Originally posted by eljefejesus
I'm sure they couldn't really support this madman, Hugo Chavez, much less brutal Communist dictator and oppressor Fidel Castro.
I'm sure I would not give anyone my unqualified support. But, by the same token I would not offer unqualified disaproval of a person or regime either.
I have a problem with the notion that my 'support' of anything makes a dot of difference anyway. Most issues are complex and as a student of history, I find there are usually compelling reasons why certain situations evolved that way. For me to offer an opinion therefore, on some caricatured version of the truth, where the options usually signal well worn left/right positions, that are either terminally predictable or overwhelmingly boring to follow, I would have to ask why it matters to hold forth and declare a choice in the matter.
My two cents would typically be along the following lines. You have a country heavily resourced in oil, that has self determined a nationalised anti-west anti-corporate stance. When has that ever been easy to achieve on this planet in the past 100 years? What usually happens to the nation foolish enough to stand in the way of Western assimilation?
Is it just me or do their democratically elected leaders usually disappear or removed forcibly by some military coup or junta. Is it just me or does relative peace within a resource rich nation, one which the mainstream press is happy to only pick on occasionally, ( Saudi Arabia for instance) come as the result of happy people, or rather as the result of a ruthless oppressive regime that gets full US backing?
So the question, ultimately, is not do you support this or that example of oppression, but why dont you support examples of oppression that directly favour the West?
And if you really need an answer to that, and cant work out for yourself how insane a proposition that is, upon which to base a debate, then I'm not sure how any response I make to 'does Chavez get your support' make for a meaningful debate.
On the other hand a question like, "is it inevitable that for a nation like Venezuala to hold on to the control of its resources, a strong arm *socialist* like Chavez will be elected?", then we might have an interesting debate. At least a question of that nature acknowledges the difficulties a small developing nation tends to have in exercising national agency within our modern globalised world.
But if the tabloid style question is all you are willing to discuss, then all I will offer in return is a cartooned answer. It would seem fitting and appropriate, the friendliness of your observations notwithstanding.