Should the US support Venezuelan Rebels?

[bdk3clash]

Also "discussed" in this thread.

My response in that thread:

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but all of the posts in this thread indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the reality of the situation in Venezuela. Here are a few articles to get you situated:

Don't Cry For Venezuela's RCTV

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free Speech Martyrs

BoingBoing post "Venezuela media crackdown: the other POV"

From this post:

[ QUOTE ]
Rick Potthoff says,

The other side of this is that RCTV deserves to be shut down because they supported the coup against Chavez. Do you think that if, say, ABC had come out against Pres. Bush during a coup that failed they wouldn't end up in Gitmo? Revoking their broadcast license is still retaliation, but mild retaliation. Don't repeat the BS that because Chavez is trying to help the poor of Venezuela he is 'socialist.' All that means is that he doesn't toe the line of the WTO/FTA free trade agenda. He is as 'socialist' in the same sense FDR was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Venezuelan Government Will Not Renew “Coup-Plotting” TV Station’s License

Hugo Chávez and RCTV: Censorship or a legitimate decision?

Venezuela's RCTV: Sine Die and Good Riddance

[ QUOTE ]
...RCTV played a leading role instigating and supporting the aborted April, 2002 two-day coup against President Chavez...RCTV and the other four corporate-run TV stations violated Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.

In spite of their lawlessness, the Chavez government treated all five broadcasters gently opting not to prosecute them, but merely refusing to renew one of RCTV's operating licenses (its VHF one) when it expired May 27 (its cable and satellite operations are unaffected) - a mere slap on the wrist for a media enterprise's active role in trying to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan president and his government. The article explained if an individual or organization of any kind incited public hostility, violence and anti-government rebellion under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, they would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for the crime of sedition.

[/ QUOTE ]

(emphasis added)

We should back Chávez

[ QUOTE ]
In RCTV's case, the broadcaster failed to meet basic public-interest standards. The criterion for this assessment is similar to that used by the US Federal Communications Commission. RCTV will be free to broadcast via cable and satellite, which are available across the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The legal, constitutional non-renewal of an over-the-air broadcast license to a station that actively participated in a failed coup against a democratically elected (and wildly popular) government is a pretty flimsy pretext for war, even by United States standards.

Besides, the Bush administration already has a policy of regime change in Venezuela.

Wikipedia atricle on the 2002 Venezuelan 2002 Coup d'etat: Allegations of US Involvement

Project Censored: "Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup in Venezuela"

VenezuelaFOIA.info: "THE PROOF IS IN THE DOCUMENTS: THE CIA WAS INVOLVED IN THE COUP AGAINST VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT CHAVEZ"

CommonDreams.org: "Documents Show CIA Knew of Venezuela Coup"

Guardian UK: "Venezuela coup linked to Bush team"

VenezuelaAnalysis: "The CIA Was Involved In the Coup Against Venezuela's Chavez"

CounterPunch: "The Media, the CIA and the Coup"

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Hugo is a bad dude that eliminates the possibility of a free and prosperous Venezuela.

[/ QUOTE ]
Chavez being a "bad dude that elminates the possibility of a free" Venezuela is debatable (god only knows what criteria you're using.) In their Index of Economic Freedom analysis of Venezuela, the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal state that Venezuela ranks low in terms of "economic freedom" (as they define it,) so you've got company

But the same report indicates 1.2% 5-year compound annual growth in GDP, including 17.9% (!) growth in 2004 alone. (Granted, these figures should be taken with a grain of salt, given the radical left-wing nature of the sources.) So I'm having a hard time understanding how Chavez "eliminates the possibility of a...prosperous Venezuela." I mean, according to this International Herald Tribue article,

[ QUOTE ]
Economic growth this year [2006] is set to pass 10 percent, making Venezuela's the fastest-growing economy in the Americas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have an inside scoop on oil prices plummeting in the near future?

[Ron Paul]

We should take careful notes for the next Clinton regime. Their rhetoric is nearly identical. Democratic majorities are going to increase in Congress, and they will pass laws that ensure they never lose power again. They will nationalize at least the health care and energy economies, bringing enormous shortages to both. Energy shortages, along with massively increased taxation and economic regulation, utilizing environmental hysteria as the wedge to leverage public opinion, will plunge the country into a Rooseveltian scale depression. They will follow the pattern of all socialist dictatorial regimes who destroy their national economies; find someone to blame. The formula will be the same as Roosevelt's, Mugabe's, Amin's, Chavez's, and a never ending list of despots. Blame the "speculators" and the capitalists (the Jews have also been a popular choice). Use the excuse to nationalize, monopolize, cartellize, and control, control, control, destroy, destroy, destroy.

And when the Fairness Doctrine goes back into place, there will be no outlet for alternative points of view in the US state controlled media, since talk radio will have been euthanized. The only outlet will be the internet, and how long will it be before the new one party socialist government will begin cracking down on internet criticism of government policies? I doubt we'll make Hillary's second term.

The wars will come; they will be manufactured somehow, to distract the populace from the disastrous policies of the regime, and in a ridiculous effort to destroy our way to prosperity. It's kind of a toss up whether or not the regime will spend its efforts slaughtering foreign or domestic civillian populations, or both.

Militant nationalism will come with militant socialism. National socialism has historically turned out . . . poorly.

I am in a pesimistic mood today.

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
But the same report indicates 1.2% 5-year compound annual growth in GDP, including 17.9% (!) growth in 2004 alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that government spending is included in the GDP, right? Not to mention that inflation in Venezuela is humming along at 20%, right? The Chavez government is printing money like mad, devaluing the money supply and destroying the market economy there.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the same report indicates 1.2% 5-year compound annual growth in GDP, including 17.9% (!) growth in 2004 alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that government spending is included in the GDP, right? Not to mention that inflation in Venezuela is humming along at 20%, right? The Chavez government is printing money like mad, devaluing the money supply and destroying the market economy there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just responding to the "prosperous" in Grasshopp3r's contention that Chavez "eliminates the possibility of a free and prosperous Venezuela."

He didn't define his terms well, and I can see how the case could be made that Chavez has curtailed "freedom" (to overthrow the government, etc.) but I don't see much evidence that Chavez has worked against--much less eliminated the possibility of--prosperity in Venezuela.

This op-ed piece by Mark Weisbrot states:

[ QUOTE ]
A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well...


...for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.
...
Although Chavez talks about building "21st century socialism," the Venezuelan government's economic policies are gradualist reform, more akin to a European-style social democracy. The private sector is actually a larger share of the Venezuelan economy today than it was before Chavez took office.
...
The official poverty rate has fallen to 38.5 percent from its most recent peak of 54 percent after the opposition oil strike. But this measures only cash income; if the food subsidies and health care were taken into account, it would be well under 30 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Grasshopp3r]

Congrats on finding some left wing "psuedoresearch" on the interwebs.

Freedom of the press is one of the most basic freedoms.

Also, did you know that 95% of the world's oil is controlled by national oil companies? Those state owned oil companies are notorious for over producing, which led to the glut of the late 1980's and 1990's.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Congrats on finding some left wing "psuedoresearch" on the interwebs.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was fairly easy--I used a notoriously left-leaning search engine so it's not surprising that the results were so slanted.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of the press is one of the most basic freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. As I stated earlier,

[ QUOTE ]
I was just responding to the "prosperous" in [your] contention that Chavez "eliminates the possibility of a free and prosperous Venezuela."*

[/ QUOTE ]

Reporters Without Borders issues a yearly Worldwide Press Freedom Index which indicates that Venezuela ranks poorly in press freedom--115th of 168. (The United States ranks 53rd.) There is clearly room for improvement, and any instance of a government shutting down a media organization should be viewed with skepticism and suspicion.

As such, I can see how one could argue that Chavez "eliminates the possibility of a free...Venezuela," though I'd strongly disagree with that viewpoint. However, I haven't come across evidence to support your view that Chavez "eliminates the possibility of a...prosperous Venezuela." In fact, I even provided some evidence that this view is factually incorrect.

Consequently, I can't find much validity in your contentions that "Hugo must go..." for the reasons you've provided.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, did you know that 95% of the world's oil is controlled by national oil companies? Those state owned oil companies are notorious for over producing, which led to the glut of the late 1980's and 1990's.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fascinating.

*To be fair, you might have been using the phrase "free and prosperous" in a "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," pie-in-the-sky, nebulous sort of way that can only be satisfied by a United States-sanctioned regime, in which case we have an entirely different discussion on our hands.

[dardo]

Hugo Chavez has got control of the oil industry and is using the benefit to help his country.

Also he haven't closed anything he just have not renewed a license to a private commercial channel to start a new public channel.

He is doing all of this without breaking any laws on his country.

Why do you see him as a risk?

[bdk3clash]

Full-on hijack here, but there is reason to question RSF's objectivity regarding evaluating freedom of the press in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti.

Counterpunch: "Reporters Without Borders and Washington's Coups"

[ QUOTE ]
Funding from the I.R.I. presents a major problem for RSF's credibility as a "press freedom" organization because the group manufactured propaganda against the popular democratic governments of Venezuela and Haiti at the same time that its patron, the I.R.I., was deeply involved in efforts to overthrow them. The I.R.I. funded the Venezuelan opposition to President Hugo Chavez (Barry, 2005) and actively organized Haitian opposition to Aristide in conjunction with the CIA (Bogdanich and Nordberg, 2006).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Taking its cues from the State Department, RSF has been guilty of demonizing governments that the U.S. wanted to overthrow, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti, while downplaying the human rights abuses of strategic allies such as Mexico and Colombia. Because it was able to hide I.R.I. grants which would have alerted people to its ulterior motives, RSF has been an effective tool in the Bush administration's covert attacks on recalcitrant Latin American leaders. The organization has also leveraged its image as an independent human rights organization to get its message into the U.S. media and university textbooks. This would be an impressive feat for a small group of individuals with no apparent journalistic credentials were it not for the fact that they have the richest, most powerful patrons in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Counterpunch: "Reporters Without Borders Unmasked"

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
We should take careful notes for the next Clinton regime. Their rhetoric is nearly identical. Democratic majorities are going to increase in Congress, and they will pass laws that ensure they never lose power again. They will nationalize at least the health care and energy economies, bringing enormous shortages to both. Energy shortages, along with massively increased taxation and economic regulation, utilizing environmental hysteria as the wedge to leverage public opinion, will plunge the country into a Rooseveltian scale depression. They will follow the pattern of all socialist dictatorial regimes who destroy their national economies; find someone to blame. The formula will be the same as Roosevelt's, Mugabe's, Amin's, Chavez's, and a never ending list of despots. Blame the "speculators" and the capitalists (the Jews have also been a popular choice). Use the excuse to nationalize, monopolize, cartellize, and control, control, control, destroy, destroy, destroy.

And when the Fairness Doctrine goes back into place, there will be no outlet for alternative points of view in the US state controlled media, since talk radio will have been euthanized. The only outlet will be the internet, and how long will it be before the new one party socialist government will begin cracking down on internet criticism of government policies? I doubt we'll make Hillary's second term.

The wars will come; they will be manufactured somehow, to distract the populace from the disastrous policies of the regime, and in a ridiculous effort to destroy our way to prosperity. It's kind of a toss up whether or not the regime will spend its efforts slaughtering foreign or domestic civillian populations, or both.

Militant nationalism will come with militant socialism. National socialism has historically turned out . . . poorly.

I am in a pesimistic mood today.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your description above and that of most right-wing leaners, many of the countries below are "socialist" -- so all these countries are colossal failures of history, right? God forbid we ever turn into a third world pit like Sweden.

World Top 10 - Countries with High Standard of Living

Norway
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Australia
United States
Iceland
Netherlands
Japan
Finland