Why is that "the question"? American foreign policy isn't makign Chavez an issue. His speeches barely make a blip on the US media radar anymore and even the bellicose Bush administration stopped making threatening noises at Chavez. The only one who claims America is particularly engaged with Chavez is Chavez (and his Chavistas).
Why is that "the question"? American foreign policy isn't makign Chavez an issue. His speeches barely make a blip on the US media radar anymore and even the bellicose Bush administration stopped making threatening noises at Chavez. The only one who claims America is particularly engaged with Chavez is Chavez (and his Chavistas).
Sergio Agüero
Student
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2007
- Messages
- 26
Oh good, tar me with the "anti-american" brush why don't you? I also didn't realise that not criticising Chavez mean's I'm a supporter, I'm not.
But I'm right in saying that it's rank hypocracy for the US and others to express concern for democracy in Venezuela while selling arms to Saudi Arabia, being partners with Musharraf in Pakistan, standing by while the military seize power in Thailand and fawning over China's "economic miracle". If Chavez was canny enough to be nice to the oil companies, drop the anti-american rhetoric and refrain from comparing George W. Bush to the devil he'd be allowed to do what he wanted with little interference from the outside.
But I'm right in saying that it's rank hypocracy for the US and others to express concern for democracy in Venezuela while selling arms to Saudi Arabia, being partners with Musharraf in Pakistan, standing by while the military seize power in Thailand and fawning over China's "economic miracle". If Chavez was canny enough to be nice to the oil companies, drop the anti-american rhetoric and refrain from comparing George W. Bush to the devil he'd be allowed to do what he wanted with little interference from the outside.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
There are very practical, pragmatic reasons why the U.S. would be 'friendly' to nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... becaue, despite the fact that they're dictatorships, the most likely 'alternative' (should they fall) would be another dictatorship (likely a theocracy with an even worse human rights record). In China's case, they are a dictatorship, but given the circumstances (e.g. the size of the country/military, past history), economic trade is probably the best way to improve the situation there.
Venezuela is different than Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China... Venezuela has a democratic tradition that is being compromised. However, the alternative to Chavez and his 'reforms' is not a similar government that will also threaten human rights. If there is a fair election and Chavez looses, they will probably end up with a government that will likely have just as much (if not more) respect for human rights.
By the way, just so you know... the U.S. government Does regularly criticize countries like Saudi Arabia/Pakistan over their human rights records. For example:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8296.htm (criticism of Saudi Arabia)
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41743.htm (criticism of Pakistan)
Usually when things are put in quotes, you're quoting someone. Did anybody call you "anti-american"? (Hint: No.) We did call you a hypocrite, though.
And we're pointing out the hypocrisy in you criticizing the US for being uncritical of Saudi Arabia while you stand silent on what Chavez has done -- in a thread discussing what Chavez has done. (Obviously, if this were a thread about Saudi Arabia, your silence on Chavez would be unremarkable.)
So, your critique of Chavez is that he's an idiot for not kissing American boots? I stand by my prior analysis of your position:
Apparently, Sergio's point is that there is no point in criticizing anybody if it is not also a criticism of the United States.
In your opinion, should America be making any effort to stop Chavez from limiting political rights in Venezuela? Are you advocating a policy of isolation?
Last edited: