Well, the gentleman pictured above gets my vote, for his commitment to democracy, for ruling his country in the interests of its people and not foreign capital and for his implacable opposition to the neoconservative/neoliberal globalist agenda.
Who gets your vote?
14 comments:
From Moscow, to Tehran, to Caracas, multipolarity and multilateralism are not only back, but back through the ballot box. So any of those three Presidents.
The men (and women) of the year are the authors of the US National Intelligence Estimate report which said Iran has had no nuclear weapons programme. The report made the neo cons look even more ridiculous than usual and virtually guaranteed that there will be no strikes against Iran in the near future. Thereby saving us all from World War Three.
The men (and women) of the year are the authors of the US National Intelligence Estimate report which said Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. The report made the neo cons look even more ridiculous than usual and virtually guaranteed that there will be no strikes against Iran in the near future. Thereby saving us all from World War Three.
LOL! That's hilarious! Ha ha ha...
Oh, wait. You're serious.
Erm, Neil. What about 1992? Coup d'etat?
I mean, I know it was a long time ago, but obeying the outcome of a single election doesn't make up for TRYING TO OVERTHROW A GOVERNMENT.
Commitment to democracy! What rubbish!
I like Rons, cant see world war 3 coming from another middle east squabble, but can see plently more shit hitting the fan.
Which, lets face it would suck, given that were all ankle deep in poo.
Tho David's cheering of Irans charming leader is a tad nasty, the man leads a state that murders people for being gay. Vlad an Uncle Hugh at least have some decency.
Which moves us onto Comrade Chavez, lots of fun to be sure, but associating with scum like Ahmedenjad (not how its spelt, but still) is not a good thing for a socialist. But at least he really does help the poor, which makes him better than most world leaders.
Anonymous Pete
Who else other if not Chaves the man of this decade.
He talks too much - and certainly too long - for my liking. Why can't the man learn to keep quiet occasionally?
Yes, I agree it has to be Chavez - but close runners up would have to be Ward Churchill, and Norman Finkelstein, both for suffering for speaking out.
You don't think it's in the interests of the people of Venezuela to have foreign capital want to come and stay in Venezuela?
This man called everyone who didn't want him to be president-for-life a traitor to the country.
This man made a world tour, taking tea with a number of other evil dictators around the world.
I'm disappointed that you're saying this man is a good guy.
To Mr. Hulme,
I think President Chavez has shown a phenomenal commitment to democracy. Granted there was the failed coup of 1992, but since then he has followed the letter of the law, including in defeat. Just like Mr Blair would have been if he'd conducted a referendum over Iraq I'm sure..
douglas:- you ask "You don't think it's in the interests of the people of Venezuela to have foreign capital want to come and stay in Venezuela?
The trouble is that foreign capital wants to take over. Money power represents the biggest threat to democracy in the world today.
"This man called everyone who didn't want him to be president-for-life a traitor to the country"
he didn't want to be president-for-life, the constitutional change was about him removing restrictions on the number of times he could stand for ELECTION. That's two different things.
There's no limit on the number of times Gordon Brown can stand for election- does that mean he wants to be 'Prime Minister for life'?
computaa- agreed.
nick- they say Brian Clough talked too much, but looked what he did for Derby and Notts Forest!
Better a talkative leader who helps the majority and works for international peace and the rule of law, than a more taciturn leader who governs in favour of the minority and who lines up with warmongers.
belaruski: excellent point.
Belaruski - "Granted there was the failed coup of 1992, but since then he has followed the letter of the law..."
That's like saying: "Granted, he commited murder in 1992, but since then he's failed to kill anybody."
Nobody forgives Blair or Bush for the slightest slip, yet you're all so keen to brush AN ATTEMPTED COUP under the carpet.
The man has about as much respect for democracy as I have for him.
He's only playing by the rules now because the ballot works better for him than the bullet.
Claiming he has a commitment to democracy is sheer lunacy or utterly blinkered leftist dogma.
No Mr. Hulme it's not the same at all. Would you blame the French Resistance for trying to remove an occupying power from their country? No. (pertinant to Iraq too, unfortunate and unpleasant as it may seem). The point is, is that Chavez served his sentence for his crime, which would have been considerably longer had he been a murderer. I know it seems alarmist or possibly 'dogmatic' to compare Nazi occupation to that of the situation in Venezuela pre Chavez, but financial enslavement is as distatseful as military occupation. The end result is the same, and the former usually lasts a lot longer.
So it's blinkered leftist dogma, then. Thanks for answering my question!
Post a Comment