Well, you said it Sonny, not me:
First, however, Mr Chavez had a date with history. In front of a packed
national assembly he accepted the presidential sash, raised his right
hand and declared: "Fatherland. Socialism – or death! I swear it."
So, how d’you want to go?
In
Better dead than Red, I suppose.
Whoops, make that “better Red than dead”.
Do think socialism will work this time? You have to hand it to the socialist they don’t give up trying.
“Venezuela uber alles” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Can someone send Hugo to Zimbabwe to see what happens when you nationalise everything and chuck out the wealth creators?
Q: What’s the difference between a socialist and someone with learning difficulties?
A: Absolutely nothing!
Hugo Chavez is one of the few world leaders worthy of respect. He has improved the country greatly over some nine years of rule. Why don’t you whiners take it up with the Venezuelan people whose resounding vote kept him in office.
You missed the best quote: “Whether Venezuela is moving ahead towards an innovative leftwing economic model, or moving backwards towards Cuban-style authoritarianism …”
Wasn’t Cuba a leftwing economic model?
Socialism or Death?
They usually go together.
RedOmar yes well considering how he treats the opposition I rather don’t think they have any choice. Calling Chavez democratic is about as accurate as saying Saddam was democratically elected.
Venezuela was more or less a “basket case” even before Chavez and it has certainly become worse since. Its oil resources (nationalized from the Rockefellers 50 or so years ago) enriched and financed the upper echelons and placated those below.
Four friends and I used to go there–up the Caroni in the vicinity of Angel Falls–to prospect for gold and diamonds (actually to enjoy extended camping trips). The last time was in 1980 and lasted a bit over a month. At that time, Chavez was still on his (placards everywhere, even in jungle villages) “He walks with the people” campaign. Somehow, our inoffensive group became the subject of a vilification campaign by Chavez’ supporters in the media and legislature.
We were referred to as “secret, heavily-armed (we had a 12-gauge) North American mining interests.” We “exploited the indigineous population” (we hired two local Pemon Indian men as guides and helpers–the same two on several trips).
We used the “forced labor of small children” (one of our guides begged to bring his 5 and 8-year old boys and they, indeed, delightedly made themselves useful in many ways; cheap, too–we could pay ’em in chocolate bars and kipper snacks).
We “distributed arms” (made a present of our shotgun to a resident Baptist missionary). After we left, he was arrested by the military, questioned at their detention center, and released without charges; the furor in the legilature (in Caracas) abated. But a year later, the same clamor was raised again by the same people and the missionary found himself expelled. In some ways, Chavez may be just another tin-pot, Keystone-cops type
but scary nonetheless.
”RedOmar yes well considering how he treats the opposition I rather don’t think they have any choice. Calling Chavez democratic is about as accurate as saying Saddam was democratically elected.”
Actually, the elections in Venezuela were perfectly fair, as noted by international observers. Its sad to see the lie that Chavez was not democratically elected is still going strong.
Leave a Reply