You only live once

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 15 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]496730[/snapback]</div>

I wonder what Sean Penn would say in response? Personally, I think the people which rose up not to long ago will rise up again and kick Chavez's A$$ on out of there. But that will be hard to do seeings as how he controls the military and secret police.

Does the fact that Chavez is still in power mean the people still support him or does it mean he was successful in repressing any more protest? Time will tell . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291855,00.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/...protest-in.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 16 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]497013[/snapback]</div>

François (PapaDoc) Duvalier, Jean-Claude (Bebe Doc) Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, and Joaquin Balaguer were all elected officials as well no?

So the lesson is; being democratically elected does not preclude any politician from being corrupt or instituting a dictatorship. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 16 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]497126[/snapback]</div>

Your post is a bit Hispanola-centric huh?

Chavez's electoral wins were legit, and he has significant support. Hussein/Duvaliers/Trujillo/Balaguer either did not hold elections, or they were fradulent. They did not have significant support.

Russian oil fields are nationalized. Mexican oil fields are nationalized. Saudi oil fields are nationalized. It's a strategic resource. It's a bad economic decision, but not much more than that.

This is Latin America. We have a history of subverting democracy and supporting governments who deny rights to their citizenry that we insist upon for ourselves. As a result, almost to a T any US action is going to have the opposite effect. That's sometimes true elsewhere, but nearly always true down south.

The best way to weaken Chavez is to invite him to Washington for tea.

It's funny in a way. Venezuela's weak yet real democratic form of government is roughly on par with Mexico's, and both have nationalized the oil industry. The only difference seems to be that Chavez is a loon who says silly things (indeed).

Putin's absolute squashing of Russia's even weaker democratic trends combined with their even larger proven reserves makes Russia a better target for motivating higher fuel economy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mparrish @ Aug 16 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]497149[/snapback]</div>

Those are the easiest for me to instantly recall since I studied their environmental issues not long ago and they were mentioned in Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

From Wiki:

"Supported by the United States legation, a military-civilian movement was organized in Santiago to overthrow President Vásquez's government. The civilian representative was Rafael Estrella, and Rafael Trujillo, then Chief of the Army and Brigadier General, the military man. The rebels made an assault in the Headquarters of Santiago, after which they marched towards Santo Domingo. President Vásquez ordered Trujillo to face the situation, but he alleged "illness". Vásquez named Colonel José Alfonseca to direct the military actions, but Trujillo replaced him with Simón Diaz, who did not attack the rebels. A few days after this comedy, specifically the 26th of February, the rebellious troops under the command of general José Estrella (uncle of Rafael Estrella), entered the capital without encountering resistance and shouting slogans in favor of Rafael Estrella and Trujillo. After some negotiations, it was announced the resignation of President Vásquez and the formation of a new government, with Rafael Estrella as president, although it was Trujillo who really controlled the situation by appointing his henchmen in key positions. Although he had promised that he would not aspire to the presidency of the country, Trujillo was proclaimed candidate on March 18, 1930 and elected president on May 16, with more than 95% of the votes."

So he was elected but I'm not sure I would consider it a model for democracy. lol

I like your points.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 16 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]497013[/snapback]</div>

It would seem that the biggest flaw with democracy is that once a person/party is in power they can change the rules to keep themself in power. This is what happened in Germany in the 30's and other places.

If the person/party in power wanted to, thhe can nullify laws, bully, intimidate, murder or whatever to influence the law makers or just force the lawmakers to change it so they stay in power indefinately. The methods change, but the outcome is the same.

A true test of a democracy is if the person/party relinquishes control after their term.