Is Hugo Chavez is the greatest world leader so far in the 21st century?

[billbuckhead]

[MasonJar]

1. It surely is not GWB or Tony Blair.

[Walt Starr]

2. Chavez isn't even in the top fifty, IMO n/t

[Poppyseedman]

39. I agree

Top fifty is pushing it.

I wonder what the member posting defines as "greatest"

If being loudest anti-bush world leader qualifies as "greatest". It's a low standard.

[madokie]

3. The man, Hugo

has a sense of what is right, take from the rich and give to the poor to empower the people for the good of all.

[cliss]

4. Yes. Is there any one

who has stood up to Bush and his Cabal? Here are a few who have spoken out.

Jacques Chirac
Gerhard Schröeder
Kim Jong Il
Vladimir Putin
Gloria Arroyo
Muqtada Al Sadr - without a doubt
Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani - definitely
Silvio Berluscolini (not much)
the Chinese - various departments
Vicente Fox - a little bit
----------------------
But none like Hugo Chavez. He has gone where None have Dared to Go. Why? Because he's sitting on a lot of oil. And Washington is currently having seizures over it.

[Cha]

8. I voted for Chavez but

just thought of Nelson Mandela..another one who speaks out against bushwa.

[billbuckhead]

9. It's wrong to have Gerry Schroeder's name beside Kim Jong

Jack and Jerry might have been the greatest but the Iraqi invasion strangled their economies.

[iwantmycountryback]

12. Are you fucking kidding me?

Please tell me you are fucking joking when you put Kim Jong Il and Al Sadr on that list. Being anti-Bush is one thing, but it's another when you're also a murderer and terrorist. I think Chavez is ok, but his relationship with Castro is disconcerting to me. I think the President that Spain elected after those bombings, Zapatero is very good. I hear he has done some very good things, including legalizing gay marriage.

[JanMichael]

19. Some of us care as much about Economics as Social issues.

So while Gay Rights is FABULOUS, Medical Care and uplifting the Oppressed MASSES is just as important. Ie. Chavez over the softer accomplishments of Zapetero. I like both however but Chavez is certainly more revolutionary.

Gotta agree with you though on Kim Jong Il, a fruitcake there may have never been with that sort of artillery at his disposal...

[iwantmycountryback]

22. I understand your viewpoint

But like I said, Chavez certainly has the right idea but his leaning towards communism and being friendly with Castro bothers me. I wonder if he is really anti-Bush or anti-American as well. I'd like to see how he acts when there is hopefully a Democrat in office soon.

I haven't followed either one too closely, but I just remember watching something about Zapatero and really liking what he had done, and he has done some other things besides gay rights. Remember he promised to pull his troops out of Iraq and did as well.

[JanMichael]

26. He's Anti-Imperialism.

If Anti-Americanism is the same thing then I suppose he might be, however under those terms who wouldn't be if living in a place that gets stomped by it repeatedly?

As far as Dems are concerned Kerry was fairly hostile towards the Chavez Government so I imagine while the response wouldn't be as hostile as with the Fascist Bush there it still would take some work.

[1932]

44. He's pro-America circa 1776, 1863, and 1941

ie, when we have been anti-empire and/or pro-justice.

[cliss]

89. I was not being judgmental in any way of the

people on the list. I think that to a great extent, they've all been threatened by Bush. Kim Jong is not my favourite fella, but I have nothing against Muqtada Al-Sadr.

And yes, I forgot Zapatero. He's been really good to Spain so far.

[ComerPerro]

77. How does that make him a great leader?

[cliss]

87. Courage.

The guts to stand up to Bush.

[rostombulus]

106. How can you list great leaders without el Maximo Leader, Fidel Castro?

Leaving Castro off the "list of heroes" is just wrong.
Robert Mugabe has also defied the west.
Bin Laden humiliated America on 9-11
Louis Farakhan has shown such presence humanity and grace over the years
George Galloway is a man for all seasons
Ted Kascynski is the great philosopher laureate
Noam Chomsky is the sage of all sages
And how you could leave Mikhail Segeryivitch Gorbachev off the list is just criminal
Finally my own favorite Kwame Kirkpatrick

Anyone of this hall of your heroes are more than enough to set back human civilization 100 years.

By any standard of folly diminishing DU's thinking in the eyes of mainstream America, this thread will be treasured for years as proof DU lacks the wisdom and intellectual soundness to aspire to national leadership.

[mottledsoul]

5. I Wish He Were My President

At least Chavez doesn't impose his armies on other innocent countries like a certain chimp I loathe.

[DemInDistress]

6. I admire Chavez

for thumbing his nose at the Bush Crime Family and I fill my gas tank whenever possible at CITGO...Since their weren't many choices I gave my vote to Hugo,hell what good had the "BOY KING"done for America.By
allowing the 911 attacks the Bush Crime Family goes down in my history
books as the worst masss murderers in history and the killing goes on.

[NYCGirl]

7. No. NT

[oldtime dfl_er]

10. Um no but

he's a helluva lot better than most of them!

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/654252

[JanMichael]

21. Who is then?

Just curious.

[enid602]

11. Lula

I would vote for Lula in Brazil.

[Bucky]

40. Good choice.

Chavez gets more press because he throws bigger temper tantrums than anybody else (besides Kim Jong Il and George Jong Bush). Lula makes reforms that work. And acts like a grown up.

[Minstrel Boy]

52. Chavez is making a radical difference

in the lives of the poor of his nation. I like Lula, but at this point, he's made too many compromises for me to be inspired by him.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

105. In the last two years, being for the poor has become my litmus test.

Today, the poorest country in the world (Sierra Leone, I believe) is POORER than the poorest country in the wolrd in the 19th centtury, which was China. At that time, by no coincidence, the richest country was the UK which was getting rich off of China.

In the last century and a halve, I believe (IIRC) the richest county per capita (Luxembourg, with the US close behind) is 75 times wealthier than the Uk was when it was ripping off china.

So the wealthy have gotten very wealthy, but the poor have gotten poorer.

At some point, we have to do something about this polarization of wealth before we cross teh tipping point globally (the same way the US crossed the tipping point during the Great Depression).

[Kerebos]

13. What has Chavez done to deserve such accolades?

Please let me know. He hates the shrub. That's about all I can think of.

[ret5hd]

15. read much?

[Kerebos]

17. Enlighten me.

Chavez is the GREATEST leader of the 21st century? What has he done to make the world a better place and please list Venezuela's contributions to other nations needing aid around the world that make Chavez deserving of heroic stature.

[JanMichael]

23. Who would you suggest then?

As far as "showing" you you only have to look as far as GOOGLE to figure that out on your own.

[Kerebos]

29. Help enlighten me.

What has Chavez done to help the world? I really don't know. Is he directing the Venezuelan government to feed the poor in Africa and sending money for AIDS education and treatment?

Don't get defensive, just tell me why Hugo Chavez should be embraced as the greatest leader of this century. How has he made the world a better place, for the global community?

[not systems]

30. He is giving greatly subsidized oil to many of the poorest...

countries in the Caribbean and South America.

He is also directing state resources to antipoverty and
literacy programs for the poor in Venezuela.

Aren't the poor in this hemisphere worth helping or
do only the poor in Africa deserve to be lifted up?

He is making sure that the oil wealth is benefiting
the regular people who live in his nation not just the
corporations and oligarchic class.

[Kerebos]

33. All poor people need help

Why are you leaving out Africans? And honestly, you have not articulated why Hugo Chavez should be considered the "greatest leader of the 21st century" for helping people in his own region/nation. How has he helped the world?

ALL poor people, the world over, need help. Why should Venezuelans be given preferences just because those are his people? The Shrub says Americans are his biggest priority, you know, the ones that "live in his nation". Kinda like what you just said about Chavez. Perspective.

[not systems]

36. Perspective. Yes it is needed...

Hugo Chavez is the president of a small and poor country
relative to the US yet he make great efforts to aid the
economic health of his neighboring countries.

The US and Bush on the other hand are the greatest exporters
of arms and militarism in the world and never think twice about
strengthening the hand of the haves and haves mores of the
world against the poor and needy.

Do you believe Bush has "Americans" as his biggest priority?

I think the evidence is he has his class of international
oil and arms traffickers as his greatest priority.

[HamdenRice]

41. This is a little silly ...

Chavez is the president of Venezuela, not the president of Africa. And Venezuela has a lot of poor people, and it is his duty to first, realign the Venezuelan political system so that he can redirect the oil revenues from corruption for the rich, to social and economic development; and then when Venezuela is a developed country he might contribute to the development in other poor regions.

[1932]

46. The anti-neoliberal example he's setting will ultimately help Africa

immensely.

[Kicked in the Taco]

50. Well said. eom

[1932]

45. He's at forefront of providing successful alternatives to neoliberalism.

He's also a rare survivor of a right wing coup.

[JanMichael]

16. I don't know, perhaps empowering those that have been suppressed?

In a nation that has a super-small elite who control nearly all the wealth?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jamison]

14. Yes for Chavez!

He's about the only world leader now that seems to give a care about the poor. The fact that he recognizes the * administration is evil and that he never cowers to them is great. The man has balls unlike a lot of Dems.

[Brightmore]

18. No.

Besides being friends with dictators like Saddam and Castro, what has he done that he deserves to be called the greatest leader so far in the 21st century?

[not systems]

24. Friends with Saddam don't you think that horse is just about whipped?

Really?

[Brightmore]

25. No.

Are we not talking about the greatest leader of the 21st century? Shouldn't we look at what a leader has done in the past 5 years?

[not systems]

28. What is it you think he has done? Something with Saddam?

Got link?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

47. yes please do give us a source for your Chavez/Saddam connection.

nt

[1932]

51. As the head of an OPEC nation, Chavez decided he would meet with other

OPEC nation heads at least once a year, IIRC.

Sounds like a good idea, right?

It is, but it gives people the chance to snap pictures and tell lies, like, "these guys are friends and are working together."

When Rumsfield met with Sadaam, by the way, it wasn't because he they were fellow OPEC leaders. It was because the US wanted to make Iraq the next Saudi Arabia -- a nation deeply invested in America, which would ship all its petro dollars to the US in exchange for development projetcts that would make connected US companies rich.

[mattclearing]

68. Chavez spoke out in favor of Saddam in the lead up to the Iraq War.

This is well-established. It was inflammatory rhetoric, totally over the top, which is common for Chavez. I could search for a link, but I'm sure anyone with Google who cares that much will be able to do so.

[not systems]

79. Provide the link. I have seen him speak against the war...

but surely we can agree that he was correct that the war was wrong.

[mattclearing]

82. He visited Saddam, according to Wikipedia.

During Venezuela's presidency of OPEC in 2000, Chávez made a ten-day tour of OPEC countries, in the process becoming the first head of state to meet Saddam Hussein<1>, since the Gulf War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez



Having a hard time finding quotes in favor of Hussein though, but most Iraq war critics are willing to admit that Saddam Hussein was a terrible head of state.

[not systems]

83. Iraq was an OPEC member Venezuela was the head of OPEC...

doesn't sound very strange to me.

But if you think that Saddam who had no WMDs who
had complied with the UN mandates was so evil and bad that
no nation should have done business with him then look
closer to home.

More than 50% of the oil for food scammers were right here
waving the red white and blue, and still are running the show.

The UN sanctions should have been lifted from Iraq after
it complied with the demands. Instead the US and UK blocked
it and launched an unprovoked and illegal war that has caused
the deaths of 100000+ people.

[mattclearing]

90. Don't put words in my mouth.

Saddam killed many of his own citizens for perceived disloyalty. He wasn't an honorable man by any standard. And that's not to say that somehow the people responsible for deposing him are.

And I agree that the sanctions should have been lifted, as they hurt the Iraqi people and had almost no effect on Saddam Hussein.

[not systems]

97. Didn't you say...

"Chavez spoke out in favor of Saddam in the lead up to the Iraq War."

because my point is that speaking against the war was
the only thing that a person who believe in the rule of
law could do.

So unless you have something more concrete than Chavez
meeting with Saddam as the current head of OPEC you should
reconsider trying to tar Chavez with Saddam.

We agree that that Saddam is no prize but his crimes are
very rapidly being eclipsed by even greater ones committed
in our name and with our tax dollars. Iraq would be better
off if the war had never happened and the sanctions had been
lifted allowing more power to develop in the hands of the
Iraqi people who like all peoples would have used that power
to increase their freedoms eventually.

[JanMichael]

20. So far yes he is.

Way beyond the Bush bashing the man has made some serious strides in uplifting those folks in Venezuela that aren't so White.

[Brightmore]

27. What about Bill Clinton?

He was president for the first 20 days of the 21st century, right? :)

[mattclearing]

69. Based on that, Clinton gets my vote.

And even so, without his famed bridge, we'd never have gotten to the 21st Century. :D

[Sapphire Blue]

76. NAFTA, WTO

[Brightmore]

93. Peace and Prosperity for 8 years

[Sapphire Blue]

96. Prosperity?!?!?

NAFTA AT SEVEN
Its impact on workers in all three nations

Introduction

Each year since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994, officials in Canada, Mexico, and the United States have regularly declared the agreement to be an unqualified success. It has been promoted as an economic free lunch-a "win-win-win" for all three countries that should now be extended to the rest of the hemisphere in a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.

For some people, NAFTA clearly has been a success. This should not be a surprise inasmuch as it was designed to bring extraordinary government protections to a specific set of interests-investors and financiers in all three countries who search for cheaper labor and production costs. From that perspective, increased gross volumes of trade and financial flows in themselves testify to NAFTA's achievements.

But most citizens of North America do not support themselves on their investments. They work for a living. The overwhelming majority has less than a college education, has little leverage in bargaining with employers, and requires a certain degree of job security in order to achieve a minimal, decent level of living. NAFTA, while extending protections for investors, explicitly excluded any protections for working people in the form of labor standards, worker rights, and the maintenance of social investments. This imbalance inevitably undercut the hard-won social contract in all three nations.

As the three reports in this paper indicate, from the point of view of North American working people, NAFTA has thus far largely failed.

Continued @ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_index

NAFTA's Hidden Costs
Trade agreement results in job losses, growing inequality, and wage suppression for the United States

by Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) eliminated 766,030 actual and potential U.S. jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the net U.S. export deficit with Mexico and Canada. The loss of these real and potential jobs1 is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA's impact in the U.S., however, often has been obscured by the boom and bust cycle that has driven domestic consumption, investment, and speculation in the mid- and late 1990s. Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the U.S., causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. Unemployment, however, began to rise early in 2001, and, if job growth dries up in the near future, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade patterns will become much more apparent, especially in the manufacturing sector. The U.S. manufacturing sector has already lost 759,000 jobs since April 1998 (Bernstein 2001). If, as expected, U.S. trade deficits continue to rise with Mexico and Canada while job creation slows, then the job losses suffered by U.S. workers will be much larger and more apparent than if U.S. NAFTA trade were balanced or in surplus.

Growing trade deficits and job losses
NAFTA supporters have frequently touted the benefits of exports while remaining silent on the impacts of rapid import growth (Scott 2000). But any evaluation of the impact of trade on the domestic economy must include both imports and exports. If the United States exports 1,000 cars to Mexico, many American workers are employed in their production. If, however, the U.S. imports 1,000 foreign-made cars rather than building them domestically, then a similar number of Americans who would have otherwise been employed in the auto industry will have to find other work. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like trying to balance a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals.

Continued @ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us

The impact of NAFTA on wages and incomes in Mexico

The decline in real wages and the lack of access to stable, well-paid jobs are critical problems confronting Mexico's workforce. While NAFTA has benefited a few sectors of the economy, mostly maquiladora industries and the very wealthy, it has also increased inequality and reduced incomes and job quality for the vast majority of workers in Mexico. In many ways (such as the stagnation of the manufacturing share of employment), the entire process of development has been halted, and in some cases it even may have been reversed. NAFTA has created some of the most important challenges for Mexico's development in the 21st century. The question that remains is whether Mexico can, under NAFTA, restart its stalled development and find a way to redistribute the benefits of the resulting growth.

More @ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_mx

[Emendator]

31. Putin

As of now, trying to look at things from the perspective of the future, I'd go with Putin. Russia is still a major country and the rulers of major countries always have the inside track in terms of the history books. The Russian economy has been growing very well under him. He has stabilized a very chaotic country and has reigned in the oligarchs. Russia still has a lot of problems, but he may be remembered as the leader who helped turn things around.

GW Bush would have to be considered the worst, as he is a world menace and disruptor of peace and the international system.

[liberalpragmatist]

32. Hm

Okay, I've never liked Putin. That said, from a realpolitik standpoint, I might have agreed with you, say, about 2 or 3 years ago. But at this point I really doubt it. Not only have his recent moves squandered much of Russia's economic progress, foreign investors have been scared away. He's clearly centralizing power to turn himself into a quasi-dictator and his disastrous policy in Chechnya has led to millions of deaths and a military quagmire for Russia. He's meddled in the internal affairs of surrounding states like Ukraine.

All around he's quickly proving to be an utmost despot. Maybe if things turn around he'll get to be remembered as Russia's Ataturk, but at a tremendous cost. And even of that I'm pretty doubtful.

Oh, and in answer to the original post: no. World's greatest leader? Frankly I think we're in a bad spot right now. Maybe PM Koizumi of Japan (though I know he isn't popular on the American left for his support of the Iraq War) - whatever, he seems to have been good for Japan.

[Emendator]

37. The

anti-Putin sentiment really only began after the jailing of Khodarkovsky and the neocons really hated that. As part of that he renationalized an oil company and sold it off to another. Apparently under Khodarkovsky that company was fraudulent and not paying owed certain taxes - but Khodarkovsky wanted to sell it to an American oil company, that's when Putin stepped in.

So that's really not very much different than our recent Supreme Court ruling, where private property can be seized and resold to another private group.

The same type of renationalizations are going on to a greater degree in Ukraine, where Yulia Tymoshenko has ruined the economy. And Russia's involvement in the Ukraine election was minimal compared to that of our neocons. Yuschenko was almost certainly not poisoned by the Russians - there are good articles on antiwar.com about why not.

As far as destroying democracy, I just don't buy it. Russia will still have national elections and Putin says he's not going to run. He will be allowed to run for president again someday though after someone else serves a term. There is a movement to change the constitution to allow him to run for a 3rd consecutive term, but why is that a big deal if done democratically? FDR, who centralized things to a large extent, served three terms and was elected to a fourth. He was also accused of being a quasi-dictator. And with today's media and the internet, it's hard to rule overly autocratically.

Provincial governors are now appointed from Moscow and not elected. The reason this was done was to ensure that governors would have closer ties to Moscow and not be subject to foreign interference. Russia is not unique in this as India also appoints governors - but we don't hear complaints about India.

The Chechnyan war is a problem. I don't know if millions have died but it's certainly very bad. I would just as soon see Russia let it go. But what he's doing is no different than what Abraham Lincoln did, try to keep a region from seceding.

I don't mean to lionize Putin. But the things that his critics dwell on do not make him unique - for example, we have FDR and Lincoln. Putin is still very popular and its economy hasn't been irreperable damaged by the Khodarkovsky deal. But I think he is probably the most talented and disciplined leader in the world. Even if he manages to serve beyond two terms he can still govern well and do a good job. It's an internal Russian matter and we should butt out.

I don't know enough about Koizumi. I don't think he's done anything earth shattering that will be remembered in 100 years.

[liberalpragmatist]

64. Well, Indian governors are ceremonial

In India, governor's are largely ceremonial - the main power rests with the Chief Minister, who's essentially the prime minister of the state.

Even if Putin ISN't a dictator, he's clearly set up a climate of repression and media-emasculation and could well have set up a system that will result in a future dictatorship.

And while Chechnya probably isn't a viable independent state and keeping it from seceding is an understandable point of view, there's a difference between holding on to a piece of land and committing the kinds of atrocities the Russian army has done in Chechnya.

Who knows. I know there was an influential FOreign Affairs article published last year that said Russia's problems are overhyped and that the country is pretty normal for its size.

[Emendator]

73. Time will tell

as it always does. But the fact that the identity of those most opposed to him, the neocons, leads me to give Putin the benefit of the doubt. As bad as Putin may or may not be, his thugs won't ever be knocking your door down. We should be more concerned about our own nitwit president and his thugs.

[Darranar]

42. Putin? Um, yeah. I'm sure the Chechens agree very enthusiastically. n/t

[puerco-bellies]

34. CHAVEZ.. I'm partial to the name..

[davekriss]

35. Hugo Chavez for U.S. Prez!!! (eom)

[Bucky]

38. Chavez is a left wing Bush, driving out the middle class in droves

Sorry, but despite how much he hate Bush, Chavez just isn't a terribly responsible leader. He's selling off Citgo to the Saudis, nationalizing businesses recklessly, re-writing the constitution to increase his own power, overregulating businesses, stealing votes. He's replacing corporate corruption in Venezuela with socialist corruption--hardly an improvement. Sure, he's built a few more houses for the poor in Venezuela. But the way he's ruining his country's economy along the way isn't going to help anybody in the long run. History will judge Chavez as a short sighted egomaniac who thought he was above the law... just a notch above Bush, if only because Chavez isn't starting any vanity wars.

Let's pick a real hero.

[1932]

49. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Read this book and then come back here and correct your errors.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1920888004/qid=1125152765/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9002889-8520749?v=glance&s=books

He put in the CONSTITUTION that PDVSA can only be owned by the state. It's the one industry he says that he wants nationalized. He says this in Aleida Guevara's book.

They've rewritten the constitution in 1998 to DEVOLVE power to the people, and that project is finished. A constituent assembly wrote and passed the constitution, not Chavez. It obviously didn't give him enough centralized power to avoid a recall election (which he won, the seventh in a row that he or his party won with increasing margins).

The criticisms of the economy, by the way, are so 2003. Since then -- since the rightwingers' strike to sabotage the economy ended and since the government removed them from PDVSA, the economy has been doing very well.

[vividcolor77]

94. Bravo Freeper

My favorite part was "He's selling off Citgo to the Saudis". lol
Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East.

[Kicked in the Taco]

43. Yes, probably.

There are a number of potentially great leaders in Latin America at the moment- but Chavez has led the way in bringing about real improvement for his people, and not being cowed by the Bush regime.

[Minstrel Boy]

48. There has not been a world leader in my lifetime

who inspires me like this man.

He's the blood of my own heart.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Minstrel Boy]

56. Your definition of democracy

may be lacking its spirit.

Chavez was on the right side of history to attempt to depose Perez. He was removed from office the year after the attempt on corruption charges, and was convicted and sentenced to prison.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

59. The government Chavez opposed had taken up arms agains the PEOPLE

they murdered citizens.

They broke their compact with the people and lost the moral basis of their rule.

[1932]

58. So, you wouldn't consider Washington and Jefferson great leaders?

Good to know.

Lincoln and FDR also took up arms to fight injustice, fascism and empire.

They wouldn't be great leaders?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

61. When that government murdered its citizens, it lost the right to call

itself a democracy.

Democracies don't murder citizens who protest its policies.

[1932]

63. BTW, the UK's government is pretty much the same today as it was in 1776

It had an elected parliament then, and it does now. The problem was that the colonized people didn't have a say in the government. That's what was happening in Venezuela, except the colonized people were the Venezuelans for whom neoliberal policies were causing tremendous misery.

And even though the government had lost its moral authority, Chavez did go to jail for his offense against the state, he served his time, and then worked according to the rules to get elected.

[scarletwoman]

62. What "democracy" did Chavez try to overthrow?

Chavez led a coup against a corrupt rightwing totalitarian regime. He served prison time and then was legally ELECTED as president.

Are you saying you don't approve of people rising up against corrupt and oppressive governments?

Venezuela is a democracy NOW, it was NOT when Chavez attempted to lead a coup.

sw

[Mr_Spock]

54. LOL - people must be thinking of Bush in the voting above

Clearly Chavez is a better leader than Bush. Of course, a cripled rodent would do a better job of leading our country though :rofl:

[ScreamingMeemie]

55. No.

The greatest world leader of the 21st Century...has yet to make themselves known. All of today's leaders are slaves to oil and power pretty much. This is quite a goofy poll..and all because Pat Robertson called for his execution? :shrug:

[HuckleB]

65. Indeed.

That's all that needs to be said, MrsGrumpy.

Greetings and salutations!

[K-W]

66. Thats why the thread is about who, up till now is the best leader. EOM

[ScreamingMeemie]

72. All of today's leaders are lacking. EOM

[billbuckhead]

107. No , this isn't a goofy poll, Chavez has changed Latin America forever

and maybe, in the future, America as well.

[ScreamingMeemie]

111. I reserve my opinion.

Goofy poll.

[K-W]

67. So far I see lots of No's but only one other suggestion.

I even see people saying that Hugo is out of the top 50 without even listing one name of a leader they put ahead of him.

I think its impossible to make such general judgements, but its a bit odd that people found time to say no to Chavez without explaining why.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vividcolor77]

75. Proof #4- Mercales: Cheap food for the poor.

"Here, they sell things cheaper," says Mrs Uzcategui, a 43-year-old housewife. The same money "buys me double", compared to a private store.

a "mercal" is one of the new government-sponsored supermarkets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3557844.stm

[vividcolor77]

78. testing

ok

[vividcolor77]

81. Proof #5: Venezuela inflation and consumer prices down

Steadily since the effects of the coup and oil-industry boycott were finally minimized in 2003.

[Minstrel Boy]

84. Presidente Quixote

From my blog a few months ago:



You want to know something? There's good magic, too. Venezuela's decision to print and distribute a million free copies of Don Quixote strikes me just that way: a banishing ritual of beautiful dreams that are only said to be impossible.

"To some extent, we are followers of Quixote," said President Hugo Chavez, as he encouraged Venezuelans to "feed ourselves once again with that spirit of a fighter who went out to undo injustices and fix the world."

I'm awaiting now Donald Rumsfeld to weigh in, as he did a couple of weeks ago regarding Venezuela's recent arms purchases, and say "I'm just asking, what in the world is the threat that Venezuela sees that makes them want to have all those books?"

One of the most heartening things of the Venezuelan miracle - and let's call it that - has been the symbology of the 1999 constitution. The sight of a mobilized populace, largely dark-skinned and underclass, waving copies of their own constitution, must make the hearts of oligarchs quail. It's easy to forget that history's most celebrated constitutions are revolutionary documents, but it's easy to see that the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is making living history.

Dawn Gable writes:

Article 132 states that everyone has the duty to fulfill his or her social responsibilities through participation in the political, civic, and community life of the country with the goal of promoting and protecting human rights as the foundation of democratic coexistence and social peace. Article 133 repeals forcible recruitment into the armed forces, but recognizes everyone’s duty to perform civilian or military service as may be necessary for the defense, preservation, and development of the country.

Article 135 says that the state’s obligation to the general welfare of society does not preclude the obligation of private individuals to participate according to their abilities. These duties describe participation much beyond the electoral process. They compel the public to see themselves as not so much the governed masses, but as active builders of their own society.

Meanwhile, the multi-generational campaign of intentionally dumbing down the populace, of encouraging public disengagement with the processes of governance, continues apace in the United States. There's something about a literate and educated citizenry that frightens tyrants even more than the right to bear arms. And when an informed and mobilized people compose a militia, it's the inclination of tyrants to back down.

Americans retreating from the public square and inhabiting purely private space has been called "cocooning." But cocoons are temporary utilities of metamorphosis. If you never come out to unfold new wings, and dry them in the sun, it's not a cocoon. It's your tomb.

[jmatthan]

85. Just because someone stands up to an idiot

does not make him the world's greatest leader of this century!!

But we know who are the world's dumbest people of this century - the people of the country that allowed Bush to be installed as their pResident on two occasions!!

[vividcolor77]

86. Idiot or murderous liar?

You might prefer the mild "idiot" lable, but many people prefer to view him as a "murderous barefaced liar".. George Bush a grave danger to World peace.
That being said, Chavez is not just standing up to an idiot.

[jmatthan]

88. Every nasty label can stick, war criminal, ....

eom

[vividcolor77]

91. yeah he's that too

thanks.

[Selatius]

92. He seems very prominent so far as the 21st century is concerned

Hopefully, there will be even greater leaders to emerge in the years ahead assuming no one gets assassinated like John, Bobby, or Martin here in the US.

I would also have to mention the French and German people as well as the people of other countries in their heroic efforts to try to prevent the war in Iraq. They are not officially heads of state, but people can be their own leaders, too.

[Beelzebud]

95. I hate Robertson, but I'm not blind either.

Chavez, greatest world leader of the 21st century?

Based on what, exactly?

He's not a tyrannical dictator, but what exactly elevates him to "greatest world leader"?

It's an honest question. Outside Venesuala, what has he done for the world?

[vividcolor77]

101. Here's what he has done for the world

Sell cheap oil to other Latin American countries, and set an example of how to treat your own people. If he was in charge of the UN, then he would do even more for the world. Plus World leader doesn't mean to lead the world. It means leader inside the world.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

98. Just vote here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4462563

[jzodda]

99. Is this some kind of joke?

anybody that votes for him being great when hes just another bananna republic dictator obviously hates their own country.

Since he rails against our country and our culture at every opportunity. This guy does not just hate our government, he hates our way of life. He hates all of us

not to mention that about half the people in his own country want to lynch him and people are voting that this guy is great? He has run his country into the toilet. Its times like this I am ashamed to be a part of this forum :(

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PaulaFarrell]

103. 'Since he rails against our country and our culture at every opportunity'

...what? C'mon I'm waiting of for the end of the sentence. It's bound to be good.

And this half the people who want to lynch him? Try 20%. And try reading this article

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article307975.ece

[Selatius]

104. You need to question the sources of information you use, buddy

Much of your post is full if inaccuracies and misrepresentations peddled by the same corporate interests that tried to have him overthrown in the first place.

[oasis]

110. If you are ashamed of being part of this forum it sould be because of

your ridiculous statement that some folks here "obviously hate their country".

Dismissing opinions that don't line up with yours is what I'd call "banana republic" mentality.

[CubsFan1982]

108. Dear Lord, no.

That goes hands down to Pope John Paul II, the only world leader with the guts to dress down Bush to his face on Iraq.

[manic expression]

109. Don't forget Paul Kagame!

But Hugo Chavez is up there, no doubt (along with others, of course).

[Moderator]

112. Locking...

This has become inflammatory and this thread
has run its course.