management.

It is important to stress that private property will remain and will enjoy the same protections it enjoys in other countries. As detailed by the constitution and similar to the U.S. and Western Europe, private property would only be taken by the government only if the public good requires it and if full compensation is offered. As an example, past processes of land reform have shifted over 8.8 million acres of unused lands to poor families, but in the case of private lands, only with due compensation. Similarly, when the government announced its intention to nationalize the electric and telecommunications sectors, they paid the market value of the two industries.

Reform of the Central Bank of Venezuela

Key to long-term growth and stability in Venezuela are the policies of the Central Bank of Venezuela, an institution charged with setting monetary policy and interest rates. Central Bank policies over the last decades, though, have limited economic growth and social development, a trend a proposed reform seeks to correct.

Article 318 details the responsibilities, rights and structure of the Central Bank of Venezuela. The proposed reform would mandate that the Central Bank and the executive, through the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Planning and Development, more closely coordinate efforts to implement policies that promote economic growth and development. The reform would also limit the bank’s autonomy while putting the country’s reserves under the control of both the Central Bank and the executive branch for the purpose of promoting “productive investments, development and infrastructure, financing of social programs and integral, endogenous and humanistic development.” This reform will be an extension of a reform first made in 2005 that successfully allowed excess reserves – initially some $6 billion – to be directed to social programs and infrastructure through the Fund for National Development (FONDEN in Spanish).

While Central Banks have traditionally been insulated from the governments they serve, this reform is vital to Venezuela’s continued economic growth and development. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has argued, the many tradeoffs involved in crafting monetary policy and promoting economic growth in developing countries “cannot be relegated to technocrats, particularly when those technocrats place the interests of one segment of society above others.” Historically, the central banks of the region have maintained high interest rates and adopted policies that overvalued the currency, thus limiting borrowing and investing (and, as a consequence, economic growth) and making imports artificially cheap and exports too expensive on world markets. The reform intends to allow better coordination between the executive and the Central Bank so as to guarantee policies that secure sustained economic growth, job creation and social development while maintaining sustainable levels of inflation.

Political-Territorial Reforms

Like every other country in the world, Venezuela’s political and territorial boundaries are divided into a number of categories – nation, state, municipalities and a federal district. A number of proposed reforms would expand and clarify these political-territorial boundaries. These reforms would further decentralize political power, thus allowing communities the ability and resources to participate in democratic processes and employ national resources to identify and resolve local problems. They would also ensure that areas that have remained underdeveloped due to location and lack of infrastructure are better incorporated into national and regional development schemes.

Article 16 currently defines the country’s political-territorial boundaries, including states, municipalities, a federal district, federal territories and federal dependencies. Under the proposed reform, these boundaries would remain in place and be fully respected, but would also be complemented by the addition of maritime regions, insular districts and cities. Within the latter, smaller units named “communes” would be granted formal recognition, thus allowing more active participation in municipal affairs by individuals and community organizations. The reform would also allow certain areas – those suffering from a lack of development and poor infrastructure – to be designated federal provinces, federal cities or functional districts in which the government would be allowed to more easily direct necessary resources for development.

Article 184 currently encourages the implementation of a law to direct municipalities to provide resources and services to those community and neighborhood organizations that request them. The proposed reform mandates that a national law be debated and passed articulating this transfer of resources and services, which include housing, sport, culture, environment, political participation, social economy and endogenous development, job creation and other resources and services currently handled by municipal bodies. The national law would also create a fund to provide resources to projects identified by communal councils.

Military Reforms

Three reforms of articles related to the armed forces are aimed at further securing Venezuela’s territorial integrity, bringing all branches under a unified command structure and better allowing the fight against drug trafficking and other illegal activities.

The proposed reform of Article 11 would include mention of Venezuela’s maritime possessions (some 270,000 square miles) in the definition of its sovereign territory, while allowing the executive to declare “Special Military Regions” for the purposes of national defense or strategic activity (fighting drug trafficking and international crime) and better protection of border and/or remote areas. The proposed reform of Article 329 would list the branches of the Venezuelan armed services as the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Territorial Guard and the Popular Militia (formerly the National Reserves). While the National Reserves used to be governed by a national law regulating the armed forces, the new Popular Militia will be governed by the constitution and under the same command as the other branches of the armed forces. Finally, the armed forces would be renamed the Bolivarian Armed Forces in reference of Simon Bolivar, Venezuela’s independence hero.

Limitations on Rights During Emergencies

During the second round of debates, the National Assembly proposed a reform to article 337 of the constitution that would call for the suspension of certain political liberties during what is known as a “state of exception,” or national emergency. Articles 240 and 241 of the 1961 Constitution similarly included limitations on civil and political rights during times of national emergency.

While this reform has been criticized, it is fully consistent with similar powers granted to democratic governments around the world. Since the time of the French revolution, governments have recognized that during moments of massive disasters or extreme and imminent threats to the standing and security of the nation additional and temporary powers could be claimed by the executive to restore order. Currently a number of Western democracies have laws outlining the imposition of a state of exception or a state of emergency, including Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom. In the United States, the 1976 National Emergencies Act allows the president to invoke a state of emergency and limit certain rights – including the right of habeas corpus – for up to two years. There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001.

Moreover, international law recognizes the right of governments to limit certain rights in extreme circumstances. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Venezuela ratified on August 10, 1978, notes, “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant.”

While the reform of Article 337 calls for the limitation of certain rights during a national emergency, a number of rights would remain, including the right to life and personal integrity, the right to a defense, the right to a fair trial, and the right not to be tortured, disappeared or held incommunicado. This ensures that Venezuela remains consistent – or in some cases even exceeds -- with its international obligations.

Other Reforms

When Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly re-wrote the constitution in 1999, a large proportion of the articles focused on granting new rights or expanding their application to groups that had been historically marginalized. All told, 111 of the constitution’s 350 articles deal with political, economic, social and cultural rights. Many of the proposed reforms seek to deepen the protection and promotion of certain rights and liberties:

* The proposed reform of Article 21 would add sexual orientation and health to the categories under which discrimination is prohibited.
* The proposed reform of Article 64 would lower the voting age to 16, following the lead of Austria, Nicaragua and Brazil.
* The proposed reform of Article 82 would codify the right the adequate housing for all Venezuelans and prohibit the state from taking any home as part of a judicial sanction.
* The proposed reform of Article 87 would call for the creation of a social security fund for those Venezuelans that are self-employed or in the informal sector.
* The proposed reform of Article 90 would decrease the workweek from 44 hours to 36 hours.
* The proposed reform of Article 98 would protect the creation and communication of cultural goods.
* The proposed reform of Article 100 would formally recognize and protect Afro-Venezuelan heritage and culture.
* The proposed reform of Article 103 would articulate the right to education for all Venezuelans, and mandate that all public education through university be free of charge.
* The proposed reform of Article 158 would mandate that the government take all steps to ensure the active participation of the citizenry in the country’s democratic system.
* The proposed reform of Article 272 would establish that the Venezuelan penitentiary system direct its efforts towards the full rehabilitation of prisoners and respect their human rights during incarceration.

Conclusion

Just as the 1999 Constitution was written with massive and widespread participation and input from the Venezuelan people, the proposed reforms have been widely discussed and debated. Additionally, in early December, the Venezuelan people will have the opportunity to vote the reforms up or down in a national referendum. These reforms will better allow Venezuela to create a political, economic and social system that is equitable, peaceful and democratic.
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
I read the intro and skimmed a little

we've all been longwinded in this forum so no need for apologies - thanks for the contributions its good to have new blood around here
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Chavez’s bluster surges ahead of vote​

Some observers link Venezuelan
leader's tough talk with tight contest​


071130_hugoChavez_vmed_8p.widec.jpg

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez waves to
supporters as he arrives at a rally in Caracas
on Friday. Voters on Sunday will decide whether
to do away with term limits and enact other
constitutional reforms that would bolster Chavez.


Washington Post
By Juan Forero
Fri., Nov. 30, 2007
CARACAS, Venezuela -

On the eve of a referendum that President Hugo Chavez has cast as a plebiscite on his rule, the populist leader is escalating his verbal assaults on foes real and imagined, picking a fight with neighboring Colombia one day and assailing Catholic Church leaders as "mental retards" the next.

Chavez's behavior appears increasingly unpredictable, but some political analysts say the bluster may be a tactic designed to generate support for the constitutional changes that Venezuelans will vote on in Sunday's referendum. Although a few weeks ago the proposals had been expected to receive easy approval, polls released last week showed that the opposition could ultimately prevail in a tight contest.

"He's decided that his best tactic to recover the control of his movement is to instill fear in his people that there's a world conspiracy against Venezuela," said Demetrio Boersner, a political analyst and former diplomat. "It's a tactic that uses histrionics as a weapon to unite the people so they vote for him on Sunday."

Allegations of meddling
The government says the rhetoric is no scare tactic, but rather a response to concerns that a destabilization plan is in the works. Officials point to negative press coverage, coupled with the Bush administration's statements questioning the fairness of the vote.

"There's an offensive to criminalize Venezuela, to say that Venezuela is falling into an abyss, that it's a country of dictators, of Castro-style communism, a country that helps terrorists," Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, said Friday in a phone interview.

This week Chavez accused CNN of instigating an assassination attempt, asserted that the church is fomenting dissent and called the president of neighboring Colombia a "liar" who couldn't be trusted. He didn't forget the United States, either, saying the CIA was busy hatching a plan to stir tumult.

In speech after speech, Chavez avoids dwelling on unpopular proposals for change, including one that would permit him to run for office indefinitely and another that would give him the power to appoint provincial governors. Instead, he depicts his opponents as conspirators out to crush his self-styled revolution. He vows to thwart any coup attempts, like one in 2002 that briefly ousted him and had Washington's tacit support.

"The revolution is peaceful, but it's not unarmed," he warned his foes on state television. "There's an army. There's a navy. There's an air force. There's a national guard. There's soldiers, there's cadets and the people. Don't consider it, because you'll repent."

He then added: "If you launch an offensive, I will launch a counterattack."

Rhetoric wearing thin?
The harangues are a staple of Chavez's government, which in its nine years has transformed Venezuela's social and political model by ousting the elites who once ruled and providing widespread programs for the poor. Those programs have given Chavez solid, sometimes overwhelming support.

But some analysts say the particularly bellicose behavior of recent days may be working against Chavez.

Mark Feierstein, an American who has polled in Venezuela for years, said the president's supporters, known as Chavistas, also tire of the rhetoric.

"Venezuela is one of the most polarized countries in the world, and it really pains people when they see him reinforcing that," Feierstein said. "When we'd do focus groups with Chavistas, they would talk in mostly positive tones about Chavez, but the one thing that would bother them is Chavez's belligerence."

Feuding near and far
The president's behavior has been making international headlines since early this month when, at a summit in Chile, he called former Spanish prime minister José María Aznar a "fascist." After a long diatribe by Chavez, the king of Spain, Juan Carlos, became so agitated that he leaned across a table and said to the Venezuelan: "Why don't you shut up?"

Chavez has not paid heed. He also hasn't forgotten -- or forgiven. He later declared that relations with Spain, a major investor in Venezuela, would be "frozen" until the king apologized. The king has yet to do so.

"There will not be a million kings who will want to keep my mouth shut, because I speak in the name of Venezuela," Chavez later said.

Then, after President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia last week ended Chavez's role in mediations with that country's guerrilla group, Chavez said that Uribe's actions were "brutal" and disrespectful of Venezuela -- even if Chavez had sidestepped diplomatic protocol, as Uribe contended.

Chavez withdrew his ambassador from Bogota and, in televised comments Wednesday, said Uribe was capable of "barefaced lies." "If he does that to me," Chavez said, "imagine how he is with the poor Colombian people."

lleged toilet-paper tampering
In the closing days of campaigning for the referendum, with the government holding huge rallies, officials have continued to warn of anti-Chavez plots that could originate in the church or the business community.

Indeed, the authorities said they were going to investigate church leaders as well as CNN, which came under criticism after placing a caption reading, "Who Killed Him?" on a photograph of Chavez. The network said the caption was an error, designed for a story about the investigation into the murder of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor.

On Friday, a day when an estimated 200,000 people in Caracas rallied in support of Chavez, officials saw yet one more possible sign of conspiracy. Toilet paper is in short supply -- as are milk, eggs and other staples.

"We know there are sectors hiding toilet paper," Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas said on state television. "A group of business leaders are playing mean, playing dirty." He said it was designed to "create the sensation of product shortage during the election."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22049468/
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Chavez: No oil if U.S. meddles in vote​

Venezuelan leader urges citizens to approve constitutional change

Associated Press
Fri., Nov. 30, 2007

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez urged supporters Friday to approve constitutional changes that he said could keep him in power for life and threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States if it tries to meddle in Sunday’s vote.

Speaking to more than 200,000 supporters, Chavez warned that his opponents at home could try to sabotage the vote with backing from Washington through violent protests on the night of the vote.

“If ’yes’ wins on Sunday and the Venezuelan oligarchy, the violent Venezuelans — the ones who play the (U.S.) empire’s game — unleash violence with the tale that there was fraud ... minister, that very Monday you order a halt to the shipments of oil to the United States,” Chavez said, addressing his oil minister, Rafael Ramirez.

“Oil will not go out to the United States,” Chavez said, warning the opposition if they take to streets to deny a legitimate victory, “they’re going to regret it.”

Venezuela was the fourth largest oil exporter to the United States in 2006.

His opponents have called for close monitoring of results in what they expect to be a tight contest, raising tensions ahead of a vote on sweeping changes to the constitution that would left Chavez seek re-election in 2012 and indefinitely.

“If God gives me life and help,” Chavez said, “I will be at the head of the government until 2050!” — when he would be 95 years old.

“To the Venezuelan oligarchy and the U.S. empire, from here I’m warning them that they won’t be able to stop the car of the Bolivarian Revolution, because on Sunday we will approve the constitutional reform,” Chavez said.

There were no independent crowd estimates, but reporters estimated the crowd at more than 200,000.

Some polls predict close vote
The government cites polls showing Chavez leading ahead of the referendum, while other polls have predicted a close race.

Pollster Luis Vicente Leon, whose firm Datanalisis found the “no” option leading in a poll earlier this month, said Friday that two other later tracking polls by his firm found Chavez had closed the gap and the two sides were statistically about even.

“We don’t know who’s going to win,” Leon said. “The result will depend on the level of abstention that ends up happening. Whoever has the greatest weight to achieve turnout among their voters at the polls is going to win.”

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States hopes the referendum will be “a free and fair contest in which the will and desire of the Venezuelan people is reflected.”

Chavez seeks world power status
Speaking to the crowd from a stage, Chavez said: “Venezuela is going to be a world power, no matter whom it hurts!”

The pro-Chavez rally came a day after opposition supporters filled the same avenue promising to defeat revisions that would also extend presidential terms from six to seven years, create new forms of communal property and expand Chavez’s powers to reshape Venezuela as a socialist state.

“Chavez has become a father for us,” said Xiomi Diaz, a 34-year-old farmer. “He’s a father of the poor.” She and others traveled from across the country in hundreds of buses, and chanted: “Ooh, Ah! Chavez isn’t going anywhere!”

Critics decry proposals
Chavez, who was first elected in 1998, denies he is trying to amass power, saying the changes are necessary to give the people a greater voice in government and to move toward a socialist system.

Human Rights Watch warned the reforms would threaten fundamental rights, citing one revision allowing the president to declare indefinite states of emergency during which the government could detain citizens without charge and censor the media.

“These amendments would enable President Chavez to suspend basic rights indefinitely by maintaining a perpetual state of emergency,” said Jose Miguel Vivanco of the New York-based group.

Chavez’s opponents also have questioned the National Electoral Council’s impartiality, especially after Chavez named its former chief, Jorge Rodriguez, as his vice president in January. But in contrast to past elections, when the opposition has boycotted votes or been split on whether to participate, this time many opposition leaders are emboldened and urging voters to turn out in large numbers.

Violent clashes during protests
University students have led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups. One man was shot dead Monday while trying to get through a road blocked by protesters.

The opposition also has been heartened by some recent defections from Chavez’s movement, including former Defense Minister Gen. Raul Baduel. Even Chavez’s ex-wife, Marisabel Rodriguez, has urged Venezuelans to vote “no.”

About 100 electoral observers from 39 countries in Latin America, Europe and the United States are on hand, plus hundreds of Venezuelan observers, the National Electoral Council said.

Yet, absent this time are the Organization of American States and the European Union, which have monitored past votes.

Among those attending are observers from the National Lawyers Guild and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Chavez’s opponents have been suspicious of electronic voting machines made by Boca Raton, Florida-based Smartmatic Inc., which is primarily owned by three Venezuelans. But Luis Enrique Lander of the Venezuelan vote-monitoring group Ojo Electoral said his team is satisfied with vote preparations and safeguards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22047715/
 

domex

International
International Member
CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18792.htm


CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

Psyop aims to destabilize Venezuela and overthrow President Chavez

By Eva Golinger

11/29/07 "Global Research," --- - An internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister - almost fantastical, were it not true - plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled "OPERATION PLIERS" was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington. Steere is stationed at the US Embassy in Caracas under the guise of a Regional Affairs Officer. The internal memorandum, dated November 20, 2007, references the "Advances of the Final Stage of Operation Pliers", and confirms that the operation is coordinated by the team of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in Venezuela. The memo summarizes the different scenarios that the CIA has been working on in Venezuela for the upcoming referendum vote on December 2nd. The Electoral Scenario, as it's phrased, confirms that the voting tendencies will not change substantially before Sunday, December 2nd, and that the SI (YES) vote in favor of the constitutional reform has an advantage of about 10-13 points over the NO vote. The CIA estimates abstention around 60% and states in the memo that this voting tendency is irreversible before the elections.

Officer Steere emphasizes the importance and success of the public relations and propaganda campaign that the CIA has been funding with more than $8 million during the past month - funds that the CIA confirms are transfered through the USAID contracted company, Development Alternatives, Inc., which set up operations in June 2002 to run the USAID Office for Transition Initiatives that funds and advises opposition NGOs and political parties in Venezuela. The CIA memo specifically refers to these propaganda initiatives as "psychological operations" (PSYOPS), that include contracting polling companies to create fraudulent polls that show the NO vote with an advantage over the SI vote, which is false. The CIA also confirms in the memo that it is working with international press agencies to distort the data and information about the referendum, and that it coordinates in Venezuela with a team of journalists and media organized and directed by the President of Globovision, Alberto Federico Ravell.

CIA Officer Michael Steere recommends to General Michael Hayden two different strategies to work simultaneously: Impede the referendum and refuse to recognize the results once the SI vote wins. Though these strategies appear contradictory, Steere claims that they must be implemented together precisely to encourage activities that aim toward impeding the referendum and at the same time prepare the conditions for a rejection of the results.

How is this to be done?

In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:


* Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
* Generate a climate of ungovernability
* Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
* Engage in a "plan to implode" the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to "VOTE and REMAIN" in their centers to agitate others
* Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon on Sunday that favor the NO vote (in clear violation of election regulations)
* Coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies
* Coordinate with ex-militar officers and coupsters Pena Esclusa and Guyon Cellis - this will be done by the Military Attache for Defense and Army at the US Embassy in Caracas, Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO)


To encourage rejection of the results, the CIA proposes:

* Creating an acceptance in the public opinion that the NO vote will win for sure
* Using polling companies contracted by the CIA
* Criticize and discredit the National Elections Council
* Generate a sensation of fraud
* Use a team of experts from the universities that will talk about how the data from the Electoral Registry has been manipulated and will build distrust in the voting system

The CIA memo also talks about:

* Isolating Chavez in the international community
* Trying to achieve unity amongst the opposition
* Seek an aliance between those abstentionists and those who will vote "NO"
* Sustain firmly the propaganda against Chavez
* Execute military actions to support the opposition mobilizations and propagandistic occupations
* Finalize the operative preparations on the US military bases in Curacao and Colombia to provide support to actions in Venezuela
* Control a part of the country during the next 72-120 hours
* Encourage a military rebellion inside the National Guard forces and other components

Those involved in these actions as detailed in the CIA memo are:


* The CIA Office in Venezuela - Office of Regional Affairs, and Officer Michael Steere
* US Embassy in Venezuela, Ambassador Patrick Duddy
* Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO) at the US Embassy in Caracas and Military Attache Richard Nazario

Venezuelan Political Parties:

* Comando Nacional de la Resistencia
* Accion Democratica
* Primero Justicia
* Bandera Roja

Media:


* Alberto Federico Ravell & Globovision
* Interamerican Press Society (IAPA) or SIP in Spanish
* International Press Agencies

Venezuelans:

* Pena Esclusa
* Guyon Cellis
* Dean of the Simon Bolivar University, Rudolph Benjamin Podolski
* Dean of the Andres Bello Catholic University, Ugalde
* Students: Yon Goicochea, Juan Mejias, Ronel Gaglio, Gabriel Gallo, Ricardo Sanchez


Operation Tenaza has the objective of encouraging an armed insurrection in Venezuela against the government of President Chavez that will justify an intervention of US forces, stationed on the military bases nearby in Curacao and Colombia. The Operation mentions two countries in code: as Blue and Green. These refer to Curacao and Colombia, where the US has operative, active and equipped bases that have been reinforced over the past year and a half in anticipation of a conflict with Venezuela.

The document confirms that psychological operations are the CIA's best and most effective weapon to date against Venezuela, and it will continue its efforts to influence international public opinion regarding President Chavez and the situation in the country.

Operation Tenaza is a very alarming plan that aims to destabilize Venezuela and overthrow (again) its legitimate and democratic (and very popularly support) president. The plan will fail, primarily because it has been discovered, but it must be denounced around the world as an unacceptable violation of Venezuela's sovereignty.

The original document in English will be available in the public sphere soon for viewing and authenticating purposes. And it also contains more information than has been revealed here.
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

Check the previous threads. Cats on this board have been talking about this well before it was reported. good drop.
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
courtesy of domex


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18792.htm


CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

Psyop aims to destabilize Venezuela and overthrow President Chavez

By Eva Golinger

11/29/07 "Global Research," --- - An internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister - almost fantastical, were it not true - plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled "OPERATION PLIERS" was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington. Steere is stationed at the US Embassy in Caracas under the guise of a Regional Affairs Officer. The internal memorandum, dated November 20, 2007, references the "Advances of the Final Stage of Operation Pliers", and confirms that the operation is coordinated by the team of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in Venezuela. The memo summarizes the different scenarios that the CIA has been working on in Venezuela for the upcoming referendum vote on December 2nd. The Electoral Scenario, as it's phrased, confirms that the voting tendencies will not change substantially before Sunday, December 2nd, and that the SI (YES) vote in favor of the constitutional reform has an advantage of about 10-13 points over the NO vote. The CIA estimates abstention around 60% and states in the memo that this voting tendency is irreversible before the elections.

Officer Steere emphasizes the importance and success of the public relations and propaganda campaign that the CIA has been funding with more than $8 million during the past month - funds that the CIA confirms are transfered through the USAID contracted company, Development Alternatives, Inc., which set up operations in June 2002 to run the USAID Office for Transition Initiatives that funds and advises opposition NGOs and political parties in Venezuela. The CIA memo specifically refers to these propaganda initiatives as "psychological operations" (PSYOPS), that include contracting polling companies to create fraudulent polls that show the NO vote with an advantage over the SI vote, which is false. The CIA also confirms in the memo that it is working with international press agencies to distort the data and information about the referendum, and that it coordinates in Venezuela with a team of journalists and media organized and directed by the President of Globovision, Alberto Federico Ravell.

CIA Officer Michael Steere recommends to General Michael Hayden two different strategies to work simultaneously: Impede the referendum and refuse to recognize the results once the SI vote wins. Though these strategies appear contradictory, Steere claims that they must be implemented together precisely to encourage activities that aim toward impeding the referendum and at the same time prepare the conditions for a rejection of the results.

How is this to be done?

In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:


* Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
* Generate a climate of ungovernability
* Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
* Engage in a "plan to implode" the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to "VOTE and REMAIN" in their centers to agitate others
* Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon on Sunday that favor the NO vote (in clear violation of election regulations)
* Coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies
* Coordinate with ex-militar officers and coupsters Pena Esclusa and Guyon Cellis - this will be done by the Military Attache for Defense and Army at the US Embassy in Caracas, Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO)


To encourage rejection of the results, the CIA proposes:

* Creating an acceptance in the public opinion that the NO vote will win for sure
* Using polling companies contracted by the CIA
* Criticize and discredit the National Elections Council
* Generate a sensation of fraud
* Use a team of experts from the universities that will talk about how the data from the Electoral Registry has been manipulated and will build distrust in the voting system

The CIA memo also talks about:

* Isolating Chavez in the international community
* Trying to achieve unity amongst the opposition
* Seek an aliance between those abstentionists and those who will vote "NO"
* Sustain firmly the propaganda against Chavez
* Execute military actions to support the opposition mobilizations and propagandistic occupations
* Finalize the operative preparations on the US military bases in Curacao and Colombia to provide support to actions in Venezuela
* Control a part of the country during the next 72-120 hours
* Encourage a military rebellion inside the National Guard forces and other components

Those involved in these actions as detailed in the CIA memo are:


* The CIA Office in Venezuela - Office of Regional Affairs, and Officer Michael Steere
* US Embassy in Venezuela, Ambassador Patrick Duddy
* Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO) at the US Embassy in Caracas and Military Attache Richard Nazario

Venezuelan Political Parties:

* Comando Nacional de la Resistencia
* Accion Democratica
* Primero Justicia
* Bandera Roja

Media:


* Alberto Federico Ravell & Globovision
* Interamerican Press Society (IAPA) or SIP in Spanish
* International Press Agencies

Venezuelans:

* Pena Esclusa
* Guyon Cellis
* Dean of the Simon Bolivar University, Rudolph Benjamin Podolski
* Dean of the Andres Bello Catholic University, Ugalde
* Students: Yon Goicochea, Juan Mejias, Ronel Gaglio, Gabriel Gallo, Ricardo Sanchez


Operation Tenaza has the objective of encouraging an armed insurrection in Venezuela against the government of President Chavez that will justify an intervention of US forces, stationed on the military bases nearby in Curacao and Colombia. The Operation mentions two countries in code: as Blue and Green. These refer to Curacao and Colombia, where the US has operative, active and equipped bases that have been reinforced over the past year and a half in anticipation of a conflict with Venezuela.

The document confirms that psychological operations are the CIA's best and most effective weapon to date against Venezuela, and it will continue its efforts to influence international public opinion regarding President Chavez and the situation in the country.

Operation Tenaza is a very alarming plan that aims to destabilize Venezuela and overthrow (again) its legitimate and democratic (and very popularly support) president. The plan will fail, primarily because it has been discovered, but it must be denounced around the world as an unacceptable violation of Venezuela's sovereignty.

The original document in English will be available in the public sphere soon for viewing and authenticating purposes. And it also contains more information than has been revealed here.
 

teeski53

Potential Star
Registered
This is a deep documentary on what ya'll brothers talkin about
thanks for increasing my awareness with the post, here is my contribution!





THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED



[FLASH]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=5832390545689805144[/FLASH]
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
Chavez Loses Constitutional Vote
News Type:
HOME , Putin#_#s , Party , Overwhelms , Russia , Election
AP

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.

"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent.

Opposition activists were ecstatic as the results were announced shortly after midnight - with 88 percent of the vote counted, the trend was declared irreversible by elections council chief Tibisay Lucena.

Some shed tears. Others began chanting: "And now he's going away!"

Foes of the reform effort - including Roman Catholic leaders, media freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders - said it would have granted Chavez unchecked power and imperiled basic rights.

Chavez told reporters at the presidential palace that the outcome of Sunday's balloting had taught him that "Venezuelan democracy is maturing." His respect for the verdict, he asserted, proves he is a true democratic leader.

"From this moment on, let's be calm," he proposed, asking for no more street violence like the clashes that marred pre-vote protests. "There is no dictatorship here."

A senior U.S. official hailed Chavez's referendum defeat Monday as a victory for the country's citizens who want to preserve democracy and prevent Chavez from having unchecked power.

"We felt that this referendum would make Chavez president for life, and that's not ever a welcome development," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told reporters in Singapore. "In a country that wants to be a democracy, the people spoke, and the people spoke for democracy and against unlimited power."

Chavez, who was briefly ousted in a failed 2002 coup, blamed the loss on low turnout among the very supporters who re-elected him a year ago with 63 percent of the vote.

Seven in 10 eligible voters cast ballots then. This time it was just 56 percent.

The defeated reform package would have created new types of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map and suspended civil liberties during extended states of emergency. Without the overhaul, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.

Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds.

Nelly Hernandez, a 37-year-old street vendor, cried as she wandered outside the presidential palace early Monday amid broken beer bottles as government workers took apart a stage mounted earlier for a victory fete.

"It's difficult to accept this, but Chavez has not abandoned us, he'll still be there for us," she said between sobs.

A close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro, Chavez has redistributed more oil wealth than past Venezuelan leaders, and also has aided Latin American allies - including Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua - that have followed Venezuela's turn to the left.

"He is a man who feels for the people, a man who has suffered, a man who comes from below," Carlos Orlando Vega, a 47-year-old carpenter's assistant, said outside a polling station in a Caracas slum on Sunday.

Vega is among tens of thousands of Venezuelans who, under Chavez, have new government-provided homes.

Chavez urged calm and restraint after his Sunday setback.

"I wouldn't have wanted that Pyrrhic victory," he said, suggesting a small margin wouldn't have been enough of a mandate.

Tensions surged in the weeks ahead of Sunday's vote, with university students leading protests and occasionally clashing with police and Chavista groups.

Chavez had warned opponents against inciting violence before the vote, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States if the Bush administration interfered.

Chavez, 53, also suffered some high-profile defections by political allies, including former defense minister Gen. Raul Baduel.

Early Monday, Baduel reminded fellow Venezuelans that Chavez still wields special decree powers thanks to a pliant National Assembly packed with his supporters.

"These results can't be recognized as a victory," Baduel told reporters,

Baduel, who as defense minister helped Chavez turn back the 2002 putsch, said Venezuela can only be properly united by convening a popularly elected assembly to rewrite its constitution.

Chavez has progressively steamrolled a fractured opposition since he was first elected in 1998, and his allies now control most elected posts.

At opposition headquarters in an affluent east Caracas district, jubilant Chavez foes sang the national anthem.

"This reform was about democracy or totalitarian socialism, and democracy won," said opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez said.

"At least now we have the guarantee that Chavez will leave power," said Valeria Aguirre, a 22-year-old student who had braved tear gas during street protests.

Lucena, the electoral agency chief, called the vote "the calmest we've had in the last 10 years."

All was reported calm during Sunday's voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.

---

Associated Press writers Ian James, Edison Lopez, Fabiola Sanchez, Jorge Rueda, Christopher Toothaker and Sandra Sierra contributed to this report.

Join Chat
 
Top