Obama reaches out to Chavez at summit

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Palestinians?

You can't just group in all the Palestinian people into the label "incorrigible ideologues."

Originally posted by scherzo
You can't just group in all the Palestinian people into the label "incorrigible ideologues."

It was the "trying the same failed strategy again and again" comparison I was going for, but whatever. I shouldn't have dragged this thread there. Shutting up.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
It was the "trying the same failed strategy again and again" comparison I was going for, but whatever. I shouldn't have dragged this thread there. Shutting up.

Indeed.

Now, back to Chavez. I feel that he and Castro were, up to last year, the only true Latin American leaders, but after Castro resigned, Chavez became The Latin American Leader. For Obama to finally get his head out of the anticommunist cloud and try to cultivate relations is a huge step forward.

Originally posted by scherzo
Indeed.

Now, back to Chavez. I feel that he and Castro were, up to last year, the only true Latin American leaders, but after Castro resigned, Chavez became The Latin American Leader. For Obama to finally get his head out of the anticommunist cloud and try to cultivate relations is a huge step forward.

What is a "true latin-american leader" according to the scherzo dictionary?

Castro wasn't even elected, how does that make him a "true latin-american leader"?

don't you mean true latin-american dictator?

Originally posted by generalissimo
What is a "true latin-american leader" according to the scherzo dictionary?

Castro wasn't even elected, how does that make him a "true latin-american leader"?

don't you mean true latin-american dictator?

1. A Latin American leader is a socialist who does his/her utmost to make life in his/her country better.
2. Castro seized power from a dictator. He wasn't per se a dictator himself.

Originally posted by scherzo
1. A Latin American leader is a socialist who does his/her utmost to make life in his/her country better.
2. Castro seized power from a dictator. He wasn't per se a dictator himself.

1. A Latin American leader is a socialist who does his/her utmost to make life in his/her country better.

A socialist? are you saying only socialists try to make a country better?
laughable.
Castro made several mistakes that hindered cuban progress, and Chavez is following the same path, does that still make them "true latin american leaders"?

2. Castro seized power from a dictator. He wasn't per se a dictator himself.

He overthrew a dictator only to install himself as one.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]1. A Latin American leader is a socialist who does his/her utmost to make life in his/her country better.

A socialist? are you saying only socialists try to make a country better?
laughable.
Castro made several mistakes that hindered cuban progress, and Chavez is following the same path, does that still make them "true latin american leader ...[text shortened]... n't per se a dictator himself.[/b]

He overthrew a dictator only to install himself as one.[/b]

A socialist? are you saying only socialists try to make a country better?
laughable.

All too often capitalist leaders are in the pockets of the private sector. It's the Mexican situation right now.

He overthrew a dictator only to install himself as one.

We've discussed this before. He was a dictator for the people, as opposed to Batista who was a dictator for the private sector.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]1. A Latin American leader is a socialist who does his/her utmost to make life in his/her country better.

A socialist? are you saying only socialists try to make a country better?
laughable.
Castro made several mistakes that hindered cuban progress, and Chavez is following the same path, does that still make them "true latin american leader ...[text shortened]... n't per se a dictator himself.[/b]

He overthrew a dictator only to install himself as one.[/b]

Hypocrite - you're quite happy when a right-wing dictator overthrows an elected left government, but when its the other way around, you're suddenly bleating about this being unfair?

And Crde Castro was democratically elected, many times.

Originally posted by Redmike
Hypocrite - you're quite happy when a right-wing dictator overthrows an elected left government, but when its the other way around, you're suddenly bleating about this being unfair?

And Crde Castro was democratically elected, many times.

We can't deny that Castro's initial revolution was technically undemocratic. But we also cannot deny that (1) all postrevolutionary governments are undemocratic, (2) it was a lot better than the Batistas, and (3) it became more democratic as time went on.

Originally posted by Redmike
Hypocrite - you're quite happy when a right-wing dictator overthrows an elected left government, but when its the other way around, you're suddenly bleating about this being unfair?

And Crde Castro was democratically elected, many times.

Hypocrite - you're quite happy when a right-wing dictator overthrows an elected left government, but when its the other way around, you're suddenly bleating about this being unfair?

Im not a hypocrate. I've covered this before, and explained my position regarding Pinochet.


Castro was democratically elected, many times.

really? when was that?

Originally posted by scherzo
We can't deny that Castro's initial revolution was technically undemocratic. But we also cannot deny that (1) all postrevolutionary governments are undemocratic, (2) it was a lot better than the Batistas, and (3) it became more democratic as time went on.

all postrevolutionary governments are undemocratic?

What makes a government 'postrevolutionary' then? And when does it stop being postrevolutionary?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Hypocrite - you're quite happy when a right-wing dictator overthrows an elected left government, but when its the other way around, you're suddenly bleating about this being unfair?

Im not a hypocrate. I've covered this before, and explained my position regarding Pinochet.


Castro was democratically elected, many times.

really? when was that?[/b]

You've explained your position re Pinochet, and it is a hyporitical position.

You think Pinochet overthrowing Allende was a good thing, but Castro overthrowing Batista a bad thing.

I think we know why.


In all the time Castro was in power, he was democratically elected.

Originally posted by Redmike
all postrevolutionary governments are undemocratic?

What makes a government 'postrevolutionary' then? And when does it stop being postrevolutionary?

A postrevolutionary government is the government that takes control of a given nation immediately after a revolution. Other examples of undemocratic postrevolutionary governments are France, the US, Vietnam, Egypt, and Pakistan. (Only France and the US have achieved democracy status since then.)

Originally posted by scherzo
A postrevolutionary government is the government that takes control of a given nation immediately after a revolution. Other examples of undemocratic postrevolutionary governments are France, the US, Vietnam, Egypt, and Pakistan. (Only France and the US have achieved democracy status since then.)

And when does it stop being postrevolutionary?

Originally posted by Redmike
You've explained your position re Pinochet, and it is a hyporitical position.

You think Pinochet overthrowing Allende was a good thing, but Castro overthrowing Batista a bad thing.

I think we know why.


In all the time Castro was in power, he was democratically elected.

No, I think the overthrow of both Allende and Batista were good.
What I disagreed with was what they did after.