TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Chavez threat to seize food shops
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Chavez threat to seize food shops

quote:

Chavez threat to seize food shops Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has threatened to nationalise stores that sell meat above a government-set price. The government says supermarkets have been artificially boosting prices of basic foods by manipulating stockpiles. But critics blame regular food shortages on prices imposed four years ago, forcing shops to sell at a loss. Many privately-owned supermarkets have suspended sales of beef, milk and sugar after one chain was temporarily closed for pricing meat above allowed levels. The government has already seized goods that it says are being hoarded to drive up prices. The products have been sold at government-run Mercal supermarkets, which sell staple foods at discount prices in poor areas, and at makeshift distribution centres. 'First excuse' President Chavez told a gathering of pensioners in the capital, Caracas, that he was waiting for the "first excuse" to take over privately-owned outlets that manipulate prices. "If they insist on violating the interests of the people, the constitution and laws, I will take away the warehouses, the shops, I will take away the supermarkets and I'll nationalise them," he warned. He has stepped up his nationalisation programme since winning re-election in December. In recent weeks, he has bought stakes in electricity and television companies from US firms. Prices raised Venezuela's inflation rate rose to a two-year high in January, with consumer prices rising 18.4% in 12 months. Earlier this week, the government raised the prices it sets on staple foods, but retailers said they had not gone high enough to take account of their increased costs. Some private companies are also concerned about President Chavez's intention to make them allow their employees time during the working day to study socialism. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/...ess/6364515.stm

>>Source<<


Is there anything this man won't touch?
Why doesn't he just get it over with and nationalize the whole country; it's quite apparent that what he really wants; his country on it's knees so they're forced to rely on him.
I'm just wondering, besides what will happen when the oil $$ stops, if his head gets any bigger, will he float off into space?

one could hope...

Chavez is communist, after all ... not like anyone ever considered Venezuela to be a democracy.

Democracy and communism don't exactly contradict eachother though.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Chavez is communist, after all ... not like anyone ever considered Venezuela to be a democracy.

it was before he came along. it was a democracy that elected him.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it was before he came along. it was a democracy that elected him.

The elections were democratic. But before and since Chavez has been an avid communist, and no surprise to me that he finally decided to get on down with his real agenda ;-) There was no real democracy in the first Chavez term.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium The elections were democratic. But before and since Chavez has been an avid communist, and no surprise to me that he finally decided to get on down with his real agenda ;-) There was no real democracy in the first Chavez term.

it's still a democracy. what Chavez wants and what Venezuela still is are two different things

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's still a democracy. what Chavez wants and what Venezuela still is are two different things

No, its pretty simple actually. Chavez ran democratic elections for people to decide WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT they want. They didnt choose pro-western democratic candidates, which there were. Just because the elections were fair doesnt mean its a democratic country - one democratic aspect doesnt make the entire system such, you're just using it as excuse to blame Chavez for violating democracy. Pfft. Communism is no democracy. Venezuelans voted in fair elections to choose a COMMUNIST leader. Now excuse me, communism is no democracy, I've lived under one I know what I am talking about.

Hell, if HITLER could be elected

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium No, its pretty simple actually. Chavez ran democratic elections for people to decide WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT they want. They didnt choose pro-western democratic candidates, which there were. Just because the elections were fair doesnt mean its a democratic country - one democratic aspect doesnt make the entire system such, you're just using it as excuse to blame Chavez for violating democracy. Pfft. Communism is no democracy. Venezuelans voted in fair elections to choose a COMMUNIST leader. Now excuse me, communism is no democracy, I've lived under one I know what I am talking about.

don't f**kin tell me what i am using as an excuse. k?

for the last time dude, until he disbands the National Assembly and sets fire to the existing Constitution, (which i freely admit he is well on his way doing) Venezuela will remain a democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo don't f**kin tell me what i am using as an excuse. k? for the last time dude, until he disbands the National Assembly and sets fire to the existing Constitution, (which i freely admit he is well on his way doing) Venezuela will remain a democracy.

Yet again, humans show me their true dumb colours. You know Hitler's book, Mein Kempf? Well, he wrote it BEFORE it came to power. He and SA terrorized people BEFORE he came to power. And in 1933, people ELECTED him to power. And we all know what happened. Chavez is no democracy, people didnt elect him for democracy because its pretty dam obvious he's not for democracy and you know it. You cant change a communist like Chavez, only idiocy and ignorance will. People elected him in support of his communist policies. Have you seen his election campaign???

Its kinda like electing Stalin alll over again and expect him to be democratic ... thats just stupid. People elected Chavez because they dont give a shit about their freedoms. Its their fault for picking him. I've seen his reforms coming a long way - in election campaign he bragged about bringing down these evil corporations.

Are you guys really that ignorant to say there WAS democracy in Venezuela? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Carlos Andr�s P�rez
previous Venezuelan leader
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos...ez_Jim%C3%A9nez

quote:

In February 1989, at the beginning of his second term as President, he accepted an International Monetary Fund proposal known as the Washington consensus. In return for accepting this proposal, the International Monetary Fund offered Venezuela a loan for 4.5 billion US dollars. Poor economic conditions led to attempts to revolutionize the political and economic structure of Venezuela, but were to late to prevent massive popular protests in Caracas, the capital, that were triggered by the rise in food prices. Carlos Andr�s P�rez crushed the protest with the national guard, causing thousands of deaths, and resulted in the declaration of a state of emergency. The protest is now referred to as the Caracazo.

YEAH, THATS DEMOCRACY ... VENEZUELA HAD A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY BEFORE, WHERE THERE WERE COUPS ALMOST EVERY OTHER YEAR, REVOLUTIONS, CIVIL WAR, corruption, armies gunning down civilian protests, juntas ...

Here's another random Venezuelan leader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos...ez_Jim%C3%A9nez
Marcos P�rez Jim�nez

"P�rez Jim�nez was born in Michelena, T�chira State. His father was a farmer and his mother a schoolteacher. He attended school in his home town and Colombia, and graduated from the Military Academy of Venezuela at the top of his class in 1934. He subsequently studied at military colleges in Peru.

In 1945, he participated in a coup that helped install R�mulo Gallegos (from the Democratic Action party), and became Minister of Defense. In 1948, he led another coup that ousted Gallegos. From 1948 until 1952, Venezuela was ruled by a military ju"nta headed by Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Delgado Chalbaud, that included P�rez Jim�nez and Germ�n Su�rez Flamerich. On November 13, 1950, Delgado Chalbaud was murdered. The junta elected Su�rez Flamerich as provisional president, but the real power behind him was P�rez Jim�nez.

The junta called an election for 1952. When early results showed that the opposition leader was ahead and would win, the junta suspended the election and made P�rez Jim�nez President.

P�rez Jim�nez changed the name of the country, which had been United States of Venezuela since 1864, to Republic of Venezuela. This name would remain until 1999, when President Hugo Ch�vez changed it to Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Spanish: Rep�blica Bolivariana de Venezuela.)

During his government, P�rez Jim�nez undertook many infrastructure projects, including construction of roads, bridges, government buildings, large public housing complexes and the symbolic Humboldt Hotel overlooking Caracas. The economy of Venezuela developed rapidly during his term. Like most dictators, P�rez Jim�nez was not tolerant of criticism and his government ruthlessly pursued and suppressed the opposition. While P�rez Jim�nez was president of Venezuela, the government of the United States awarded him the U.S. Legion of Merit."

Yay, United States awarded him for being a good dictator ... Yeaaaah!

In case you are trying to defend Venezuela from Chavez taking their democracy, well then let me hit you with some knowledge:

"Current President Hugo Ch�vez was elected in December 1998 on a platform that called for the creation of a National Constituent Assembly in order to write a new Constitution. "

"February 27, 1989 saw a wave of protests, riots and looting known as the Caracazo, where it is estimated that thousands of Venezuelans were killed after the then-president Carlos Andr�s P�rez, a member of the AD political party, decided to suspend the constitutional rights of the citizens, thus allowing the armed forces to confront the rioters by violent means. This led to the failed coup attempts of 1992. In 1998, Hugo Ch�vez, a leader of the February 1992 coup attempt, was elected President, ending the era of political domination by the AD and COPEI."

The people of Venezuela are getting EXACTLY what they deserve. Maybe a few years of increased starvation and poverty will be a wake up call to those stupid lefties.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Democracy and communism don't exactly contradict eachother though.

LOL, what?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The people of Venezuela are getting EXACTLY what they deserve. Maybe a few years of increased starvation and poverty will be a wake up call to those stupid lefties.

Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power.
Did anyone help then?
No.

If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you?
Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income.
But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time...

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power. Did anyone help then? No. If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you? Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income. But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time...

+1
So true and so sad.

I know a number of people from Venezuela and they are saying the same..... and to think so many of my people are going to suffer due to this, if this threat becomes a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The people of Venezuela are getting EXACTLY what they deserve. Maybe a few years of increased starvation and poverty will be a wake up call to those stupid lefties.

ive met quite a few Venezualans in South America so far and i plan to visit the country after i spend a few months in Colombia, every Venezualan ive met HATES Chavez (these are the people who can afford to travel in south american countries outside of Venezuala) it just goes to show how polarised the country is, in the provinces and in the slums of Caracas im sure ill meet people who idolise the man.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power. Did anyone help then? No. If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you? Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income. But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time...

I see your point, but not all Americans are ignorant eigther you know.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, what?

Theoretically, communism is the purest and most comprehensive form of democracy.

Magnetonium talks so much out of his ass that it's hard to tell which is which.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Pretty easy from somewhere over in the land of plenty to say, sitting on you're arse and probably never fought for anything in your life. When Zimbabwe was 'nationalised' at the basic level when it comes to food, the farm and they took mine. I've watched from afar for the last 6years as the country slipped from being the primary production, bread basket of africa turn into a hellhole with the worlds highest inflation rate, 45% malnutrition across the whole population and a human rights record that's worse than Iraq per capita than when Saddam was in power. Did anyone help then? No. If there's a really bad thing to do to a country is nationalise its food reserves of any kind, history speaks for itself (soviets, north Korea, Zimbabwe etc) and you know who's going to get it in the neck first don't you? Little kids, people who had nothing and the people who where opposed to it in the first place (usually the pro-democratic) because it was their only means of income. But hey, they've got oil so maybe someone will give a stuff about this time...

Jesus ... before Chavez there was a "democratic" pro-American leader who suspended constitution, attacked protesters with military, failed to improve the economy and standards of living. And Americans supported it. Then these people were sick of that, and decided to try communism instead, and judging by the Chavez re-election, they like it!!! Only the people of Venezuela have themselves to blame for electing the coommunist dictator. They are all dictators, the past years - the only decent truly democratic one was in the 1960s. Its only a matter for Venezuelans to choose between the lesser of the evils, while both will oppress their people, as history shows. Take El Salvador, Nicaragua for example. Same thing. Both communists and pro-American dictators have hurt their people and broke many laws, rights, constitution - you name it. What bothers me a lot is when its pro-Americans, then its OK. When one will suck up to United States and no matter how terrible his rule is will be a good leader, but when there is a leader who's communist and does things no worse or better, he will be brandished as a threat to global security. Its all about sucking American government's ass, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Jesus ... before Chavez there was a "democratic" pro-American leader who suspended constitution, attacked protesters with military, failed to improve the economy and standards of living. And Americans supported it. Then these people were sick of that, and decided to try communism instead, and judging by the Chavez re-election, they like it!!! Only the people of Venezuela have themselves to blame for electing the coommunist dictator. They are all dictators, the past years - the only decent truly democratic one was in the 1960s. Its only a matter for Venezuelans to choose between the lesser of the evils, while both will oppress their people, as history shows. Take El Salvador, Nicaragua for example. Same thing. Both communists and pro-American dictators have hurt their people and broke many laws, rights, constitution - you name it. What bothers me a lot is when its pro-Americans, then its OK. When one will suck up to United States and no matter how terrible his rule is will be a good leader, but when there is a leader who's communist and does things no worse or better, he will be brandished as a threat to global security. Its all about sucking American government's ass, eh?

There may be some definite truth in the past that you bring up. There's also some definite truth in American funding of a coup to overthrow Chavez some years back before he went towards the more extreme, which of course didn't help his anti-Western views much.

The problem, as it seems, is going from one extreme to the next. It's understandable that any leader would want to take certain measures of change from a situation that was hurting his country. In the early years of 2000 Chavez was apparently doing some of these things by helping out his poor in various ways. But now, as you say, his true agenda is taking form, and unfortunately it's looking like he's moving it to the extreme. As history clearly shows time and again, anything moved to the extreme on either side usually ends up not so peachy.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Theoretically, communism is the purest and most comprehensive form of democracy.

Jesus was the first communist.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Theoretically, communism is the purest and most comprehensive form of democracy.

I sort of see that, and understand what you're saying. But I wouldn't call them the same. Theorectically, communism is very different from what's been called communism in the past. But you already know that.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Jesus was the first communist.

Jesus was my co-pilot....

But we crashed in the Andes and I ate him.






Sorry, too much coffee this morning......

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Jesus was my co-pilot.... But we crashed in the Andes and I ate him. Sorry, too much coffee this morning......

He's also portrayed as a hippy in Western culture, kinda explains why he was your co-pilot .

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Magnetonium talks so much out of his ass that it's hard to tell which is which.

Hahaha, a lot of this information comes from books, journals, Wikipedia, a book I have aboout the Cold War. So I guess you have more expertise in this than historians do!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 There may be some definite truth in the past that you bring up. There's also some definite truth in American funding of a coup to overthrow Chavez some years back before he went towards the more extreme, which of course didn't help his anti-Western views much. The problem, as it seems, is going from one extreme to the next. It's understandable that any leader would want to take certain measures of change from a situation that was hurting his country. In the early years of 2000 Chavez was apparently doing some of these things by helping out his poor in various ways. But now, as you say, his true agenda is taking form, and unfortunately it's looking like he's moving it to the extreme. As history clearly shows time and again, anything moved to the extreme on either side usually ends up not so peachy.

The problems with South/Central American countries and their neverending cycle of dictatorships come from the Cold War era. Back then Soviets and Americans fought for swaying these lands to their respective sides, using money, troops, blackmail, wars, sabotage, agents, etc. The crimes committed by both pro-communism and pro-American fighters have been well documented. Both were bad. Today's problems in these lands have roots in Cold War, for sure. However, today, there is no longer Soviet Union. Russia does not fund resistance in these countries. But USA is still heavily involved. Why? Why dont they let these countries independently decide their ways - its pretty obvious that American attempts to coerse these nations is resulting in anti-American hatred. Of course democracy is only slowly coming in some of these countries, like Chile, Argentina but do you really think American involvement, overthrowal of leaders will do any goood? We all know full well what American involvement in overthrowing Mozadek in Iran did in 1950s. The new regime was oppressive. As a result, in 1979, the Islamic Revolution exploded, and many problems in Middle East today have roots in this revolution. If Americans didnt oppress Iranian people from 1953-1979, there would have never been a revolution. In 1953, Mozadek was democractically elected, western trained and educated. And the only reason he was overthrown is because he denied Americans and British monopolies in gas/oil sectors.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi ive met quite a few Venezualans in South America so far and i plan to visit the country after i spend a few months in Colombia, every Venezualan ive met HATES Chavez (these are the people who can afford to travel in south american countries outside of Venezuala) it just goes to show how polarised the country is, in the provinces and in the slums of Caracas im sure ill meet people who idolise the man.

hmm...Everything I've read pointed to massive support for Chavez across the country. Apparently the people wanted a socialist revolution, and that is exactly what they are getting from Chavez. Hopefully it won't take them too long to realize their error in judgement...and overthrow him.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.