First I'll watch that movie...sounds pretty cool...

Indeed! Good debate. Let's agree to disagree.

Yes, I am not convinced the 2004 elections were rigged. South American politics have a history of organized mass-agitation in case of rigged elections. That the American-supported coup leaders of 2002 had to run away after their failed attempt shows that though there is much discontent in Venezuela, people are unwilling to adopt unconstitutional means to bring change. Secondly Chavez is the single most popular leader of Venezuela today.

As851:

I deeply dislike the game of golf - and particularly its association as a venue for making business deals. So I am not impressed by your fascination. However, I fully agree that capitalism is the right way. Selfishness, greed etc. shouldn't be considered as vice. They are a great proponent of creative change!

Roz -

At this point, we can agree to disagree on Musharraf ---- you've brought in your best points, Constitution included, on why he hasn't been beneficial to Pakistan

My counter points have mostly focused on the economics within the country, and I find much relevance within the point of spreading electricity and water, as that builds a stronger economic infrastructure

but at this point - we'll never agree one way or the other - so its up to the observering audience to decide which argument appeals to them

CHAVEZ -

I'm not arguing against Chavez's first victory (and my apologies if it seemed that way)

I am arguing against his 2004 victory --- you can't run away from the debate by saying that NewsMax is too right wing and inaccurate ---- if you prefer though, the Wall Street Journal also carried the same report --- does that increase your confidence within the issue? -
www.opinionjournal.com

As far as the 2004 vote being accurate, the only analysts who were mentioned in your article were President Jimmy Carter and the organization he was working under (and the Wall St Journal, above, criticized their work) ---- other than that, there is no one else looking upon this as an accurate election

I agree that Democracy is the only way forward ---- but Chavez is Democracy's biggest enemy (as evidenced in the article above)

Lastly, the statistics don't lie

Civil Wars --- Terrorist Attacks in Columbia --- Increasing Poverty in Venezuala

In listing my points, you defended none of them below, and actually agreed with me on them --- however, you used statements of "if this is true" --- well, they are true, and the articles are below (and whether you like it or not, NewsMax has footnoted their sources)

but overall, I don't think Chavez was elected democratically --- I think he manipulated the results at the ballot terribly (in 2004)

I appreciate you bringing up the point of his beating out a corrupt government in Venezuala --- however, judging by the impacts upon the country today, as well as his own corruption, I deeply believe that the people of Venezuala are worse off today than ever before

and like Musharraf, at this point, I think we pretty much agree to disagree ---- you've brought out your best evidence, and I can say that I brought out my best evidence ---- its up to observers to decide now

but otherwise --- thank you for a great spirited debate, with the heart being that of intellectual discussion and fact, and not insult or mockery ----- and of course, I am often very hard-edged in my retorts - so please excuse that, as its not a reflection of how I feel about your own great intelligence

My entire basis is this:

CONSTITUTION. Nothing else. I?ve asked you before, what is America without the constitution. My answer is that America is nothing. Every American history class/debate I?ve had since fifth grade (be it in Utah, or American schools in Sudan, Bahrain, Pakistan) and in colleges (Illinois, Alabama) has taught me this. America is nothing but the constitution! We learn to revere it despite it?s horrible flaws like allowing slavery, or not curbing Jim Crow laws.

Musharaf has annihilated the constitution of Pakistan and continues to do so. That is the only reason I will not support him. If I do, it defies all I?ve learned about freedom, government and ideals. If we bow to the transitory ups and downs or to baseless jargon (water and electricity to everyone by 2007 ? right! after 58 years if only 40% have access thus far, Mush claims to get the rest of the 60% in two years without any major water storage and distribution initiative or electricity plan!) and forfeit freedom and the building for long-term institutions for the sake of misguided short-term growth rates then we reject all that we?ve learned and consciously accepted as legitimate.


Chavez:


I?m not sure if Chavez?s initial victory was 80%. But it hardly seems plausible that a pariah who?s just been released from prison would be able to rig an election while fighting against political parties who have always shared governance the past forty years. No one ? repeat no one really doubts the 1998 Chavez victory. Chavez was fighting the establishment. Chavez didn?t just win, he brought down a corrupt order that existed for 40 years. What does that tell you? I?ve never heard anyone before say Chavez?s victory in 1998 was a fraud so am surprised to hear this.
www.cnn.com
www.cnn.com
www.economist.com



BBC lists a few more folks who found the referendum credible.
news.bbc.co.uk


It was the sore losers who were crying foul. And most of these sore losers were right-wing fanatics.

The websites you listed were clearly right-wing in nature and don?t seem to have any credibility whatsoever. All right-wing parties are infuriated by Chavez?s populist agendas. I can?t believe the United States actually supported a coup by the right-wingers against Chavez. US was I think the only country. But the tables turned when the military refused to back the coup. What does that tell you? If it was known that Chavez was NOT overwhelmingly popularly elected, don?t you think America would be far more likely to bring him down by force then it did Saddam? Chavez is against America?s interest in far more ways then Saddam was. Saddam was easy to topple cause he was a dictator. Chavez isn?t.

But let me repeat. Democracy is the only way forward. Chavez was elected with the will of the people as shown above.

As for your three points:

?1. The civil rights infringements happening in Venezuala?

It sucks if that?s going on and do not defend this. The only thing that could be said if how the rights infringements were prior to Chavez. Right now, I believe almost all media channels are controlled by the opposition.

2. The terrorist attacks against innocent Columbians?

I don?t know about this. I suppose Chavez is supporting the FARC. I would disagree with him there.

?3. The rising interest rates, rising taxes, rising unemployment, and lower wages, of all Venezualan workers?

If this were true, Chavez wouldn?t be able to get reelected again. Even if this is true, the voters and ONLY the voters have the responsibility to upstage and ineffective ruler. No one else. It was shameful seeing the USA go back on it?s own ideals and support the coup leaders against Chavez!


As for Musharaf:

I think this whole debate will go out of hand if we get into who pledged what. Pledges mean nothing. If Musharaf bet his life on these pledges then I?ll put some stock on them. Otherwise, they?re comical.

Roz -

Very good points

1. CHAVEZ

My apologies on not realizing that you were quoting Chavez's first election

However, I put the article below, and the documentation is there ---- Chavez did not win in a fair way --- he oversaw corruption and designed the election to be rigged

As far as "analysts" accepting the results, you'll have to link that ---- other than Carter (who I addressed earlier) I think plenty of people, outside of the Communist/Socialist circles, do not endorse these results

At this point, Chavez's participation in killing innocent Columbians, coupled with running Venezualans to the grounds of poverty, in my opinion, are bigger sins than wanting to abolish term limits

2. Musharraf

I don't think your saying that your family's wealth is greater today under Musharraf, gives you better credibilty within the debate

The better point is the fact that almost every Pakistani is wealthier under Musharraf

------MAIN POINT---------

We can go back and forth all you want ---- we can bring in India and Nawaz, etc etc etc

The main thing here though is that you are failing to address the most important points I have put below, which are -

A. Chavez rigged the elections, and made it 'look' like he was democratically elected ---- you addressed this point by saying that "analysts" accept the results ---- which analysts? And I've already addressed why President Carter is not a sufficient analyst in this case

B. You are basically trying to argue that Chavez is a better man than Musharraf ---- I feel that actions speak louder than words

As I put below, there is evidence that Musharraf has not only brought a great economy to Pakistan, he has also PLEDGED to renovate the infrastructure by installing clean water and electricity all over the country

And using the argument of "well, this would've happened regardless of who was in power" is infertile ---- we are compaing Musharraf and Chavez, not Mush and others ---- so stick with those two elements

Now - let's visit Chavez's situation ---- Venezuala is becoming deficient in all ways, he is supporting terrorists, and civil war is breaking out

RECAP

1. Chavez was not democratically elected --- your arguments against this point are not sufficient, nor referenced

2. Chavez vs Musharraf - the statistics, data, and facts favor Musharraf overwhelmingly, according to the links I provided below --- you have failed to make an argument for the quality of Chavez's policies, over Musharraf's --- you have also failed to make an argument for Chavez's treatment of human rights being better than Musharraf's

Your arguements, thus far, have centered around Musharraf being a worse man, because anyone could've held his job and done the same ----- but that is a DIFFERENT DEBATE

I did not enter the debate to say that Musharraf is better than Nawaz --- I came in to say that he is better than Chavez, and that is the point that you are continuing to evade

This is likely because, in order to confront such a debate, you would have to DEFEND the following -

1. The civil rights infringements happening in Venezuala

2. The terrorist attacks against innocent Columbians

3. The rising interest rates, rising taxes, rising unemployment, and lower wages, of all Venezualan workers

4. the patronage system that has put Chavez's thugs in power (as referenced in the article below)

On the other hand, I don't blame you ---- I couldn't make any defense for those points above --- thus, I think you can see why I am debating the side that I have chosen to debate

Hasan: Good points. Here's my retort.

On Mush, I ask you the same question again:

You tell me - what is America without the constitution? Nothing!

Pakistan's economy would have done equally well if it was run by a person worse then Mush. Pakistan's economy ONLY began doing well after 9/11.

Prior to 9/11 Mush was the most rabid anti-India - Nawaz Sharif had embraced peace with India - but on terms that were still favorable to Pakistan. Mush hated that. He staged Kargil, and then upstaged Nawaz - the primary reason beign Nawaz was on the verge of solving the Kashmir issue. No Kashmir issue, no need for Pakistan Army! That made Mush unhappy. Now Mush is pursuing peace with India, but on unfavorable terms. I would still supprt these unfavorable terms, but Mush really isn't that eager for peace still....anyway, that's a long discussion.

Nawaz and BB were indeed corrupt. But the voters should have the right to kick out incompetent rulers. That's what the most sacred document (the most sacred document is not the Koran!) says.

Let me just say that few have benefitted more under Mush's rule then my family. But my stance is that the constitution is supreme. Everything else is secondary. You as an American would know that much better than I!

If good economy, good administration was what justified a government, then why part with the British colonists? They did and EXCELLENT job administering the country. Unmatched they were!

Finally, as Hazrat JS Mill (RA) once said, a benign dictator is worse then a brutal dictator as the benign dictator dupes the people into accepting an unrepresentatitive government. And you know how dearly Lover's of the Modernity Party holds Hazrat JS Mill (RA)!! :D

As for Chavez, the 80% figure I believe was for the first election he won after coming out of jail. That he won fair and square. Yes, during the referendum last year he won only 58%. But almost all analyst accept the results. If Chavez is doing a bad job, the voters will show him the door. In the constitution he helped put up, you only have two terms (correct me if I'm wrong). THAT shows he isn't there for life. And belives in having term limits. Mush wants nothing to do with term limits. He considers man-made constitutions as worthless as toilet paper (God forgive him!!)One should NEVER EVER support armed intervention. Let the people decide. America is making a mistake by supporting army rulers.

later!

Roz -

Well said arguments

Here's my counter -

1. I take strong opposition to the idea that Chavez is an "elected Democratic" leader ------ Chavez staged the election, and oversaw that it was rigged - you can read about it here -
www.newsmax.com

You may say that an "elected" leader, no matter what stances, is better than a dictator --- but at the end of the day, I have more disrespect for someone who manipulates a Democratic System to make it 'seem' like he/she was elected ----- Chavez embodies everything that is polar oppossite of Democracy

2. He didn't win with 80% of the vote ---- tallies showed he won with close to 60% --- however, that was after corruption --- Exit polls showed that he was going to lose by around 60% ---- it is in the article above

3. President Jimmy Carter is a good man, but he's also senile, old, and not considered to be the best judge of this --- the fact that he didn't even spend the day in Venezuala is reflection of his lazy presiding over this mess - that's in the above article too

4. Does Mush mess around with elections? There is evidence of that, and I'm not overlooking it ---- however, under Mush, Pakistan's economy has been booming and all positive factors are going up

To say that Pakistan wouldn't have changed without him, is a massive understatement

Last I checked, before Mush came into power, Bhutto and Nawaz were in a battle to see who could bankrupt Pakistan more, from the throne of the PM

Pakistan's economy, of course, was going to be a DISASTER during Mush's first two years --- I'm shocked that it only took him two years to clean up the mess that Bhutto and Nawaz left behind

Today, Pakistan's economy is booming, due to Musharraf's policies of supporting more free trade and bringing in more multinational corporations --- adancements that, appropriately, took TWO years to create - you can read about it here -
www.satribune.com

5. I don't really think that Chavez gives a damn about Venezuala --- currently, Venezuala's rate of unemployment is sky rocketing, along with rising interest rates, rising taxes, and lower wages --- the people of Venezuala are bleeding - you can read it here -
www.newsmax.com

However, as his people bleed, Chavez has made a point to fund Columbian terrorists, who are now responsible for killing over 200,000 civilians

Musharraf, on the other hand?

Musharraf is helping Pakistan's economcy to boom ---- in addition, he arrests terrorists (not harbors them)

The fact that Mush has outlined a plan to bring clean water and electricity to ALL of Pakistan, by 2007, is an example of his conviction to move Pakistan towards the path of modernity - you can read about it here -
www.dailytimes.com.pk

6. I think you are severely understating Pakistan's current role in the world ---- as of today, every country in the world craves Pakistan as its ally

Musharraf did the right thing ---- by engaging with the USA, all sanctions were lifted (further helping the economy), Nuclear programs were kept (which helps Pakistan against threats), and aide was given to them

In reflection, I really hate to see what Bhutto or Nawaz would've done in this situation ---- the reason why is becauce Nawaz and Bhutto would've checked to see what America could have done for them as INDIVIDUALS --- Mush's actions show a strong determination to help Pakistan and its people

7. So did 9/11 benefit Musharraf? Yes, of course it did ---- but it takes an intelligent man to benefit from such a catastrophe --- without dividing Pakistan into a civil war, and remaing allied with America, Musharraf has done a marvelous job of preserving Pakistan's best interests, keeping it out of war, and at the same, helping the country to progress

Chaves, on the other hand, is running Venezuala to the ground

The articles are all attached above, and the statistics speak for themselves

I hate to support dictators too, but Pakistan has never been better - and under that situation, I'm happy to support Musharraf and his policies

(granted, I'm an American --- so I'm speaking as someone who wishes well upon Pakistan)

Musharaf vs. Chavez:

Both tried to take over the country through the barrel of the gun.

Musharaf succeeded in hijacking the country. Chavez failed . Chavez was thrown in jail. When he came out, he didn't stop trying to be the ruler. He BELIEVED in his cause!

He ran for elections and WON with 80% of the vote!! Yes! Read that again. EIGHTY percent. This was a free and fair election. He pushed through a constitution in which unlike any other democracy, you could RECALL the president mid-way. In the re-call, which former President Carter also indorsed, Chavez got nearly 60% support.

Musharaf on the other hand, held a joke of a referendum to become president. He knows he couldn't win from a single seat in the country. A crippled-mute beggar on wheels from toba tek singh could defeat Mush hands down! So Mush embarks on the fraudulent election (in which I went to vote No) but it turns out Mush won by a fantastic never-heard-before 98%!!!!

Chavez went to the people after his failed coup. Mush will never dare do that.

Yes, Chavez is often alot of hot air (like when he rants against Bush), but populist politics in third world countries are always like that. Populist democratic politics can be dirty and often inefficient. But that's the only way to help build a nation-state. In any case, the very fact that Chavez can continue to blow a lot of hot air like he often does shows that he is confident of his legitimate rule. Something Mush could never, ever dream of doing.

HassanDaddy:

First on Mush:

Even if Osama Bin Laden ruled Pakistan, he'd bow to America's wishes. You must remember, Pakistan isn't Iran or Libya that have oil to buffer their acts of defiance. Nor is it a piss-poor place like Afghanistan to whom it matters not who they irk as they have nothing (literally) to lose.

Pakistan's a developing country 70% of whose exports are in textiles. The entire economy is dependent on the West. Just to give you an example, in the area I live in there are a number of textile mills. Each household has at least one member who works in them. The week after 9/11, just on the fear that orders for textiles would be stopped, 1500 jobs were slashed. What I'm trying to say is that America can shut Pakistan down in a day! And even if a fanatic were ruling Pakistan, they'd do what Musharaf did and much, much more!

Musharaf however is a dictator. In international negotiations, you put a dictator on one end and a democractically elected leader on the other, and I"ll ALWAYS - ALWAYS put my money on the democratically elected person to end up with the better bargain! Dictators are always weak. They have no legitimacy. They are not accountable to anyone. Such people are ALWAYS a liability.

Musharaf has taken over the nation through the barrel of the gun, but won't use that barrel to ever correct the laws of former dictators - laws that Jim Crow would be proud to possess. He won't dare touch the Zina laws in which women who claim to be raped are thrown in jail indefinately for fornication as they can't produce FOUR witnesses as proof of being victims. He won't dare get rid of the blasphemy law by which countless citizens are thrown in jail and murdered. Musharaf is only a pussy cat dictator. He will not change the internal structure.

The only sacred document for a nation is the constitution. And Musharaf has screwed it for his pleasure.

You tell me - what is America without the constitution? Nothing!

Yes Musharaf does have great policies. Great ones! But any government in Pakistan would have done the same and more! 9/11 was a blessing for Mush. His two preceding years before 9/11 were the worst for the Pakistan economy. 9/11 bailed him out! He is the father of religious fundamentalism as he needs to them outbalance the mainstream moderate parties. It is these moderate parties who if they were allowed to remain could have thwarted this religious bigotry that exists. Mush may arrest fundo-freaks for foreginers (which is good), but he wants to keep them alive for himself locally.

A democratic government that has to be held accountable to the people will far more likely administer effective changes. Changes that will last. Plus the country could have been on the road to becoming a real state. Instead once Mush is out, we'll be back to square one with everyone trying to squabble away with what's left and no rule of law to stop them. And that stinks!

Roz - I love you like crazy, bro

few disagreemtns - but I'm always respectful of your POV

here are my arguments ----

1. Musharraf a pussycat?? That's news to me ----- Musharraf is likely one of the most intelligent politicians that has ever lived, mostly because -

a. he had the vision to invite more multi-national corporations into Pakistan, which happen to be Pakistan's biggest hope of creating a great economic environment, due to their 'self-imposed' and damaging economic policies that cannot be reversed

b. He has created a STRONG alliance with America, without having to give up nuclear programs, while receiving billions in aide

c. he has gone after the fundamentalist element, as no country today has arrested more members of AL-Q than Pakistan

d. He has facilated a peace process with India, that will ultimately end the rivalry over Kashmir - in addition to creating more peace between Israel and Muslim countries

e. He has remained true to his convictions, and hasn't given in easily on anything, in addition to remaining popular among the people

Musharraf, at this point, is pretty damn close to SaintHood in my books

getting back to #2 -

2. Chavez is a pu$$y ---- he keeps threatening to stop selling oil to America, but never does

3. calling Bush an "@sshole?" --- give me a break --- if he wants to be a top grade world leader, then he can come to America and debate Bush ---- we all know that shallow insults are a way of averting an intelligent debate, that he (Chavez) is insecure of losing

4. Chavez is not looking to create a bigger place for Venezuala, nor does he have a vision for his country ---- he creates alliances by grandstanding in Cuba with Fidel Castro (who has zero influence in the world)

5. Last I checked, the Venezualan economy, prosperity, and other positive factors, were all higher before Chavez took office

6. There is major evidence that Chavez stuffed the ballot boxes (so he was not democratically elected) in addition to stopping people from voting against him by using force ----- that is the exact oppossite of democracy

In total ----- Chavez is full of HOT AIR

He does not care, one bit, for Venezuala, as it is evidenced through his shanangans that get him spotlighted on every major news show around the world ---- but none of that spotlight is coming from an ability to deliver intelligent thought and action

and I'm not just saying all of this because I am a Capitalist and proud American

The country of Venezuala is bleeding due to the Socialist Economic policies that Chavez has laid out, which is reducing their advances in prosperity, healthcare, and education ---- not to mention, sections of civil war, that didn't exist before Chavez's rein

the end game here is that Chavez is full of hot air, loves power, and craves attention

Yes, there needs to be a bringing together of faiths.

Even a mumbler-par-excellence, leader of the ruling party, Pakistan Muslim League (Q), Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain, in an interview to a question on the possibility of dialogue with the Jews said:

"Why not? We are allowed to marry them, so why can't we talk to them?"

Simple, but such obvious logic :D