What do we care that Chavez wants to create a 'socialist utopia'?

Question

That's a quote by him btw.

I'm just wondering what all the hoop-la is concerning this decision by Chavez? Sure, we know he doesn't like the USA; but, isn't that his right?

We seem to have no problem with countries like Jordan (a constitutional monarchy), ruled by a KING, because he kisses our backsides. Yet, we fuss about a democratized country with an elected president (a federal republic) just because he doesn't like our president?

The point is: you can't argue Chavez isn't complying with democratization and meanwhile befriend a monarchy. Doesn't that contradict and void all arguments against Chavez?

Did you know Chavez has a fund for the poor here in the USA that helps them pay energy bills?

Answer 1

I agree. Why do we care? It's part of what got us in Vietnam, made McCarthyism popular-"we have to stop the evil spread of Communism." Meanwhile, Bush alternately praises and criticizes Communist China and recently went over to set up trade with the evil communist Vietnamese government. Wait, didn't 50,000 US soldiers die trying to prevent the spread of Communism in Vietnam which was going to take over the region?

Answer 2

I agree that the United States likes countries that kisses its *** but you can't possibly defend Chavez. He is a Marxist and I he is a threat to all of Latin America. I'm Hispanic and I was born in South America and I'm worried about my birthplace becoming red with communist ties. They've elected Socialist leaders like Morales or Michelle Bacquelet while Chavez supports Ahmanidejad in his quest for building nuclear weapons. This is not good. Pretty soon, most of Latin America will be socialist or communist like Cuba and the U.S. will have to intervene. This is why liberals don't get respect from others becuase of the things you say. I'm a Democrat and you defending Chavez goes against what the party stands for and I think you're smart but wrong on this subject. We should care that he wants to complete Marx's work because is not only Venezuela at risk but all of South America.

Answer 3

I wan't a 'socialist utopia'!!!

Unfortunately, I think we all know that isn't going to happen. I agree that it is his, and the people of Venezuela, who must make the decisions. The people elected him and they must live with their choices. Although It is crazy that a man can get elected and then declare (with the support of the cabinet [or whatever it's called]) that he is going to change the form of governement.

I think people can rightfully worry that their economy will crash and that the people of Venezuela will suffer. Because the world is such a small place there will be a ripple effect of what happens in Venezuela, especially on oil (not that we need any more reasons to become less dependent on foreign countries).

I also think it is legitmate to want good relations with countries and to seek them out, whether they are governents different than ours, including kingdoms, etc. As stated above, because the world is so small, we often rely upon others and find it socially the right thing to worry about all people. With damaging relationships with Venezuela (because who wants to be friends with someone who preaches hatred towards you) it can only cause more divides in the world and more conflict. I think that's legit.

Answer 4

Exactly which "decision by Chavez" are you referring to? His relationship with Iran? Anyone the US tries to isolate will naturally try to be friendly with one another, it would be insane for them not to. This does not automatically mean they are planning to destroy us.

Unfortunately, I think many, many people in the US disagree with the idea that leaders of other countries have the right not to like us. This feeling is pervasive and extreme, think about how conservatives feel about France. I think that this intolerance is clearly the main reason Chavez is so unpopular here. His social programs are never going to impress the people who think that way.

You are right to point out that democracy and human rights are treated as irrelevant when it comes to foreign policy. United States policy toward Latin America has been fairly consistent on this sort of thing going back at least to the Monroe Doctrine. The US has been quite gentle on Venezuela, if you compare the response to Chavez with the response to Ortega in the 1980s (Nicaragua), Allende (Chile in the 1970s), Arbenz (Guatemala in the 1950s) and so on. The leaders, like Chavez, were all considered enemies by powerful interests because they threatened to reduce the ability of the US to extract profits from the region.

Like the Cold War before it, the War On Terror helps create a political excuse for all this, but any logical scrutiny shows that none of these Latin American leaders have ever posed any meaningful threat to people like you and I.

Answer 5

Chavez has been vilified by the reds, but that is their usual way of doing business. The people of Venezuela elected him, there were no cries of a fixed election like there were here. What I have seen and heard is that he is making life better for the poor and middle class in his country. He is even helping the poor in this country. Just because the radical Pat Robinson doesn't like him is no reason to care about what he does in his country..

Answer 6

I agree that we make to much about it. Its not our place to tell other countries what government to choose. Democracy is about the people choosing their own government. I was mad when Bush Sr. interferred with Nicuargua's election, but the election showed that Ortega believe in Democracy more than Bush did. Our over zealous attack of communism has created a lot of problems like in Afghanistan.

The only reasonable reason I could see that we should be concern of Chavez is that he plan to take American property and nationalize it. Our company invested in Venezuela and should be compensated fairly for that investment.

Answer 7

Yeah, I know that he has a fund! Headed up by a Kennedy! Isn't that nice that a Kennedy is a partner with an enemy of the US. Chavez not only dislikes the President, but has threatened this country on more than one occasion. Hitler was elected, too, and we did ignore him because, after all, what should we care about a democratically elected head of state who makes nasty threats. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if we hadn't taken advice from those who wanted to just ignore him? Better that we keep our distance for Chavez and watch him very carefully.

Answer 8

To a certain extent, we don't care. However, the Truman Doctrine moves the U.S. to stop the spread of communism. As long as Chavez doesn't advocate communism, I think we'll probably leave him pretty much alone other then bad talking him.

Besides, the U.S. government never has a problem with countries with dissimilar governments as long as they are allies and can do something for us.

Answer 9

He also offered to send us millions after Katrina....

If he wants a socialist utopia in "his" country, I don't care. It doesn't affect any of us. People will complain about Chavez for years to come. Partly for what the Administration says about him and partly for what Chavez says about Bush.

Answer 10

Chavez has stolen private property.
Chavez has imprisoned political opponents.
Chavez has shut down the free press.
Chavez has gotten the "legislature" to select him as Presidente for Life
Chavez has gotten the "legislature" to give him dictatorial powers.

I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want to hear any whining from Venezuelans who elected this pissant thug. Enjoy your journey into hell, Venezuela. Because I will fight tooth and nail to prevent the US from spending one penny, or expending one drop of blood to help you.

And BB - you don't know how wrong you truly are.