Chávez: Gaddafi will be remembered as a martyr

[ChangoLoa]

Source: El Universal

From now on, Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi will be remembered as a martyr, according to Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez.

"Unfortunately, Gaddafi's death has been confirmed. He was murdered. It is another onslaught on life," Chávez commented and added that the north-African leader was also a "great fighter."

"We will remember Gaddafi forever as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr," the Head of State told reporters in the Venezuelan Andean city of La Grita.

Read more: http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/111020/chavez-gaddafi-will-be-remembered-as-a-martyr

[dionysus]

1. ROFL

:rofl:

[Richardo]

2. Your opinion is noted, Hugo.

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

3. No, he won't, Hugo.

At least not by any rational person.

[chrisa]

4. *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

[TheWraith]

10. Still crickets when it comes to the Chavez defenders.

Nevertheless, kicked and recommended.

[sabrina 1]

16. You mean 'from the defenders of the Rule of Law and the rights

of other countries to their sovereignty.

Looks like the UN agrees with Chavez. Demands are now being made by the International Law Community for an investigation into what appears to be a grotesque violation of the Geneva Conventions on the video of Gadaffi's death.

And much as this will disappoint you, but apparently Hugo is correct. All across the ME Gadaffi is apparently now being called a martyr and a hero with demonstrations condemning what is being called 'a murder of the leader of a sovereign state'.

Other calls by Human Rights Organizations for investigations into the murder of Black Africans and the torture and murder of POWs by those the Western Imperial Powers are now calling new allies. The new allies starting out with the reputation of war crimes and brutality by a majority of the people of the world. Yes, Hugo sadly, appears to be correct.

I am glad to see today that the World's Civilized people were horrified by what they witnessed yesterday and are calling for accountability for those involved. That the World, other than a few people in the US, condemns the Violations of the Geneva Conventions witnessed in that video which horrified most civilized human beings, but was sadly cheered for by the usual minority regardless of the laws that were intended to keep this world a civilized place for all people.

It's going to be very difficult for the West to recognize these people as their allies, and continue to claim they respect the rule of law. But it is heartening to see that the views reflected here by some yesterday, are very much in the minority. Chavez represents the majority on that grotesque display of brutality by our new allies.

[TheWraith]

20. Right, I get it. Anything the west does is evil; anyone who opposes them is pure good.

Got it.

Nevermind the fact that the entire civilized world recognizes the legitimacy of the NTC, and so too does anyone who's glad to see Africa rising up and shedding it's brutal dictators. No, you've got to find some kind of way to spin it around and justify what are clearly and completely unjustifiable and downright inhuman comments from Chavez depicting a mass murderer as a saint.

[sabrina 1]

23. The Imperial Western Leaders recognize the brutal

so-called NTC. Their people in the civilized world are on the streets demanding they be replaced for their corruption and crimes against their OWN people. Please, are you serious? There are no more unpopular governments in the world, than those who initiated this pretend 'humanitarian' intervention in yet another Imperial war against an oil rich Muslim country. Britain and France is calling for an investigation into their so-called leaders over Libya and a vast majority of their people want them gone for this and many, many other reasons.

If you think by calling the warmongering leaders of NATO 'civilized' you will score points, I suggest you take a look at what their own people think of them. Hopefully the Global Revolutions taking place in their own countries, will remove them from office and restore those countries to the rule of law, with prosecutions and accountability for many of them, as is now being demanded.

[TheWraith]

26. Honestly, you sound like a self-parody.

1. Take a bunch of anti-western jingoism, and shake it up. Make sure to repeat the word "imperialist" a lot.

2. Assert that we're invading Country X for their oil. Even if there's no oil there, or there's no actual invasion, or the oil agreements are remaining exactly the same as they were before.

3. Invoke some apocalyptic rhetoric about how you'll be proven right any second now, and anyone who can't see your massive rightness is a capitalist imperialist running dog lackey.

4. Conveniently ignore the fact that the Libyans themselves rose up to throw out the dictator who had spent decades exploiting them, oppressing them, and stealing from them, in order to imply that they're just western puppets and to shift the accusations of "atrocities" onto the people instead of the guy who specialized in mass graves.

By the way, newsflash: I'm not sure what color the sky is where you are, but on the whole very few people in the US and western Europe have any interest in replacing their governments. Imaginary "revolutions" notwithstanding.

[sabrina 1]

31. Fortunately your opinion of ME, and btw I am not the issue here

the rule of law is the issue, mean less than zero to me. Try to stay on topic, personal attacks, aside from being childish, never win any points.

The Libyans did not rise up 'themselves' they were prompted, the traditional enemies of Gadaffi, to do so last Fall, maybe even sooner as we do not have all the facts yet, mostly by the French with the promise of support. So those of us, like me eg, who initially supported what we thought was a genuine people's peaceful protest against a brutal regime, turned out to be wrong. At which point, I and many others stopped supporting yet another Western Imperial invasion of an oil rich nation.

But keep on believing what you wish to believe, that is your right, but as more and more calls for investigations into all of this are being made and as more information is revealed, I'm afraid this time next year it will be hard to find many who will admit to having supported this. I am already ashamed of being fooled by the same old propaganda that always accompanies these Imperial wars.

[TheWraith]

42. When you refuse to acknowledge reality, you make yourself the subject.

I'm no more going to debate someone who thinks that Ghaddafi's crimes were imperialist running dog propaganda than I'm going to debate someone who thinks that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You can say it all you like--it remains utter bullshit. Ghadaffi was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Libyans at the very least. If you want to create a bubble world where that didn't happen and it's all just propaganda, go ahead. But the reality is that your attitude comes out of a purely knee-jerk reaction that anything the US or the west as a whole is involved in must be evil, and it results in you defending and justifying a man who epitomizes everything that you claim to abhor, from rampant theft and exploitation, to the total and brutal suppression of democracy, to the mass murder of innocent civilians.

You're welcome to embrace your conspiracy theories, and I'm sure there will be plenty of people on the internet happy to write up unsourced "articles" that purport to tell you the "real truth," without all those inconvenient facts.

[sabrina 1]

53. Of course you're not going to debate. All you have produced so

far is opinion. As for 'articles on the internet'. If credible sources, such as journalists who have established a reputation for reporting facts, and Human Rights Orgs and Legal entities are 'conspiracy theorists' now, well, no wonder you stick to your own opinions. When facts get in the way of our own wishes as to how things are, it's probably better to do that.

Your false accusations against me, eg, are proof to me that facts are not a consideration. Fyi, I have been protesting US support for Dictators, including Gadaffi, for years now. I did not wait until my leaders told me he was a bad guy. I also support The Rule of Law. So, when you resort to personal insults, I know there is no factual defense of the claims being made.

Are you supporting the US's current support for one of the world's worst dictators? It's not a difficult question, yet no one who is claiming to oppose the support of Dictators will answer it for some reason. I have registered my opposition to these policies for years. Regardless of the dictator or the excuses made for that support. Consistency is everything. I'm not seeing much of that among the supporters of the abandonment of the rule of law, when it suits us.

[TheWraith]

55. The credible journalists and human rights groups will tell you Ghaddaffi as good guy is laughable.

And yet you're either unable or unwilling to accept the idea that maybe the Libyan people are smart enough to finally take the opportunity to bring down the man who's been brutalizing them for decades without being pawns of an evil capitalist imperialist invasion force. If you want to talk about consistency, by your standards the American Revolution was the secret pawns of global imperial monarchy, since we got a hell of a lot more material help from the French than the Libyan rebels got from NATO.

But no, sit back and claim personal insults, even though there haven't been any: you seem unable to distinguish between criticizing you and criticizing the terribly laughable and wrong "facts" that you use to justify your opinions. Be then, I shouldn't really expect otherwise when your "facts" are simply there to provide a claimed basis for bashing the US, even if you have to make said facts up, like your repeated claim (even after getting links proving the contrary) that Anwar Al Awlaki was in the US for years after he became a wanted terrorist, or claiming that it was only "government propaganda" that he had anything to do with terrorism when he had publicly and repeatedly claimed responsibility for related deaths.

[sabrina 1]

67. Sigh! The credible journalists and other organizations I am speaking

of have been reporting on Gadaffi for years, among others among our dictator friends. They NEVER said he was a good guy. They questioned the Bush/Obama administration's friendship with him and with other dictators. There has been huge opposition for years, to that support. Did you join those protests? They WERE pretty fierce regarding the West's cosy relationship with Gadaffi.

You seem to be very new to this issue. And you appear to have absolutely zero information on it. Why didn't you speak out when the Obama Administration continued the Bush policies towards Gadaffi? Maybe you did, but I have never seen a single objection to these relationships being continued by Obama, and still don't

Let me ask you this. Have you been involved in the movement to stop US support for brutal dictators, including Gadaffi over the past several years, as many others have? Is your concern confined to Libya? Is it because a Democrat is responsible for this latest violation of the Rule of Law that you are focused only on this one dictator?

I believe I asked repeatedly with no response, how do you feel about the Bush/Obama relationship with other dictators, in Bahrain eg, and now an even cosier relationship with Uzbekistan's brutal dictator?

I think these issues are pretty important. They used to be very important to the 'left'.

1)US Policies regarding dictators (opposed Bush and Obama's relationship with Gadaffi and other dictators)

2)The Rule of Law. Bringing people to a court of law who are accused of wrongdoing.

Mob rule as we saw in Libya this week, is now being condemned by every credible organization with calls now by the UN, and rightly so, for investigations of what appears to have been a war crime committed by our future allies in Libya yesterday.

Why would anyone who claims to object to Gadaffi, now support the same brutality they claim to oppose simply because they are told to do so? Why would they support a new regime that has already been accused by Human Rights Orgs of brutally murdering and raping Black Africans?

Why are people who claim to care about human rights, like NATO and their supporters, turning a blind eye to these crimes and doing nothing to protect those civilians? And why when people raise these questions do supporters of these 'rebels' resort to personal insults rather than address them?

[themadstork]

37. Because blindly conforming to the interests of money and privilege is so very brave of you.

[Number23]

39. Fantastic post though I truly have no idea why you bother

[TheWraith]

43. Because someone, somewhere, might read through and think she sounds knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, someone who pretends to know things can often sound to the uninitiated like they really do know things. If I prompt a few more people to take a critical look at the utter crap that some people here choose to pass off as "factual," well, it was worth it.

[Number23]

47. GMTA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2161388&mesg_id=2163117

:)

[sabrina 1]

85. And yet, you went silent when actually challenged to show your

concern for people currently under the violent rule of one of the world's worst dictators. Your information on US relations with the brutal dictator Karamov was out dated. I provided you with updated information about this administrations 'warming relationships' with him happening in the same week that the same administration cheered for the death of 'a brutal dictator' neglecting to mention that he was support by them also.

I at least expected you to acknowledge the misinformation you provided especially since you are concerned about people reading here who could be misled by such information.

I can provide you with addresses of Human Rights sites who have been trying to end US support for Dictators, including Karamov, for years. If you're interested that is.

[trumad]

50. +10000

[joshcryer]

72. Two minutes hate.

Imperialism has become the "left's" two minutes hate, so you cannot have a discussion without mentioning it at least once, particularly if you're a leader with decree powers and a supporter of said leader.

Fortunately the few armchair analysts who pretend that they know shit about Libya are insignificant little nobodies.

[themadstork]

77. Thank goodness, huh?

How dare the "insignificant nobodies" have opinions on matters? Clearly they should learn to shut up and listen to their all-knowing technocrats.

[Lyric]

22. I'm sorry--are people in the midst of an internal revolution bound by the Geneva Conventions?

Now, Gadhafi dragging people out of their homes at night and hanging them in the public square for imagined conspiracies? Funny how THAT never merited any kind of international investigation. Or him sending his military aircraft to bomb his own civilians. That was a rich person doing it, so I guess it was A-fucking-Okay with GENEVA. But the minute that poor people do it? Oh man.

Apparently, violent and brutal executions are only okay if the wealthy and powerful are doing it.

Fuck that hypocritical shit.

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes. And I cannot believe you even asked that question.

As for the rest of your claims, they are claims. If they are true, a trial under the civilized rule or law, would have decided that. Without that, they are viewed as mere propaganda, such as the kind we saw under Bush.

The US needs to stop making these claims because the more they 'accuse' their former dictator allies of, the more the question arises 'Why did you arm and support these people' and makes them complicit, if in fact these claims are true. Now you are adding to that that 'if they do it, it's okay for us to it'. The Geneva Conventions are clear. No, it is not.

[Lyric]

28. Oh dear god, you're serious.

Go to Libya and tell those people that their Gadhafi-murdered family members are "mere" imperialist western propaganda. If you're going to belittle and trivialize what those people went through for 42 effing years, you could at least have the courage to tell them that to their faces.

And of course I asked that question. This is an armed uprising by civilians--half of them probably don't even know what the Geneva Conventions ARE. Do we punish ignorance now? Is there no mercy, no exceptions for extraordinary situations?

And you know what? Given a choice between believing the people of Libya who were actually THERE and believing someone living a comfortable life an ocean away who's bashing them, I'll stand with the Libyans. I'm PROUD of them. I pray to god that the rest of the world can be so courageous in shaking off the chains of capitalism and tyranny.

Let the fucking dictators fall.

[sabrina 1]

29. It was not an armed uprising by civilians which is why it lost the

support of most of those who initially supported it. It was a NATO Imperial invasion of a sovereign nation using people who were traditional enemies of Gadaffi to accomplish. Please, only here am I seeing this claim still seriously being presented.

And yes, of course I am serious. I respect the Rule of Law, both Domestically and Internationally. Are you now saying that we should only do so when it suits our agenda?

I am wondering, how do you feel about the dictator of Uzbekistan? What should be done about a man who actually did massacre his own people just a few years ago, whose regime was so brutal to his own people, that a British Diplomat resigned his post in disgust rather than enable such evil.

And another question, were you objecting to Gadaffi this time last year when the Obama administration was considering his requests for more arms? I know I was, as I now object to the Obama administration's 'warming relationships' with the dictator of Uzbekistan. Do you support this administration's latest renewed support for Karamov? Or do you only protest dictators when the leaders you support protest them. I am asking this in all sincerity because the current support for Karamov by this administration imo, is reprensible. Just as their support fo Gadaffi was.

[dionysus]

32. you have reduced yourself to a punchline. congrats.

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

38. Firing another dud and still missing the target. But not addressing the issues.

So, what do you have to say about the actual issues? Or maybe you are attempting to parody the far right? If so, hilarious, I guess

'When you can't defend your position, resort to personal insult' and 'when the target of the insult proves to be immune and insists on evidence to back up claims, there are two positions to choose from 1)Do not respond anymore or 2)Try even more infantile insults. But never, ever engage in an actual debate that is NOT personal when you know you do not have the facts.' I think the book was called 'How to win an argument with a-know-all-Lieberal'.

Didn't help them much 'cause when you'r wrong you're wrong, something I told them so many times! :rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

34. Simply beyond satire. n/t.

[polly7]

35. +1000 n/t.

[11 Bravo]

70. You are either the most gifted satirist of the modern era, or ... well ...

I can send you my sincere sympathy and the name of a good therapist.

[joshcryer]

74. Responsibility to protect *is* the rule of law in this century. It's over for *all* dictators.

A lot of people love to talk up the "rule of law" but only when it suits their narrative.

[Prometheus Bound]

40. You can support President Obama without agreeing with every single thing he says or does.

Same goes for anyone else. What's so strange about that?

[TheWraith]

45. That's at least the most rational thing that I've heard out of anyone pro-Chavez on this thread.

Thanks for that.

Of course it seems to me that many of the pro-Chavez people seem to subscribe to a bizarre form of hero worship when it comes to him, that EVERYTHING he does must be defended uncritically.

[joshcryer]

73. You can oppose President Chavez without disagreeing with every single thing he says or does.

See how this works?

[Drahthaardogs]

30. Where's my mallet. I am going for the gong!

.

[closeupready]

5. No and that's part of why the video footage is so important.

He clearly begs for his life, rather than dies for his ... 'cause', whatever Chavez seems to think that was. I think Gaddafi's 'cause' was wealth and expensive toys.

[Lint Head]

6. And also remembered as a brutal killer.

[Bragi]

7. He will be remembered as an expendible oil-backed thug /nt

[sabrina 1]

21. Do you have any understanding of people in other parts of the

world who do not view things through the eyes of Western Imperialism? You could not be more wrong if you tried. Gadaffi will become a hero to many in the Muslim World, as is happening already. . The problem with many people in the US is that they think THEIR view is the only RIGHT view of the world. And then they ask, innocently 'but why do they hate us?'

Global polls now show that the US is viewed as the biggest threat to World Peace. Gadaffi will now be viewed by people around the world as someone who stood up to that threat, rightly or wrongly. He knew that, which is why he stayed and died in Libya. He maybe have been crazy, but he knew the region of the world he lived in. Apparently after all of our killing and bombing and interventions, the West has learned nothing, or doesn't care to.

So I guess we are now supposed to support the new brutal regime about to be installed by the West, a regime already under investigation for possible war crimes.

[TheWraith]

27. Do you?

Because you seem to be obsessed with "western imperialism" to the point where everything that ever happens is because of evil satan-worshipping western imperialists. It can't be that Ghaddafi was a terrible person and a dictator, and his people rose up to get rid of him; no, they're too stupid and corrupt for that, so it's just western capitalist imperialist propaganda. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

33. Yes, I do. Gadaffi was a terrible person, by our standards.

Did you object to the Obama administration's support for him btw BEFORE they decided to support the French and British against him? I saw no condemnations of the Obama administration's support of Gadaffi this time last year.

And again, will you be protesting the Obama administration's support for an even worse dictator, a man who has massacred his own people for peacefully protesting his brutal regime, known for boiling his own people in oil?

Or will you let the people of Uzbekistan suffer until our leaders decide he is no longer an ally?? Or will you object to say, a Republican president cutting off support, because it's a Republican. I am very confused by what is going on here. I see ZERO protests against our support for dictators who are FAR WORSE than Gadaffi ever was. Why is that?

I have been protesting our support for both Gadaffi and Karamov, among others along with Human Rights organizations for years. How about you?

The Obama administration has just announced renewed and even MORE support for the Brutal Dictator of Uzbekistan, thereby condemning the innocent people of Uzbekistan to even more suffering.

Unless you condemn this government's support of all the dictators we are currently supporting, you have zero credibility. I will await your condemnation of the latest news of our support for Karamov. If you really actually do care about the people.

[polly7]

36. Whoot! Rock on sabrina. Why do I get the feeling this is 2003? n/t.

[sabrina 1]

41. Polly7, yes, why it all feels so familiar!

Sad but true. :-)

[TheWraith]

49. Ghaddafi was a terrible person by ANYONE'S STANDARDS.

And ironically, you prove my point for me. Ghaddafi was on your "bad people" list when he was, not exactly supported by but at least cordial to, the west. Then when the west proves that they had no real friendship with him, suddenly he's an innocent martyr being crucified by the western capitalist imperialist running dog lackeys.

Also, you might want to check your facts. For starters, the name you're trying for is spelled "Karimov." Second, you should also probably read the official State Department commentary on US aid to Uzbekistan.

U.S. security assistance to Uzbekistan is limited because the Secretary of State has been unable to determine, as required by Congress, that Uzbekistan has made progress on commitments to reform included in the 2002 United States-Uzbekistan Declaration on the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Framework.

Of course, I have no doubt that if tomorrow we announced sanctions against Uzbekistan, you'd find a way to spin that around to make Karimov the victim.

[sabrina 1]

57. You're behind the news on Uzbekistan.

Clinton to discuss cooperation, regional issues in Uzbekistan

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will pay a working visit to Tashkent on October 22-23 to discuss the development of bilateral relations, the Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan said on Friday.

"Issues of enhancing and strengthening cooperation between the two countries, as well as urgent regional and international problems of mutual interest will be discussed during the visit," the ministry said.

Clinton will also visit a new engine plant built jointly by the American corporation GM with Uzbek partners.

Relations between the United States and Uzbekistan have been noticeably warming.
The U.S. Congress voted on September 22 to remove restrictions on military aid to Uzbekistan. The sanctions were imposed seven years ago in response to Uzbekistan’s deteriorating human rights record.

You have to keep up with issues that are of interest to you. They change sometimes overnight. The US policies of dealing with Dictators have always been a huge issue for me. As well as abiding by the Rule of Law.

Karamov is a criminal. There is no doubt that he massacred his own people. Or that he tortures dissenters. Bush chose to deal with him. Wikileaks cables demonstrate that the US knew 'he is a really bad guy', but 'he lets us build military bases in his country' So, who cares, right? Same thing witwh Gadaffi. So long as Karamov doesn't get any ideas about, say, giving bigger contracts to the Russians, we will turn a blind eye to his crimes.

This, and Bahrain among other brutal regimes, is why I know that the invasion of Libya was never ever about the people there. To say otherwise is to be willfully blind.

Now that you know that we are stepping up, rather than removing support, for one of the world's worst dictators, I hope you will join those of us who for years have been protesting these policies which have caused so much suffering to the millions of people they so brutally abuse, with our tax dollars.

Save your 'you love dictators garbage' for those who only protest these horrific rulers, when THEIR team tells them to. I am appalled by what I am seeing from democrats. At least when Bush was president, democrats pretended to care about these policies and about the Rule of Law. Now, how sad especially since people like me, who have been opposing these policies all along, thought that with all the talk of human rights from this administration we would never see them continuing to support such an evil regime.

Done with all of this hypocrisy. Either be consistent, and oppose this latest decision, or expect not to have credibility on the subject of dictators.

[Bragi]

84. Yes, I think I do, at least somewhat, thanks

I disagree with the idea that he was/is a hero of any sort. I also think the war against him was illegal and immoral, and that his brutal murder by a crazed mob was despicable and sad.

Given that, feel free to categorize me using your handy guide to stereotyping the political views of others.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Whatever.

Thug.

[Andrew_Writer]

9. Gaddafi?

Anyone who supports Gaddafi is sick.

[apocalypsehow]

11. K & R. n/t.

[white_wolf]

12. Chavez has done a lot of good for the poor of his country, a lot more than our President has.

I have no use for Gaddafi, but after the U.S. backed attempt to overthrow him I can't blame Chavez for taking an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. As for Libya I sincerely hope that things get better for them, but I have my doubts. If they go through shock doctrine, I don't think they will be much better off, if any.

[TheWraith]

13. I don't think it's our President's problem to fix Venezuela.

And I'm sure that the folks down there in prison for criticizing the government are just thrilled that at least the poverty rate is down... to only 30 percent or so. :eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

15. There you go again, spoiling a perfectly good "Chavez rulz!!!" post with facts. n/t.

[Number23]

46. You are killing this thread

I honestly avoid many foreign policy discussions here because they are often so embarrassingly ignorant and uninformed. People with agendas always take over these discussions, and no matter what the topic, it eventually turns into "US bad, everywhere else good" which shows the stunning naivete of so many here. I am glad that you have obviously taken a different tack and have decided to try and inform people and counter the truly moronic propaganda that is spewed here.

My only quibble with your post is that Venezuela's poverty rate is actually closer to 40%.

[TheWraith]

51. Their poverty level was close to 40% in 2005, I understand it dropped in the 2009 estimate...

...so I'm giving them credit on the assumption that that is the case. Whether the 2009 estimate is honest, or if they're trying to make Chavez look good, I'm not sure. But given that even with the "adjustments" it's still wildly higher than the rate in the US or other countries of "capitalist imperialist exploitation," it's an important point.

Thanks for the comments. :)

[Number23]

54. 2010 estimate has it at 37.9%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html

And even though the US's poverty rate is far too high, imho, it pales in comparison to Venezuela's.

It always astounds me to see the wailing over our system in America. There is no doubt that the US political and economic systems need a serious overhaul, but it never ceases to amaze me that every single person fighting and dying in the Arab Spring is doing so to have a system almost exactly like the one so many complain about and take for granted.

Puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Or at least it should. As one person so beautifully said in this thread already, I'll take the words of the people who are there and fighting and dying over the words of someone an ocean away who is bashing them.

[TheWraith]

56. That's the one that's labeled "2005 estimate."

And yes, for all the US' faults, it certainly seems curious that so many other countries seem to want to engage in a more western, democratic power structure. I guess some folks believe "those people" don't really know how good they have it with their dictators. I mean, the torture, the imprisonment, the dissident killings, the dictator's family skimming off tens of billions of dollars... that's all a small price to pay for not having McDonalds, right? :eyes:

[Number23]

58. No, you're completely right

I confused the dates for the poverty and unemployment data. 37.9% is correct for the 2005 poverty rates.

[themadstork]

65. A strange assumption

Because they wish to develop a system centered (however strongly or weakly) upon democracy, that means they want to be just like us? That just seems like an attempt at trivializing their aspirations, as "democratic power structure" encompasses so many different systems that it seems foolish to assume they want to be just like us. Indeed, I suspect many of them would take that as an insult.

Anyway, if anyone were to select a given Western democracy to take as a model, I don't see why you assume it'd be us specifically.

[Amonester]

59. "to have a system almost exactly" (about the almost exactly)

I expect they don't want the 1%-99% "widening gap" and all the "corporations are persons" corruption.

And that they would prefer to set up a Single-Payer Healthcare system of their own (having a lot of professional experts on hand already), instead of a For-Profit non-Healthcare-but-insurance system that would become mandatory. Just to clarify. And yes, if the Will of the majority of We The People (not the faux-snooze and hate-Radio pRopaganda) could be only "Listened To" for once, nobody could stop the richest country on earth to implement such a system, m-i-c vampires or not.

[Number23]

60. The gap in these countries put our "gap" to shame

You need to educate yourself.

[Amonester]

63. I was not criticizing. I only wanted to point out a few 'problems'

that I hopefully did see in the "almost" word you took the time to insert before "exactly" :hi:

I agree with that. ;)

However, we must not lose sight that many 99 percenters have it "almost" (if not) harder than many there (homeless vets, homeless poor people, victims of the "no-healthcare-if-not-enough-dough" system, etc.)

[themadstork]

66. Which is exactly why they wouldn't be taking us as a model, no?

They would select a country where the problem is less exaggerated, to see what they're doing right and what they could improve upon.

[Number23]

69. You either misread what I wrote or are attempting to make some sort of point

that makes no sense.

They would aspire to be the strongest, and most powerful system of democracy. That would (currently) be the US. Why would they aspire to be something other than the strongest?

When you look at their signs, they show respect and thanks to the US, to England, to France. Powerful systems of Western democracy. I have no idea what country you think they should or are aspiring to emulate.

[themadstork]

76. Why would they choose to emulate any other system of democracy?

There are plenty of good reasons. Your assumption that they would only desire to emulate the "most powerful" democracy is very strange, especially in light of your earlier comments, where you implied they wanted to be like us because it would be better for their people.

Further, your "most powerful" comment acts to give your opponents in this debate quite a bit of credit! You seek to convince us that they are filled with irrational anti-US bias, yet you define desirable/successful democratic systems by the raw, dominating power they wield. Are you sure it isn't -you- that has the blinders on?

[Number23]

81. lol I'm done letting you waste my time

I have no idea what you are babbling about and it is truly apparent that you don't either.

where you implied they wanted to be like us because it would be better for their people. I never said that.

You seek to convince us that they are filled with irrational anti-US bias, yet you define desirable/successful democratic systems by the raw, dominating power they wield. Not only did I not say any of this foolishness, I never even IMPLIED it.

I noticed everyone else in this thread ignored your repeated attempts to insert yourself into the conversation. Now I completely understand why.

[themadstork]

83. You and wraith went back and forth on the poverty number,

and then you said the following:

---
And even though the US's poverty rate is far too high, imho, it pales in comparison to Venezuela's.

It always astounds me to see the wailing over our system in America. There is no doubt that the US political and economic systems need a serious overhaul, but it never ceases to amaze me that every single person fighting and dying in the Arab Spring is doing so to have a system almost exactly like the one so many complain about and take for granted.

Puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

---

You claim that "every single person fighting and dying in the Arab Spring is doing so to have a system almost exactly like" the US. Coming directly off the poverty stuff, you seemed to be saying that we should all stop complaining, for there are those who literally die to live in a society that treats its people as well as ours does. However, if how well the people live were the deciding factor, it bears pointing out that we are likely -not- their model, not the representative of a system that they so greatly desire to implement. You'll notice that another poster also pointed this out to you, although you responded only by brusquely missing the point and telling that poster that he needed to "educate himself."

(re second part of your post) Which of this "foolishness" do you claim to have never said? The "most powerful" bit is very plainly there in the post I replied to, and in your original reply you said "it eventually turns into 'US bad, everywhere else good' which shows the stunning naivete of so many here." This claim is pretty common, and it boils down to the "well you're just full of anti-American paranoia!" insult so often lobbed at the critics of American foreign policy. It's my claim that your later automatic conflation of the idea of "the best democracy to emulate" with "the most powerful democracy" makes your claim of irrevocable anti-US bias look suspect, for it is -intensely typical- for imperialist apologists of all stripes to equate sheer power with general merit.


Perhaps you would like expand on or clarify these positions of yours? I would be interested in hearing it, and I've tried to give you a complete understanding of the basis of my replies so far. I suspect, however, that your response will be more like the doozy you gave to the other poster who questioned your "almost exactly"--and in which case, I would suggest a re-reading of your original reply.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Chavez has been an ally of qadaffi going back more than

Six months...more like since Chavez was still in the army.

Chavez has chosen a few interesting friends, which in the world of real politic make sense...

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Chavez has to be worried that he could be next

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Right Hugo right

[spanone]

18. no hugo, he'll be remembered as the man who ordered the killing of 270 innocents. pan am 103

of all ages, races, nationalities, religions....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

[sabrina 1]

71. Why would that be? The Bush/Obama administrations

decided to overlook that tragedy, as did the Blair parliament. In fact all of them went to great pains to try to forget that at one time, Libya was accused of that crime, and even returned the man convicted of it, at Gadaffi's request. So who is going to remember that now? Btw, did anyone here raise any objections to the Bush/Obama amnesia of that crime?

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. Well, actually, probably not

he ordered the killing of plenty of innocents, no doubt, and probably a lot more than 270, but the responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing probably lies with Iran. Adelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison "on compassionate grounds" because of his cancer, but he had a pending appeal; had he won a retrial he probably would have been acquitted. And the evidence would seem to point to Iran, and not Libya, as being behind the bombing, in retaliation for the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air flight 655 and killing 290 people...who were in all probability just as innocent as the people on Pan Am 103, but I guess they don't count, not being Americans.

[devilgrrl]

24. Oh I'm sure!

[cynatnite]

44. Yes, because there is nothing more revoluationary as a batshit crazy dictator...

Right, Hugo?

:rofl:

[DutchLiberal]

48. That's a disgraceful thing to say, but why is *this* interesting...

... and is the support (militarily, financially, politically) of major nations like France, Italy, the UK, the US to Gadaffi kept hidden?

I mean, I'm a huge Chavez supporter and I loathe the fact that he's allying himself with the likes of Gadaffi. But why is every fart Chavez lets out about Gadaffi reported majorly in the press, and why is nobody questioning Gordon Brown when he praises the fall of Gadaffi, while he sold his regime for $ 10 million worth of weaponry earlier this year? Why is making stupid remarks (Chavez) deemed more important than actually supporting the regime?

[polly7]

52. I think it's just because the hatred for Chavez is so great.

Demonize the 'demon', cause ya never know when a(nother) civil uprising / coup may present itself.

[DutchLiberal]

62. I don't understand why Chavez-supporters have to defend everything he says...

I mean, like I said (and read my posts if you don't believe me), I'm a big supporter of his policies, but his political alliances with dictators like Castro, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Lukashenko, Gadaffi? Big, big, big mistake. He makes it so easy for the Western media to demonize him.

[polly7]

68. I believe he's allied himself with any leader who's claimed the right

to control and manage their nation's resources and not rely on predatory world banks. Chavez isn't stupid, he knows the same groups that destroyed Iraq and many, many democracies over the years for resources and empire, are only a 'civil unrest' away from doing it to him - again. The people he befriends may be dictators, but they're on his side. Just as the dictators NATO supports are on theirs.

His support and words are no better or no worse than those of any our leaders currently supporting our 'good tyrants'.

[quaker bill]

61. By some, no doubt.

By others his death will be celebrated as a holiday. Such is the way of things for dictators.

[Zanzoobar]

64. And that's an order!

[50000feet]

78. This is from a Libyan blog.

I cannot verify the items it lists, but it sounds roundly credible. I know Gaddafi spent considerable oil money developing the society and economy. Libya was then crushed by NATO. I draw my own conclusions.

Life in Libya with Leader Gaddafi

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/p/gaddafi.html

1. Electricity for household use is free,

2. interest-free loans
3. during the study, government give to every student 2 300 dolars/month

4. receives the average salary for this profession if you do not find a job after graduation,

5. the state has paid for to work in the profession,

6. every unemployed person receives social assistance 15,000 $/year,

7. for marriage state pays first apartment or house (150m2),

8. buying cars at factory prices,

9. LIBYA not owe anyone a cent,

10. free higher education abroad,

11. 25% of highly educated,

12. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15,

13. water in the middle of the desert, drinking water,

14. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR),

15. 6% poor people,

16. for each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for their needs.

[Swede]

79. And don't forget the mass graves and torture chambers.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/235181/20111020/gadhafi-dead-photo-mass-graves-grave-site-killed-death-libya-libyan-abu-salim-prison-red-cross-ntc-t.htm

[50000feet]

80. But they all torture at a certain level of societal development.

Name one that didn't/doesn't. We passed through that stage ourselves. Look how we enslaved Africans and murdered millions of natives. On a comparative basis, if I were living in a country headed by a dictator, I'd be shopping around for the best deal I could get.

[Prometheus Bound]

86. Would those be the same torture chambers the US and UK sent suspected evildoers to for a workover?

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Welllll... isn't that special...