RIP(or is it RIH?) Hugo Chavez

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
ohkcrlho

ohkcrlho

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,906
8,943
Araysar_sl said:
reagan_taliban_1985.jpg
Click to expand...
i knew about this meetings but not reagan's words ahah
i mean, i think we all know how moral he was.just ask the people of Nicaragua,Honduras
 
Void

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
9,919
11,930
You mean the meeting in 1985 before the Taliban even existed?

Just because someone makes a picture of it on the internet doesn't mean it is true.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,586
163,172
Vvoid_sl said:
You mean the meeting in 1985 before the Taliban even existed?

Just because someone makes a picture of it on the internet doesn't mean it is true.
Click to expand...
Taliban existed since the late 1970s, they were already assisting the other Mujahadeen from Day 1 of the Soviet Afghan War. They might not have been known as the Taliban in 1985 (in the White House they were known as freedom fighters, mujahadeen, etc.) but its pretty much the same people, with the same goals and same ideology.
 
F

foddon

Silver Knight of the Realm
747
5
Zeus_sl said:
Someone really started a thread to mourn the death of a dictator?
Click to expand...
I would think even someone as dense as you would realize not everything is as black and white as your stupid fucking talking heads make it out to be while reading this thread.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Araysar_sl said:
but its pretty much the same people, with the same goals and same ideology.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. Their members may have come from the Mujahadeen but plenty of Mujahadeen had nothing to do with the taliban and didn't have the same goals as them or their ideology.

But hey, don't let truth get in the way of your funny picture.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
khalid_sl said:
No, they aren't. Their members may have come from the Mujahadeen but plenty of Mujahadeen had nothing to do with the taliban and didn't have the same goals as them or their ideology.

But hey, don't let truth get in the way of your funny picture.
Click to expand...
Yeah Araysar, it's totally ok that we funded the best killers we could find because once The Ultimate Evi Of Communism was pushed out of Afghanistan, they started fighting each other.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,586
163,172
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
Yeah Araysar, it's totally ok that we funded the best killers we could find because once The Ultimate Evi Of Communism was pushed out of Afghanistan, they started fighting each other.
Click to expand...
Radical Muslims that formed Taliban, Mujahaddeen, etc. dont have the same goal of oppressing women, living in a patriarchial society, restricting everyone's rights but their own and waging Jihad in their spare time?

Tell me of some of these massive differences between the men who eventually formed the Taliban like Omar Mohammed and the men who fought with Mujahadeen like Osama Bin Laden?
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Araysar_sl said:
Radical Muslims that formed Taliban, Mujahaddeen, etc. dont have the same goal of oppressing women, living in a patriarchial society, restricting everyone's rights but their own and waging Jihad in their spare time?

Tell me of some of these massive differences between the men who eventually formed the Taliban like Omar Mohammed and the men who fought with Mujahadeen like Osama Bin Laden?
Click to expand...
They disagreed about who should be running things in the power vacuum left by the soviets?
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,939
An op-ed but interesting none the less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/op...anted=all&_r=0

NYT_sl said:
Actually, it was bungling by Ch?vez-appointed business directors who tried to impose pseudo-Marxist principles, only to be later replaced by opportunists and crooks, that hit Ciudad Guayana.

Underinvestment and ineptitude hit hydropower stations and the electricity grid, causing weekly blackouts that continue to darken cities, fry electrical equipment, silence machinery and require de facto rationing. The government has no shortage of scapegoats: its own workers, the C.I.A. and even cable-gnawing possums.

Reckless money printing and fiscal policies triggered soaring inflation, so much so that the currency, the bol?var, lost 90 percent of its value since Mr. Ch?vez took office, and was devalued five times over a decade. In another delusion, the currency had been renamed "el bol?var fuerte," the strong bol?var - an Orwellian touch.

Harassment of privately owned farms and chaotic administration of state-backed agricultural cooperatives hit food production, compelling extensive imports, which stacked up so fast thousands of tons rotted at the ports. Mr. Ch?vez called it "food sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Food sovereignty, I like that.

NYT_sl said:
He spent extravagantly on health clinics, schools, subsidies and giveaways, including entirely new houses. Those employed in multiplying bureaucracies - officials lost track of fleeting ministries - voted for him to secure their jobs.

His elections were not fair - Mr. Ch?vez rigged rules in his favor, hijacked state resources, disqualified some opponents, emasculated others - but they were free.

As Venezuela atrophied, he found some refuge in blaming others, notably the "squealing pigs" and "vampires" of the private sector whom he accused of hoarding and speculating. Soldiers arrested butchers for overpricing.

His own supporters increasingly blamed those around him: by 2011 you could see graffiti with the slogan "bajo el gobierno, viva Ch?vez" - "down with the government, long live Ch?vez."
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Araysar_sl said:
Radical Muslims that formed Taliban, Mujahaddeen, etc. dont have the same goal of oppressing women, living in a patriarchial society, restricting everyone's rights but their own and waging Jihad in their spare time?

Tell me of some of these massive differences between the men who eventually formed the Taliban like Omar Mohammed and the men who fought with Mujahadeen like Osama Bin Laden?
Click to expand...
Ostensibly, the US was backing primarily groups who were allied with Ahmad Shah Massoud, who were in open conflict with the groups who became the Taliban.

The Mujahadeen was simply not a cohesive body in any way such that it could be said that it spoke with one united voice about issues. It was as divided as it could be.

Now, realistically, a whole shit load of the weapons the US sold to the Mujahadeen who were on Ahmad Shah Massoud's side ended up in the hands of the side that later became the Taliban, because derp once you sell the weapons to one group its easy enough for them to trade some of them to other groups for various reasons.

Its not really fair to characterize the whole Mujahadeen as Sheik Omar types, but its hardly honest when someone pretends the US wasn't really arming everyone but the Soviets in the conflict, because we most absolutely certainly were.

Ahmad Shah Massoud was generally a pretty good dude though. He was building schools, was for some extension of rights to women, what have you.

Too bad he got blowed the fuck up about 3 days before 9-11 though, and I'm sure if you dig enough, the man had his skeletons as well.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Eomer_sl said:
That op-ed is total bullshit, because it doesn't suck Chavez's dick for having the balls to stand up to the US and energy companies. That's all that matters, remember?
Click to expand...
It's total bullshit because it insinuates that there's a serious debate about him being a dictator.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
It's total bullshit because it insinuates that there's a serious debate about him being a dictator.
Click to expand...
There is/was such a debate, given how he ran the country, intimidated the media, brought the judiciary to heel, used state funds to support his party, and so on. No different than with Putin in Russia or Mugabe in Zimbabwee. I would say that Chavez and Putin aren't or weren't outright dictators, but they're certainly authoritarian leaders who are/were well on their way to becoming dictators. Mugabe I'd say is, but given that he's been "elected" and ostensibly agreed to share power with his opposition (at least in theory), I don't think there's a hard and fast distinction between he and the other two.

And keep in mind, the author of that article went on to say that he wasn't a dictator or a democrat, but a hybrid. I think that's pretty accurate. Not to mention that he said such debate missed the more important points of his leadership, like performance and competence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.