Hugo Chavez is Dead

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by Aljosa23 (25111 posts) -

But stopping shipments to the US would not fundamentally alter anything. Oil is traded on a worldwide basis in very liquid markets meaning plenty of buyers and plenty of sellers. Venezuela would not stop selling oil therefore there would be no change to total worldwide supply and demand. The US would simply source additional supply from elsewhere. The net effect would be minimal on both parties...pennies on the barrel.

The US gov't knows this. Chavez knew this too. His statements had nothing to do with economics and were not even directed at the US. His statements and threats are/were designed for domestic political reasons so he could show his base that he would stand up to the US. No one in the industry took his threats seriously and no one cared anyway because everyone knows that it would have no meaningful impact.

Hence the idea that these statements lead to some US conspiracy is absurd.

SUD123456

I see. That makes sense. Well I was always under the belief that the US depended on their oil exports? They are something like the 5th largest exporter in the world and the one with the most oil reserves. Isn't that something significant?

Also, I just want to make it clear that I don't think he was assassinated.

#102 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
Chavez death = proof socialist health care fails
#103 Posted by dave123321 (34127 posts) -
lai is still upset at us. Says he wants to write a book about Obama. I am saddened that he has devolved to this level
#104 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

That's way to iffy to make any kind of logical sense.

Aljosa23

Not really. Considering Iran's coup was all over oil and with Chavez being the main villain in South America during the Bush years it's certainly a possibility, albeit a small one.

So maybe they poisoned him with something that maybe could increase his chances of getting cancer, but maybe doesn't, on the chance that maybe they might feel the need to remove him some day. Think about that for a moment. Does that really make a lick of sense? Would it not be more rational, not to mention effective, to utilize some sure-fire means of killing him when/if such need arises?

#105 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
lai is still upset at us. Says he wants to write a book about Obama. I am saddened that he has devolved to this leveldave123321
It's like high school and still can't get over the fact that he got rejected. Except he can't get over Obama. sad.
#106 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

His party still believes he was "infected with cancer".  Apparently, biology is not taught in Venezuela.

sonicare

 

Yeah, it's like impossible to purposely radiate someone or somewhere, right?! :lol:

 

I'm not even a conspiracy theorist, and don't care to argue whether he was killed or not, but you really need to check your facts before you insult someone.

 

In any case, he was the elected president of Venezuela, with the people's support, and I hope his sucessor has nearly as much backing from the people, and is nearly as able in administrating Venezuela as Chavez was.

#107 Posted by Vac87 (277 posts) -

I did not agree with many of his policies, but he did do some good things for his country. RIP. 

#108 Posted by Aljosa23 (25111 posts) -

So maybe they poisoned him with something that maybe could increase his chances of getting cancer, but maybe doesn't, on the chance that maybe they might feel the need to remove him some day. Think about that for a moment. Does that really make a lick of sense? Would it not be more rational, not to mention effective, to utilize some sure-fire means of killing him when/if such need arises?

worlock77

Well one could certainly argue that he did enough antagonizing the US during Bush and it's not impossible that someone back then got him somehow.

#109 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

:( sad... He was a great leader for Latin America. History will give him a proper place as one of the leaders who gave back some dignity to the Venezuelans and promoted the much needed Latin American union which, thanks to it, it was one of the only regions to actually grow admit the crisis reducing poverty and unemployment considerably. R.I.P Chavez. I hope our future depars more great leaders liker you.

#110 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
The ignorance here about Latin America is overwhelming.
#111 Posted by supa_badman (16630 posts) -

Glad he's dead. He did quite some harm for the people of Venezuela, but I kind of hope the socialism stays.

I get why some of Latin America is socialist, they just need less incredibly corrupt leaders.

#112 Posted by one_plum (6358 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I bet your dislike of him basically amounts to "because Bush did."

airshocker

Not really. He was a velvet dictator and a human rights violator, not to mention a corrupt piece of sh*t.

You can try and call him a "socialist" but I have more respect for -Sun_tzu-'s political ideals(which is admittedly very little to begin with) than I ever will for Chavez.

Really, who isn't nowadays?

#113 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So maybe they poisoned him with something that maybe could increase his chances of getting cancer, but maybe doesn't, on the chance that maybe they might feel the need to remove him some day. Think about that for a moment. Does that really make a lick of sense? Would it not be more rational, not to mention effective, to utilize some sure-fire means of killing him when/if such need arises?

Aljosa23

Well one could certainly argue that he did enough antagonizing the US during Bush and it's not impossible that someone back then got him somehow.

I don't put it past the US to do something underhanded like have a rival would leader killed, but this particular idea just isn't logical. It's way too impractical and uncertain for the US to bother with when there are a thousand other methods they could have employed that would have been certain to kill him.

#114 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So maybe they poisoned him with something that maybe could increase his chances of getting cancer, but maybe doesn't, on the chance that maybe they might feel the need to remove him some day. Think about that for a moment. Does that really make a lick of sense? Would it not be more rational, not to mention effective, to utilize some sure-fire means of killing him when/if such need arises?

worlock77

Well one could certainly argue that he did enough antagonizing the US during Bush and it's not impossible that someone back then got him somehow.

I don't put it past the US to do something underhanded like have a rival would leader killed, but this particular idea just isn't logical. It's way too impractical and uncertain for the US to bother with when there are a thousand other methods they could have employed that would have been certain to kill him.

Well the US has their funny ways to try and kill who they dislike like when they tried to poison Castro's cigars or when they wanted to plant explosive shells where he used to dive lol. Either way the US has good reasons for wanting to sabotage a Latin American union considering how dependent they're of its resources and an union means a much more difficult access to them. I don't proclaim to know what happened to Chavez but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the US wanted him dead and tried to achieve that.
#115 Posted by sonicare (53485 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So maybe they poisoned him with something that maybe could increase his chances of getting cancer, but maybe doesn't, on the chance that maybe they might feel the need to remove him some day. Think about that for a moment. Does that really make a lick of sense? Would it not be more rational, not to mention effective, to utilize some sure-fire means of killing him when/if such need arises?

worlock77

Well one could certainly argue that he did enough antagonizing the US during Bush and it's not impossible that someone back then got him somehow.

I don't put it past the US to do something underhanded like have a rival would leader killed, but this particular idea just isn't logical. It's way too impractical and uncertain for the US to bother with when there are a thousand other methods they could have employed that would have been certain to kill him.

Not to mention it's virtually impossible. You can't infect someone with cancer. Theoretically, it may be possible if you eradicated someone's bone marrow, took some of their cells and induced some kind of tumor expression, and then reintroduced those cells. But, needless to say, that's not a covert thing.
#116 Posted by sonicare (53485 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well one could certainly argue that he did enough antagonizing the US during Bush and it's not impossible that someone back then got him somehow.

kuraimen

I don't put it past the US to do something underhanded like have a rival would leader killed, but this particular idea just isn't logical. It's way too impractical and uncertain for the US to bother with when there are a thousand other methods they could have employed that would have been certain to kill him.

Well the US has their funny ways to try and kill who they dislike like when they tried to poison Castro's cigars or when they wanted to plant explosive shells where he used to dive lol. Either way the US has good reasons for wanting to sabotage a Latin American union considering how dependent they're of its resources and an union means a much more difficult access to them. I don't proclaim to know what happened to Chavez but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the US wanted him dead and tried to achieve that.

He died of cancer. It's a disease that kills millions of people in the world each year. Your risks for cancer go up as you age. He died at around 59. Age greater than 55 years is considered a risk factor for heart disease and cancer which are the two leading killers in most industrialized nations. The chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments for cancer can weaken your immune system and predispose people to infections. Also, most solid cancer tumors are very dangerous if detected late in the disease course and have low 5 year survival rates.
#117 Posted by sherman-tank1 (8146 posts) -

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Socialism needs a new strong leader. RIP comrade Chavez he really helped the poor of his nation.

Riverwolf007

Ugh, Socialism.

lol, dude.... what do think social security and medicare is? 

 

Exactly the problem.

#118 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
Can't say I'll miss him but sucks for his family, 58 isn't really that old.
#119 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I don't put it past the US to do something underhanded like have a rival would leader killed, but this particular idea just isn't logical. It's way too impractical and uncertain for the US to bother with when there are a thousand other methods they could have employed that would have been certain to kill him.

sonicare
Well the US has their funny ways to try and kill who they dislike like when they tried to poison Castro's cigars or when they wanted to plant explosive shells where he used to dive lol. Either way the US has good reasons for wanting to sabotage a Latin American union considering how dependent they're of its resources and an union means a much more difficult access to them. I don't proclaim to know what happened to Chavez but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the US wanted him dead and tried to achieve that.

He died of cancer. It's a disease that kills millions of people in the world each year. Your risks for cancer go up as you age. He died at around 59. Age greater than 55 years is considered a risk factor for heart disease and cancer which are the two leading killers in most industrialized nations. The chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments for cancer can weaken your immune system and predispose people to infections. Also, most solid cancer tumors are very dangerous if detected late in the disease course and have low 5 year survival rates.

That's why I said I don't proclaim to know what happened to him, it can perfectly well have been a natural occurrence but there are ways to increase the chances of cancer on people it's not impossible and, given US history with Latin America it certainly wouldn't surprise me. It doesn't mean it happened though.
#120 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Ugh, Socialism.

sherman-tank1

lol, dude.... what do think social security and medicare is? 

 

Exactly the problem.

Wait until you find out how the NFL operates.
#121 Posted by Adrianstalker (1467 posts) -

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselfs)  

#122 Posted by Bucked20 (6951 posts) -

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselfs)  

Adrianstalker

Damn and I thought are 45/100,000 was bad,that was years ago tho

#123 Posted by Adrianstalker (1467 posts) -

[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselfs)  

Bucked20

Damn and I thought are 45/100,000 was bad,that was years ago tho

 

Yes it's insane. The nation murder rate ended 2012 at 73/100k. 2011 were 67. Enourmous either way

 

Surely there are peaceful small cities, but Caracas is hell on earth

#124 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselfs)  

Adrianstalker
Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.
#125 Posted by Adrianstalker (1467 posts) -

[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselves)  

kuraimen

Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.

 

I would say that most of these "good stats" would be at a higher level without Chavez. Practically all Latin Americas had their social diferences improved, given that the last decades was one of the most prosperous in terms of economy in the region. Brazil has rised 30 millions into middle class, Chile is reaching first world HDI status, Peru is experiencieng steady and balanced economy growth, among other examples. None of those came with the price of an african war zone murder rate. 

#126 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3940 posts) -

Good. He was a nut.

#127 Posted by playmynutz (6040 posts) -
Basically Venezuela didn't want to be a puppet of America like some countries in central and south america. Problem is Hugo Chavez was corrupt. I hope the man rest in peace. Venezuela needs help
#128 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselves)  

Adrianstalker

Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.

 

I would say that most of these "good stats" would be at a higher level without Chavez. Practically all Latin Americas had their social diferences improved, given that the last decades was one of the most prosperous in terms of economy in the region. Brazil has rised 30 millions into middle class, Chile is reaching first world HDI status, Peru is experiencieng steady and balanced economy growth, among other examples. None of those came with the price of an african war zone murder rate. 

All of the countries you just named have moved significantly towards the left in the past decade, in part because of Chavez's rise in Venezuela. Before Chavez, Venezuela was already dysfunctional. He is not to blame for all the crime, violence and other social problems that plague the country. His economic policies however are in general very popular, so popular that even his conservative opposition campaigned on keeping the welfare state he created intact. Yes he was paranoid, superstitious, and authoritarian, but he did a lot to improve the condition of a people who had been living in poverty for decades.

#129 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5403 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Ugh, Socialism.

sherman-tank1

lol, dude.... what do think social security and medicare is? 

 

Exactly the problem.

Yeah, Social Security is only one of our most successful programs that has kept millions off the streets and in homes! DAMN THAT THING!!! DAMN IT TO HELL!!
#130 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5403 posts) -
OT Logic A world leader that hated America died of cancer....MURCAH KILLED HIM!!!! *Burns American Flag*
#131 Posted by dave123321 (34127 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]OT Logic A world leader that hated America died of cancer....MURCAH KILLED HIM!!!! *Burns American Flag*

Grow up
#132 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5403 posts) -
th?id=H.4572972895438707&pid=1.7dave123321
You gotta lot of nerve there little mister. finger-wag.jpg
#133 Posted by VaguelyTagged (10178 posts) -

:( sad... He was a great leader for Latin America. History will give him a proper place as one of the leaders who gave back some dignity to the Venezuelans and promoted the much needed Latin American union which, thanks to it, it was one of the only regions to actually grow admit the crisis reducing poverty and unemployment considerably. R.I.P Chavez. I hope our future depars more great leaders liker you.

kuraimen

except that so called dignity was forced by Chavez and cost venezuelans lots of troubles, getting isolated by most of the world except for a few crappy wannabe rebels would be one of them. dignity, LMAO.

edit: also channels and radio stations being shut down for not airing his speeches added to venezuelans' dignity, eh? i heard venezuelans are really proud of it.

#134 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

:( sad... He was a great leader for Latin America. History will give him a proper place as one of the leaders who gave back some dignity to the Venezuelans and promoted the much needed Latin American union which, thanks to it, it was one of the only regions to actually grow admit the crisis reducing poverty and unemployment considerably. R.I.P Chavez. I hope our future depars more great leaders liker you.

VaguelyTagged

except that so called dignity was forced by Chavez and cost venezuelans lots of troubles, getting isolated by most of the world except for a few crappy wannabe rebels would be one of them. dignity, LMAO.

edit: also channels and radio stations being shut down for not airing his speeches added to venezuelans' dignity, eh? i heard venezuelans are really proud of it.

Venezuela is far from isolated.
#135 Posted by VaguelyTagged (10178 posts) -
[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

:( sad... He was a great leader for Latin America. History will give him a proper place as one of the leaders who gave back some dignity to the Venezuelans and promoted the much needed Latin American union which, thanks to it, it was one of the only regions to actually grow admit the crisis reducing poverty and unemployment considerably. R.I.P Chavez. I hope our future depars more great leaders liker you.

-Sun_Tzu-

except that so called dignity was forced by Chavez and cost venezuelans lots of troubles, getting isolated by most of the world except for a few crappy wannabe rebels would be one of them. dignity, LMAO.

edit: also channels and radio stations being shut down for not airing his speeches added to venezuelans' dignity, eh? i heard venezuelans are really proud of it.

Venezuela is far from isolated.

if you say so.
#136 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

RIP 

#137 Posted by sukraj (23032 posts) -

RIP

#138 Posted by thebest31406 (3417 posts) -
[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselfs)  

kuraimen
Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.

It's true....it's true.
#139 Posted by Adrianstalker (1467 posts) -

[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.-Sun_Tzu-

 

I would say that most of these "good stats" would be at a higher level without Chavez. Practically all Latin Americas had their social diferences improved, given that the last decades was one of the most prosperous in terms of economy in the region. Brazil has rised 30 millions into middle class, Chile is reaching first world HDI status, Peru is experiencieng steady and balanced economy growth, among other examples. None of those came with the price of an african war zone murder rate. 

All of the countries you just named have moved significantly towards the left in the past decade, in part because of Chavez's rise in Venezuela. Before Chavez, Venezuela was already dysfunctional. He is not to blame for all the crime, violence and other social problems that plague the country. His economic policies however are in general very popular, so popular that even his conservative opposition campaigned on keeping the welfare state he created intact. Yes he was paranoid, superstitious, and authoritarian, but he did a lot to improve the condition of a people who had been living in poverty for decades.

 

Chavez did have direct influence on the elections of Evo Morales ( Bolivia) and Rafael Correa ( Ecuador). Albeit they have friendly relations with the current government of Brazil ( first elected in 2002) he didn't play a role at their election at all (Brazilian politics always goes solo on South America)

Chile and Peru, well, I don't think Chavez reach quite there too. Sure, there is always admires all along South America, but not enough to play the role as he did at Bolivia and Ecuador. Also, remind that these countries I first exampled, didn't change their constitution and went on a ideology streak that scared off exterior investments.

What I mean is that their economic improvement by nationalizing oil ( still highly fragile ) came with a price that no other Latin American country is paying. Yet, all Latin Americans countries have improved social standards on the same time period. Being left or not 

In short, Venezuela failed to diverse their economy when everyone else was doing it.  

#140 Posted by airshocker (29861 posts) -

Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.kuraimen

:lol:

Yeah, because fixing elections and nationalizing an oil company(by military force) makes him such a great guy!

#141 Posted by thebest31406 (3417 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.airshocker

:lol:

Yeah, because fixing elections and nationalizing an oil company(by military force) makes him such a great guy!

Fixing elections no (Bush 2 anyone?) Nationalizing oil, yes.
#142 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.airshocker

:lol:

Yeah, because fixing elections and nationalizing an oil company(by military force) makes him such a great guy!

Do you have proof they fixed elections? International observers were there and found nothing out of the ordinary. In fact Bush's election was more questioned than Chavez'for the procedure. And what if he nationalized the oil industry? It was a great move considering it helped him reduce poverty by almost 30% and increase literacy for almost 2 million people instead of foreign companies taking 99% of the oil profits.
#143 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

Venezuela would be in such a better place if that man had lost that 98 election. Now a city like Caracas ended 2012 with a murder rate of 200 per 100.000 habitants. Largest in the world. A gigantic social war is going on. To have an idea, only in Caracas there were more murders than the whole United States last year.  

Their murder rate was around 147/100.000 just the other day. Seriously, are they looking to see where does the rate stop? One day, their poor will notice hopefully ( after all, they are killing themselves)  

Adrianstalker

Before Chavez Venezuela got 1% of the income from oil. The other 99% was taken by foreign companies. Chavez managed to make 2 million people literate where before children were not allowed in school without papers. He brought doctors to poor communities that were forgotten. He reduced poverty from a staggering 60% which made Venezuela the poorest country in the region down to the 20%s. And you dare say Venezuela would be better. Sure crime increased but it wasn't low before either and no big change happens all at once. Chavez have dignity back to poor Venezuelans and fixed the country in large part. The work is not over but much more people are better now thanks to him and that's why they overwhelmingly supported him probably more than any other president in the american continent.

 

I would say that most of these "good stats" would be at a higher level without Chavez. Practically all Latin Americas had their social diferences improved, given that the last decades was one of the most prosperous in terms of economy in the region. Brazil has rised 30 millions into middle class, Chile is reaching first world HDI status, Peru is experiencieng steady and balanced economy growth, among other examples. None of those came with the price of an african war zone murder rate. 

The raise in Latin America was in large part thanks to chavez' efforts to unite Latin America. Thanks to him the Celac was created, it was his initiative. This union allowed Latin American countries to start dealing closer with themselves and revamp their economies. Even a right wing president like Piñera in Chile thanked Chavez for this initiative and said all Latin American countries owe him for that.
#144 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

baruch sheptaranu

 

I will not miss him.

Darkman2007
:lol:
#145 Posted by unrealtron (3148 posts) -
Yes I live in Venezuela. I'm glad, the things he did to our country...
#146 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well one could certainly argue that he did enough antagonizing the US during Bush and it's not impossible that someone back then got him somehow.

kuraimen

I don't put it past the US to do something underhanded like have a rival would leader killed, but this particular idea just isn't logical. It's way too impractical and uncertain for the US to bother with when there are a thousand other methods they could have employed that would have been certain to kill him.

Well the US has their funny ways to try and kill who they dislike like when they tried to poison Castro's cigars or when they wanted to plant explosive shells where he used to dive lol. Either way the US has good reasons for wanting to sabotage a Latin American union considering how dependent they're of its resources and an union means a much more difficult access to them. I don't proclaim to know what happened to Chavez but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the US wanted him dead and tried to achieve that.

Except that poisoning somebody or blowing them up are generally highly effective methods at killing someone if you successfully pull it off. Maybe increasing their chance of possibly getting cancer someday (assuming it were possible) is not. I'm not arguing that the United States wouldn't try to murder a rival leader if it served their interests. I'm saying that the idea they somehow gave Chavez a greater chance of getting cancer is absurd on multiple levels.

#147 Posted by The-Apostle (12190 posts) -
"Hugo Chvez" -- Fox News >_> Anyway, I care far more that Paul Bearer passed away than Hugo Chvez.
#148 Posted by CHOASXIII (14628 posts) -

Meh who cares. 

#149 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -
[QUOTE="thebest31406"] Fixing elections no (Bush 2 anyone?) Nationalizing oil, yes.

If you're implying that George Bush fixed an election, then that's just plain wrong.
#150 Posted by mrbojangles25 (31998 posts) -

interesting guy.  Hated the US government, yet was a fan of its people.  More American than many, in some respects lol.