he broke down a corrupt government system that enshrined two parties and no one else,

....And replaced it with a authoritarian dictatorship.

he's implemented all manner of programs to help the poor and try and solve the problems of Venezuela from the ground up.

By nationalizing private companies and basically making the economy dependent on oil.

and yes, he's friends with Castro (and even allied with Iran for strategic oil purposes), but most good leaders are going to have some quirks, problems, or beliefs we disagree with.

Ever seen the Family Guy episode "Petoria." A comic analogy sure, but it holds some truth. Besides.... allying yourself with two international pariahs is sure to endear you to any rational nation.


I fail to see how going from democracy (even a somewhat disfunctional one) to an authoritarian state is a step in the right direction.

And if you think that oil profits are the key to a stable, healthy nation, just take a look at Russia... or any of the little sultanates in the middle east.

Sure, in the short term you may rake in some cash.... but solving the problems of the poor- I highly doubt it.


Plus, antagonizing the region's largest (and recently agressive) Superpower is sure to do wonders for your future. Regardless of whether or not it is right... any US military action against Venezuala will smash Chavez's bananna republic army flat and send the country back to the stone age.


So no, hes not helping Venezuala. He's setting it it for failure.






And yes Dolash, I know your into socialism. But Chavez's way is not the way to do it. It never ends well when you're running the country as a strongman, as a personality cult. History is a great teacher.

What's so wrong with dictatorship? Really, even democratic countries are just images of a dictatorship. With only two parties (three if you're lucky) that ever see any major political power. The leaders are almost cut and paste. And then is the whole issue that there is never overly dramatic change between times. Clinton and Bush both saw their wars and battles and both are (personality wise) dramartically different.

I'm the type proud of those who drop the veil and admit the fact that they are being ruled by an iron fist. Those whom throw away the false ideals that one will have freedom in life, for none of us ever truly will.

Though personally I'm more the fan of the official oligarchy, but that's just me.

History is a great teacher.

The first great fallacy of humankind is to believe we all live in times of great change.

Chavez is not good but he is certianly not the worst player on the current events page. He has done some good. He has done more bad. God will judge him in the end*.


* (sorry, I miss Titus)

Authoritarianism is the pinnacle of the government system because it is as far from anarchy as one can get. Anarchy/democracy is just wrong.

Indeed - - -tell me, do the angels vote on what God can do, or is he supreme?

I am laughing so hard at my own anaolgy - -that is the best pro-monarchy/totalitarianism statement I could have ever devised.



But seriously -- Castro is niot bad at all. He has a secret state police, the US has the NSA, Germany has the BND, France has.....whatever...England MI 5, and Russia the GRU and whatever took the place of the KGB/NKVD. I can see little wrong with his way of doing things- - minus that whole communism thing

Telan, I may have to quote that some day.

Even considering the majority of people you were arguing against actually believed in God, one can easily point out the tragically gargantuan difference between God and humans. God is a supreme being, while humans are all the same, and all susceptible to corruption. Could a dictatorship be better for a people than a democracy? Sure, if the dictator is a just person, unsusceptible to corruption.

The reason many believe democracies to be the right way is that people are not willing to take a chance on someone, even if they seem trustworthy. And they're right. Incompetent or corrupt rulers can bring down a nation. The only way for a dictatorship to work, better than a democracy at least, would be to develop some way of determining suitable candidates for totalitarian power, which is impossible.

Its been seen thousands of times in African countries. A freedom fighter and hero of the people takes charge and ends up carrying out crimes more horrific in nature than the crimes of the dictator in charge before. Are these all truly devils who disguised themselves for so long? No, they're people with good intentions who've been corrupted by absolute power.

A dictatorship is a much quicker way to plunge your nation into chaos and anarchy than democracy, but all things fall victim to entropy eventually.

I am in agreement with Michael. To me, that harkens back to the idea of a philosopher king that so present in the Mediteranean area back in the day; and that worked. Pericles and Solomon are excellent examples of that idea. But I find few people that I would trust to lead me. In fact, the only somewhat political figure I would trust would probably be Colin Powell. And even then, I probably wouldn't trust him after a while.

I agree except to note that I am the exception which proves the rule; were I Ruler-Of-The-World, things would be just fine and dandy...



... for me.

Oh... and I don't even trust God.

Russia the GRU and whatever took the place of the KGB/NKVD

SVR is the name of the agency that took the place of KGB.