2006-11-30 01:51:17 · 13 answers · asked by backtotheroots 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
hes a freely elected leader and while his views may not agree with yours or mine, he has the right to say what he feels so his influence will be ultimately measured by history.
2006-11-30 02:13:04 · answer #1 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This question is very badly worded and whoever wrote it should be sacked.
A 'positive force' suggests an inherently subjective judgement: e.g. what is more positive? To attempt to forge a union of 3rd world countries who counter-balance the power of the USA; or to attempt to improve the USA's global influence through dialogue and partnership rather than rhetoric and militancy?
The question also raises several other questions: which world leader is a positive force in world politics, for example. Really, the whole thing is too tricky to answer and I must respond that because of the fact that I cannot really define 'a positive force in world politics', I must accpet that I cannot describe Chavez as being such.
2006-11-30 01:58:15 · answer #2 · answered by TC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It looks like Venezuela is heading for another "lost decade." Human nature being what it is, Latin America seems to have forgotten the economic disasters of three decades ago. He who does not learn from the past is doomed to repeat it.
The last time Latin America cast aside economic sanity and turned to the siren song of socialism and mindless Yanqui-go-home hysteria, it paid a high price with hyperinflation and poverty.
Chavez' subjects will have to learn the lesson again, the one that Cubans are still pondering: You can't alter the laws of economics with long-drawn-out speeches on the state television network. As Italians learned the hard way in the 1930s, prosperity cannot merely be bestowed by an all-powerful leader announcing "campaigns" and "wars" for grain.
2006-11-30 02:05:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anne Marie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
While I ultimately feel the free market is the best route to prosperity, I appreciate Chavez's focus on the poor.
When children can't afford to eat, I think it's okay for the government to do something about that.
Likewise, I think that the natural resources of a nation belong to all the people of that nation, and should not be exploited to the exclusive benefit of the few.
However, I don't think nationalizing most businesses is advisable, and I think his rhetoric is over the top. Of course, I don't think privatizing all functions of government is advisable either, and I think Bush's rhetoric is also over the top.
The sad thing about the current situation is (as is evidenced by many of the answers to this post), people are blind to nuance.
The one fact we must all accept is that he is extremely popular and is the democratically elected leader of his nation. If we as a nation are going to profess to believe in promoting democracy in the middle east, we must accept the democratic choices of nations much closer to home.
2006-11-30 01:59:35 · answer #4 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree, he's an fairly good chief and an fairly good patriot , compared to Bush/Owen. He stands up for the individuals and is frightened of no human being. Europe, properly each and every of the contents truly might want to apply leaders like chavez. it would want to be a better ideal international.fairly some the fools who responded your large question provided to pay your fare to Venezuela. I wish they could pay mine too. yet they're hypocrites and could no longer positioned their funds the position their mouths are. If the stated Venezuela many might want to replace their minds
2016-10-08 00:18:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think people like Chavez are necessary personalities in world politics..... he's a revolutionary who represents the people and isn't willing to back down to anyone including Bush and other first world leaders.
2006-11-30 02:00:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If agitator equates positive force, then yes.
Personally, I think the world is better off without him, but I guess the liberals don't care who gets killed, as long as it is in someone else's country.
2006-11-30 02:16:29 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only in Hugo's mind.
2006-11-30 02:04:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he is a communist dictator. He hates everything that the west stands for including a burgeoning Middle class. Just look at Venezuela and Cuba: One rich guy and everyone else is a pauper. Such is the glory of communism....
2006-11-30 01:54:13 · answer #9 · answered by Eric K 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
At least he was elected by the majority of the popular vote (unlike somebody else).
2006-11-30 02:06:48 · answer #10 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋