The latest Hitler reference
I don't think there's any historical figure more used as an insult than Adolf Hitler. Back in 2006, Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Hitler. Now Chávez has compared German Chancellor Angela Merkel's party to Hitler's fascism. This is because she had said things like:
Chávez then indicated he would stop insulting her because she was a "lady." Classy.
"Based on our experience in Europe, I don't believe that state-guided economies can provide a better or more sustainable response to such pressing problems."
45 comments:
Chavez is a clown. This week he will come up with something big to cover the laptop story.
I'm just waiting for the day that concrete policy issues take on greater importance in Greg's mind than the rhetorical flourishes of big bad Hugo.
I'm just waiting for the day a civil tongue takes on greater importance for Justin than crapping in everyone's blog.
I'm just waiting for the day a civil tongue takes on greater importance for Justin than crapping in everyone's blog.
And what exactly was uncivil?
Your idea of "civility" is to bow down in deference to any guy with three letters behind his name.
Here's the other key quote from Merkel:
"Un único país no puede dañar por mucho tiempo las relaciones entre la UE y América Latina. El presidente Chávez no habla por Latinoamérica".
The fact Chavez feels the need to compare Merkel to Hitler after that quote says a lot about him and his ego.
Notice how this works. Merkel personally insults Chavez. Chavez responds forcefully in kind (as he usually does).
And then all the little hacks and chatterers get their panties in a wad about big bad Hugo's response.
It never fails. Fox insults Chavez.
Chavez responds. The media screams shame shame on big bad Hugo, and all the little hacks and chatterers lap it up.
The Honduran bishop insults Chavez. Chavez responds. The media screams shame shame on big bad Hugo, and all the little hacks and chatterers lap it up.
Alan Garcia insults Chavez. Chavez responds. The media screams shame shame on big bad Hugo, and all the little hacks and chatterers lap it up.
Ever heard of the "sociology of knowledge," Greg? Try reading up on it sometime. You might learn a thing or two about a thing or two.
Your idea of "civility" is to bow down in deference to any guy with three letters behind his name.
And when you finally get yours Justin, we'll all know that it stands for Piled High and Deep.
They're clearly playing Hitler tag, an old game on the playground of politics.
"Hitler tag" is a perfect way to put it. It highlights not only the strategy ("use the most hated person as a comparison") but also the childish nature of it.
It highlights not only the strategy ("use the most hated person as a comparison") but also the childish nature of it.
It's also childish for a political scientist to ensconce himself in the rhetoric of one statesman.
Man you are really really arrogant
Chavez is hilarious, his apologists even funnier.
Since 9-11 US attention towards Latin America is at an all time low, even compared to the 90's when such drama as Colombia's decertification would make the evening news. And the Clinton administration would forcefully argue against Fujimori's schemes.
Chavez instead has had free reign in the region. And a thick bankroll to play around with.
With this favorable environment he still tries to whine about how persecuted he is. And routinely insult just about everyone who disagrees with him.
Regardless of whatever Delacour says, Chavez is usually the one who starts with the insults. He spends more time blabbing before microphones than any other SA leader. At some point he must just run out of material.
Since 9-11 US attention towards Latin America is at an all time low
Thank the Good Lord. Latin America really isn't in any need of Uncle Sam's "attention."
Regardless of whatever Delacour says, Chavez is usually the one who starts with the insults.
Bullshit. Take a look at almost every publicized spat. Fox, Garcia, the Honduran Bishop, Merkel, etc. etc. etc. Chavez's bombast is almost invariably a response to undiplomatic attacks upon his character and leadership, but that basic fact is quickly lost upon people who don't want to see it.
...Chavez's bombast is almost invariably a response to undiplomatic attacks upon his character and leadership
Which part of Merkel's quote was an undiplomatic attack?
Which part of Merkel's quote was an undiplomatic attack?
You know as well as I that it's completely undiplomatic to single out a foreign leader as unrepresentative of his region. If she had made a general statement to the effect that she didn't see Latin America moving in the direction of state socialism, that would be one thing. But to personally identify Chavez as unrepresentative of his region is a clear violation of diplomatic protocol.
So fuck her. This is the same Thatcher-style figure who tried to introduce the flat tax to Continental Europe, for Heaven's sake. To hell with Merkel.
She didn't say he is unrepresentative. She said he doesn't speak for the region. That is true, although Chavez apparently took offense.
She didn't say he is unrepresentative. She said he doesn't speak for the region.
Are you high today, Boz? To say he doesn't speak for the region is to say that he is unrepresentative of the region. Now, regardless if that is true, to single out any democratically-elected leader as unrepresentative of his region is a violation of diplomatic protocol. If Chavez were to just blurt out one day that Merkel or Gordon Brown did not speak for Europe, that would most certainly be seen as a violation of diplomatic protocol, and the English or Germans would respond in kind.
Bottom line is that the German leader has no business telling us who speaks for whom in Latin America.
If Chavez were to just blurt out one day that Merkel or Gordon Brown did not speak for Europe, that would most certainly be seen as a violation of diplomatic protocol...
As opposed to comparing them to Hitler, which you seem to approve of.
As opposed to comparing them to Hitler, which you seem to approve of.
The points are (1) that Merkel initiated the spat and (2) that this fact is conveniently lost on those who don't want to see it.
The points are...
1. Merkel said Chavez doesn't speak for all of Latin America (a true statement)
2. Chavez compared Merkel to Hitler (which most people believe is exaggerated and offensive).
Merkel said Chavez doesn't speak for all of Latin America (a true statement)
And it would also be a true statement that Merkel doesn't speak for all of Europe on a range of issues. That's irrelevant, though. The relevant question is this: Would it meet the standards of diplomatic protocol for any statesman to go around blurting --without any provocation-- that Merkel doesn't speak for all of Europe? If not, how does it then make sense to employ a clear double standard and ignore Merkel's unprovoked snideness toward Chavez?
I won't expect a straight answer from you.
Would it meet the standards of diplomatic protocol for any statesman to go around blurting --without any provocation-- that Merkel doesn't speak for all of Europe?
I don't think Merkel or most other world leaders would take offense to that statement. If it were the other way around, Merkel certainly wouldn't respond by calling that person a fascist and comparing them to Hitler. You seem to have a strange definition of what's diplomatic.
Chavez is the same guy who a couple of months ago insulted Uribe, calling him a "warmonger" "terrorist", "coward". At the exact same time he is scheming to get money and powerful guns to the FARC.
talk about diplomatic protocols towards the popularly elected and legitimate government of a neighboring country.
I don't think Merkel or most other world leaders would take offense to that statement.
Well, I'm not interested in what you "think," Boz, because that's obviously not your strong suit.
What I know is that if Chavez went around making unprovoked remarks to the effect that Merkel doesn't speak for Europe, he wouldn't get just one negative response from that government but rather a whole hell of a lot of nasty responses from all over.
That's the point. It's double standards galore in the hackosphere. If Chavez were to say that a European leader didn't speak for Europe, every hack and his mother would be saying that Chavez has no business saying who speaks for whom in Europe. But if a German leader says --without provocation-- that Chavez doesn't speak for Latin America, the hacks cheer and don't think twice about the gross hypocrisy of it all.
It's all part of the imperial mindset. Americans and Europeans can say whatever they damn well please about the Third World (and even act as if they're in a position to say who speaks for the Third World), but if the "uppity" Venezuelan gives the Global North a taste of its own medicine, the hackosphere screams to high heaven.
It's all so predictable and absurd.
What I know...
What you know is wrong. Merkel's comments would have been fine coming out of any leader in the world. Chavez's comments were unacceptable for international leaders. You're so blinded by hero-worship that you're missing the obvious.
What you know is wrong. Merkel's comments would have been fine coming out of any leader in the world. Chavez's comments were unacceptable for international leaders. You're so blinded by hero-worship that you're missing the obvious.
No, actually, the problem, Boz, is that you're so blinded by empire-worship that you can't see the double standards that you routinely employ in defense of imperialism. In other words, empire-worship has robbed you of even the most elementary rational faculties.
When big bad Hugo can start making unprovoked pronouncements that a European leader "doesn't speak for Europe" without illiciting shrieks from Europe and the hackosphere, your argument will make sense. Until such time, the fundamentally illogical character of your pronouncements will remain crystal clear.
When big bad Hugo can start making unprovoked pronouncements that a European leader "doesn't speak for Europe" without illiciting shrieks from Europe and the hackosphere, your argument will make sense.
That happened, so my argument makes sense.
The Venezuelan government put out a statement that said "...la canciller Merkel no es la única voz de la Unión Europea y que un sólo país no podrá alterar ni las relaciones entre Venezuela y la Unión Europea..."
Not a single government in Europe complained about that statement (go ahead and search) or said it was undiplomatic. It was Chavez's undiplomatic statement saying Merkel is a fascist and comparing her to Hitler that received, and deserved to receive, condemnation.
Even he recognized it as undiplomatic, as he apologized to Merkel at the summit.
It seems that Boz also has a reading comprehension problem.
Here's what I wrote:
When big bad Hugo can start making unprovoked pronouncements that a European leader "doesn't speak for Europe" without illiciting shrieks from Europe and the hackosphere, your argument will make sense.
The last statement from Venezuela was in response to Merkel's snide remark. The Venezuelan government's response is not an unprovoked pronouncement. (And, moreover, it's an official statement, not big bad Hugo speaking on the fly).
Learn to read English, Boz.
Even he recognized it as undiplomatic, as he apologized to Merkel at the summit.
The point was never that Hugo's Hitler gaff was diplomatic. The point was that it came in response to Merkel's own violation of diplomatic protocol. But, once again, that fact is easily lost on those who are blind to their own congenital hypocrisy.
Shorter Justin: two wrongs do make a right.
Shorter Justin: two wrongs do make a right.
No, actually, the point is that you don't go cheering one wrong and denouncing another if you have any basic scruples. Boz has no scruples, unfortunately.
To say he doesn't speak for the region is to say that he is unrepresentative of the region. Now, regardless if that is true, to <>single out any democratically-elected leader as unrepresentative of his region is a violation of diplomatic protocol.
Ummmmm...ok Justin...
Chavez at the summit...
..called Colombian President Alvaro Uribe "a promoter of disunion" — saying Uribe did "not fit in" in a region where the leaders of Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia and Paraguay "are a brotherhood."
POW! seems like a prima facie case of violation of diplomatic according to Justin Delacour.
Said agression, being "unrprovoked". Lest you consider as "provocation" revealing evidence of Chavez attempts to destabilize the legitimate elected government of Colombian by giving guns, money and protection to the unpopular Communist thugs who are the single greatest threat to the Colombian State.
Said agression, being "unrprovoked".
Are you kidding me? Uribe threatens Venezuela's national security, for Heaven's sake. Uribe has dragged the United States into the region's affairs, allowing the United States to use its position in Colombia to lord all sorts of tacit threats over Venezuela.
Fuck Uribe. Uribe is a murdering, drug-connected, paramilitary-loving piece of living shit. None of his neighbors like him for precisely that reason. Uribe merits nothing but Chavez's spit. Uribe can go straight to hell where he belongs, and I frankly couldn't give a shit if big bad Hugo pulled his pants down and mooned the Antioquian butcher at a regional summit.
How's that for some diplomacy, Boli boy?
Lest you consider as "provocation" revealing evidence of Chavez attempts to destabilize the legitimate elected government of Colombian by giving guns, money and protection to the unpopular Communist thugs who are the single greatest threat to the Colombian State.
Complete bullshit. Even the Interpol report concedes that, between March 1 and 3, Colombia's "anti-terrorism" unit had the laptops under its control, did not follow standard forensic procedures for safeguarding electronic evidence, and accessed the files without first making a copy of them.
In other words, that "evidence" is about as good as the toilet paper you wipe your ass with.
Chavez is a military man. He knows better than anyone else that the FARC is in no position to win anything. Chavez has no interest in aiding the FARC militarily. Anybody with any real grasp of geo-politics knows this. What Chavez has an interest in --and what he's always had an interest in-- is peace in Colombia so that the United States would stop using Colombia's internal conflict to lord its ever-constant threats over Venezuela.
Chavez is a military man. He knows better than anyone else that the FARC is in no position to win anything.
Chavez led a failed military coup in 1992. Perhaps he isn't the best judge of what is possible militarily.
Perhaps he isn't the best judge of what is possible militarily.
Well, he was a good enough judge to stave off one coup and avoid another. That's a more impressive achievement than you'll ever be able to take credit for.
Well, he was a good enough judge to stave off one coup and avoid another.
I can see the slogan: "Hugo Chavez: on the winning side of 2 out of 3 coups." I'm not sure that will convince everyone that he doesn't support the FARC.
Are you kidding me? Uribe threatens Venezuela's national security, for Heaven's sake. Uribe has dragged the United States into the region's affairs, allowing the United States to use its position in Colombia to lord all sorts of tacit threats over Venezuela.
LOL, LOL, LOL, that is a hilarious spin.
First of all Colombia's series of conflicts spreads across borders for the past 50 years.
US aid to Uribe is mainly used to get rid of the FARC and the dopers. Uribe, unlike Chavez has little interest in messing with his neighbors. He has too much internal territory to bring under State control, and containing the drug dealing, and para-gangsterism. The only real threat is spreading pesticides and that mainly affects the Ecuadorians.
There is little evidence of US subverting Venezuela, outside of the highly debatable "support" to coup leaders - and that was about as much a widespread anti-Chavez. rebellion as a coup.
Chavez pretty much has brought messes on himself. Indirectly by enabling corruption and enrichment of military officials in order to keep them on his side. Since before Uribe was even president, Venezuelan officials and military types have enabled for a fee just about every coke dealer and guerrilla to use Venezuela as a playground to hide, run drugs, etc. That increasingly became more skewed to the FARC, due to Chavez wacky ideology, and policy to export his Boliviarian stupidity. And the exponential rise in military corruption. Military officers robbing the petrostate are not distinguishable from those getting rich from the FARC/drug dealers. Its at the point now that the Venezuelan side of the border is becoming a narco-state of its own.
Chavez is a military man. He knows better than anyone else that the FARC is in no position to win anything.
LMAO.... there are many things Chavez should KNOW.....what he THINKS HE KNOWS is a matter of public record:
He thinks Socialism actually works
He thinks Capitalism doesnt work.
He thinks he is building 21st Century Socialism.
In other words he believes in fairy tales that only nuts and retards believe in at this stage of human history. He might as well believe that the FARC can destabilize Colombia enough to collapse the government.
US aid to Uribe is mainly used to get rid of the FARC and the dopers.
If it was about getting rid of "dopers," we would be getting rid of Uribe. Everybody knows that Uribe's family has a long history of drug ties, first to the Medellin Cartel and then to paramilitary narco-traffickers. But, of course, everybody who's written a book about Uribe's drug ties (like Fernando Garavito and Gonzalo Guillen) has been forced out of the country. That's "democracy," Colombian-style.
There is little evidence of US subverting Venezuela
The threats are posed by the constant FARC-bating of Chavez. FARC-bating is simply the imperialists' method of negotiation (i.e. their method of telling Chavez that, if he challenges U.S. interests too strongly, they're ready to bring in the big stick). That's all this is. This has nothing to do with Chavez's alleged relations with the FARC. That's just a convenient charade. This has to do with the threat that Chavismo poses to imperialism more generally.
Now the empire has even got the fourth fleet --which has been defunct since 1950-- cruising back into the Carribbean. It's obvious what that's all about.
Incidentally, the U.S. did something similar to Samper in Colombia. They dogged him with the Cali Cartel stuff throughout his presidency because they knew they could control him and make him do what they wanted by constantly harassing him.
But Chavez is different than Samper. He's a genuine anti-imperialist. So the U.S. will continue lording threats over his head, with the FARC nonsense as a mere pretext. This isn't very complicated.
he believes in fairy tales that only nuts and retards believe in at this stage of human history.
Oh, I see we have a Fukuyama acolyte here. Well, let me tell you something. Fukuyama is the "retard." Anybody who thinks that history stops when and where he or she wants it too just doesn't understand anything about history.
The comedy gets even better. No more Chavez-as-a-liberal-in-a-hurry. & bring out the big guns...LOL..
unleash the jargon: "The Empire", "anti-amperialism", bla, bla, bla.
Talk about showing neo-Stalinist true colors.
Anyone believing in this kind of nonesense, obviously won't believe the overwhelming empirical evidence that SOCIALIST ECONOMIES DON'T WORK!! Its like global warming deniers or Larrouche followers, Most reasonable people know they are full of it.
Then again Delacour thinks excited legions of morons chanting slogans constitutes "progress".
"The Empire", "anti-amperialism", bla, bla, bla.
Talk about showing neo-Stalinist true colors.
Oh, that's rich, Boli Boy. If one acknowledges the existence of Anglo-American imperialism, he or she is a "neo-Stalinist."
Hmmm. The conservative Harvard historian Niall Ferguson acknowledges the existence of Anglo-American imperialism and sees it as a good thing. Is he too a "neo-Stalinist"?
"Hegemonic stability theory" --another word for imperialism-- has been celebrated by American economists and international relations theorists since the 1960s. Not exactly a "neo-Stalinist" conspiracy, I think.
Delacour you and the other true believers can convince yourselves of the sophistication of your rants. But the bottom line is that it is nothing more than a mutation of the Stalin-era gibberish that was widely circulated in Latin America (and the US) in Comintern pamphlets, or in party or front-group newspapers. All repeating the simplistic narrative of US Imperialists colluding with greedy capitalists to put down the progressives around the world.
Take away the USSR, throw in some Chomsky, X-Files and the Bourne Supremacy, filtered through the mind of those pre-disposed to conspiracy theory, and there you have it.
Delacour you and the other true believers can convince yourselves of the sophistication of your rants. But the bottom line is that it is nothing more than a mutation of the Stalin-era gibberish
What's the "Stalin era"? You mean when Stalin was still alive, or afterwards?
Don't you spend any time in Latin America, Boli Boy? The term "imperialism" is alive and well there. Imagine that. After the "end of history," Latin Americans still talk about imperialism. Must bug the shit out of Fukuyama.
Maybe we should call this the "post-history Stalin era." That ought to be oxymoronic enough for you and Fukuyama.
What's the "Stalin era"? You mean when Stalin was still alive, or afterwards?
Ummmm, was talking about mass Stalinist propaganda coming from USSR, Comintern? Seems that would be the 30's no? Well, the USSR Party Line on everything was ritical b/cause it had to be followed w/out deviation by party members, and by pro-USSR CP's worldwide. After arguing, murdering and exiling his way to the top, Stalin made sure that party gospel -b/spelled out clearly. To use advert terms the copy was "tightened", simplified for mass audiences. And Stalin made sure it got around all over the world.
Millions of books and pamphlets made it to Latin America - disributed for free many times.
In the 30's w/Spain in civil war, US & Europe in Depression, there was not a whole lot of "au courant" materials being published in Spanish. The Nazi's and Fascists did it big too - "Mi Lucha", pro-Falange propaganda. Even the Troskyists sneaked in, making noise and annoying Stalinists. (Bolivia's "Troskos" - called one of the most significant Troksyist parties in the world).
Ultimately, the widely-distributed Stalinist materials really had a lasting effect, no matter how much Soviet Communism itself went on roller coaster rides from the 30's to 50's.
Provided an entire system of beliefs/religion, Was easy to transmit to others. Overwhelmed more freewheeling left. Absolutist, combative, fiercely dogmatic and unyielding, it molded the lefts political culture in an area with little democratic counterbalances and inequality. Rhetoric derived from core aspects like "anti-imperialism" w/their Marxist underpinning, continue on, simply because they have been repeated enough to be accepted as reality.
Don't you spend any time in Latin America, Boli Boy? The term "imperialism" is alive and well there.
Maybe that made sense in the 1930's w/ Marines, Banana
Republics and Banana Companies.
Imagine that. After the "end of history," Latin Americans still talk about imperialism. Must bug the shit out of Fukuyama.
Or maybe it partially explains why many Latin American countries are lagging behind places where this language - and Marxist underpinnings - are viewed as nonsense or excuses.
Post a Comment