Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hugo Chavez dies at age 58

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hugo Chavez dies at age 58

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the controversial leader who championed a socialist revolution in his country, has died after a battle with cancer. He was 58.
    Vice-President Nicolas Maduro went on national television Tuesday to announce that Chavez had died at 4:25 p.m. local time.
    Chavez had recently returned to Venezuela following cancer surgery and more than two months of treatment in Cuba. His return prompted celebrations in the streets, but officials have been warning for weeks that Chavez was in a “delicate” condition.


    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has died after lengthy battle with cancer. (AP / Ariana Cubillos)
    As rumours of Chavez’s death swirled, messages were posted to his Twitter account late last month, saying: “We've arrived once again in our Venezuelan homeland. Thank you, my God!! Thank you, beloved nation!! We will continue our treatment here."
    A photograph of Chavez smiling, flanked by his two daughters and holding a current newspaper, also emerged online this month as proof that he was still alive.
    During his 14 years in office, Chavez built an international reputation with his declarations of a Venezuelan revolution and his crusade against the United States and its global influence.
    Venezuelans’ opinions of Chavez’s confrontational approach were often split, but he was a populist leader who won broad support, especially among the country’s poor, and he stirred up nationalist sentiments with his impassioned speeches.
    Chavez was born July 28, 1954 into a working class family of schoolteachers. He was raised by his grandmother in Sabaneta, Barinas.
    During his military career, Chavez developed his leftist, socialist ideologies that would form the foundation of his presidency.
    Influenced by 19th-century South American independence leader Simon Bolivar, Chavez attempted to lead his Bolivarian Revolutionary Army to a military coup d’etat in 1992 but failed. He was sent to prison and thrust into the national spotlight, which helped him gain support for his socialist movement.
    He went on to establish the Fifth Republic Movement, a political party which would see Chavez elected president of Venezuela in 1998.
    During his presidency, Chavez implemented sweeping constitutional reforms, and placed more control over the country’s oil industry, whose profits were used to fund social, health and education programs.
    Amid burgeoning unrest in 2002, opposition groups attempted to remove Chavez from office. A 2004 referendum to recall Chavez failed.
    Chavez was an outspoken critic of the United States’ foreign policy and capitalist countries, for which he drew ire and condemnation throughout his political career.
    Chavez infamously called U.S. President George W. Bush “the devil” in a 2006 speech to the UN General Assembly, a move that was widely condemned around the world, but didn’t seem to affect his popularity at home.
    Less than three months later, Chavez was re-elected with 63 per cent of the vote.
    In 2011, Chavez confirmed that he underwent surgery in Cuba to remove a tumour from his pelvic region, although he never specified what type of cancer he had.
    Despite repeated surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation treatments, Chavez’s cancer returned and he made another trip to Cuba after being re-elected again last October.
    Three days before his final surgery, Chavez picked Maduro as his successor. Maduro is expected to lead the country until the next election, which could take place within the next 30 days.
    In a brief statement Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said America “reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.”
    “As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights,” the statement said.
    ‘End of an era’
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a statement Tuesday offering his condolences to “the people of Venezuela.”

    "Canada looks forward to working with his successor and other leaders in the region to build a hemisphere that is more prosperous, secure and democratic,” Harper said.

    "At this key juncture, I hope the people of Venezuela can now build for themselves a better, brighter future based on the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights."
    Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said Chavez’s death marks the “end of an era” and the beginning of a crucial chapter in Venezuela’s history.
    “It’s a complex situation,” Rae said of Chavez’s legacy and the question of who will ultimately succeed one of the most celebrated and reviled leaders in recent times.
    Chavez was a “classic combination of autocrat, populist, someone who was embraced by his people,” even though there were a lot of problems with the way he ran his country, Rae told CTV News Channel.
    A “huge effort” now needs to be made to change Venezuela’s democracy and the faltering economy, Rae said.
    “It’s going to be an interesting challenge.”
    With files from Karolyn Coorsh and The Associated Press


    Read more: Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez dies at 58 | CTV News
    "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

    -Old Pashtun proverb




    "My Pashtun Pride i will not hide!"

  • #2
    Chavez was a good leader for venezuela. he will be missed.
    There are people today who think that admitting God’s absolute greatness decreases the value and importance of humans in the creation, as if God and mankind are rivals competing in greatness and power. Meanwhile I feel that whenever our perception of God’s greatness increases, with it we become greater, because we are the creation of a great God.

    Sayyid Qutb

    Comment


    • #3
      There were reports that he was poisoned.
      Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

      A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

      For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


      The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

      -Ferishta, 1560–1620

      Comment


      • #4
        he was probably on CIA hit list

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by randolph85 View Post
          Chavez was a good leader for venezuela. he will be missed.
          For sure. He will truly be missed.
          "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

          -Old Pashtun proverb




          "My Pashtun Pride i will not hide!"

          Comment


          • #6
            The reason for the negative proliferation of Chavez was his nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry.

            Not much difference between Chavez and Obama; their both socialist. But the latter has the world media in his control.

            In a brief statement Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said America “reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.”
            “As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights,” the statement said.
            I still haven't logically figured out why "democratic principles," are better than socialistic/communistic principles. Obviously am economic philosophy will fail when the majority of economies of the world work nonstop to eradicate it.
            Last edited by کیش; 03-05-2013, 11:37 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by کیش View Post
              The reason for the negative proliferation of Chavez was his nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry.

              Not much difference between Chavez and Obama; their both socialist. But the latter has the world media in his control.



              I still haven't logically figured out why "democratic principles," are better than socialistic/communistic principles. Obviously am economic philosophy will fail when the majority of economies of the world work nonstop to eradicate it.
              democratic principles are political principles and socialism/communism are economic principles. You cant compare the two.

              I dont think that nationalization of the oil industry was in his peoples best interest.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by khushal View Post
                democratic principles are political principles and socialism/communism are economic principles. You cant compare the two.

                I dont think that nationalization of the oil industry was in his peoples best interest.
                Democratic principles= capitalism, which favors shareholders of a firm

                Communism = command economy. Which implied correctly, should benefit the the average worker.

                They are comparable. One supports individualism and the other, collectivism.

                How is nationalizing an industry against the people's best interest? Communism, is Shariah with a different name btw. Everyone is equal, while there is a strong leader leading its people.

                Comment


                • #9
                  ^Communism lacks the belief in god.

                  Not comparable in anyway.
                  "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

                  -Old Pashtun proverb




                  "My Pashtun Pride i will not hide!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by کیش View Post
                    Democratic principles= capitalism, which favors shareholders of a firm

                    Communism = command economy. Which implied correctly, should benefit the the average worker.

                    They are comparable. One supports individualism and the other, collectivism.

                    How is nationalizing an industry against the people's best interest? Communism, is Shariah with a different name btw. Everyone is equal, while there is a strong leader leading its people.
                    democratic principles does not equal capitalism. You can have capitalism or communism in a democratic political system or a dictatorship. Communism is a system where there there is common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is individual ownership of the means of production.

                    Shariah actually endorses free market capitalism. Islam gives rights of ownership to individuals and the individual have the right to do whatever they want with their property, to prosper with it or to waste it, it is his/her wish. The prophet was a trader who was working for his future wife who was an entrepreneur, a business woman with property rights which communism bans. Communism in theory promotes equality but in practicality it is the opposite. Communism prevents peoples desires and freedoms. It transfers power(freedoms and desires) from the people to individuals that hold policy. Communism promotes monopoly.

                    Capitalism can also lead to monopoly as we witnessed in the last financial crises. You had banks that owned everything and were "too big to fail" so basically had monopoly over industries and held the people hostage which led to the nationalization of industries which hurts the people's production level and power is taken away from them.

                    Free market capitalism where competition is encouraged and monopolization is discouraged is the better option.
                    Last edited by khushal; 03-06-2013, 01:46 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Prophet was a trader BEFORE he was a Prophet, and did not resume the business once the call was made.

                      Communism and Shariah both prevent people's desires and freedoms. The main principle of Islam is to drop worldy needs for the hereafter; correlating with Communism once again.


                      Free market capitalism leads to exploitation of workers lives. Forcing them to work 50-100 hours a week for a small percentage of the firm's total profits.


                      I'm not promoting communism. I'm just saying how Communism= Shariah. If you have erudite knowledge of both, you would see the similarity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Me am far from any communism, still i consider that it has been better to capitalism in many ways. I agree with Khushal, thatbackground "democracy" or "dictatotship" may exist in both, but still communism in soviet times with all the bad, promoted far better qualities than now are promoted. Still I am not a friend of both models, because a social system cannot work if people in reality long for the opposite, that was also the problem in Soviet union, most people were only out on own profit, perhaps in the worst way..
                        That is why education has a big importance. To me it is horrible that people could be so stupid to destroy everything good the Soviet union has created, to adopt quickly the American modell while still keeping all the bad created by the Soviet union.

                        Also I have to say that I agree with the thought that personal property should be limited to a sane level, the level a person can do with his own work, and the level he really uses it.
                        But here no rules will help until people won't understand that themselves.

                        Force the most noble ideas on people, and they will oppose. Same with religion, religion is hypocrisy in difference to faith and belief, and not in case people opposed it in communist times, while today we have a blooming of religion on postsoviet space, people have forgotten how much bad has been done by the same churches and religious leaders.

                        the difference between faith and religion is the same like between communism and and selflessness
                        Ա՜խ, ընկել եմ քար ու քարափ,
                        Իմ սրբություն, ե՛տ արի, ե՛տ,

                        Ես ծովակ եմ առանց կարապ,
                        Իմ էություն, ե՛տ արի, ե՛տ:

                        Ես անտառ եմ առանց եղնիկ
                        Իմ վեհություն, ե՛տ արի, ե՛տ:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by کیش View Post
                          The Prophet was a trader BEFORE he was a Prophet, and did not resume the business once the call was made.
                          Communism and Shariah both prevent people's desires and freedoms. The main principle of Islam is to drop worldy needs for the hereafter; correlating with Communism once again.
                          Free market capitalism leads to exploitation of workers lives. Forcing them to work 50-100 hours a week for a small percentage of the firm's total profits.
                          I'm not promoting communism. I'm just saying how Communism= Shariah. If you have erudite knowledge of both, you would see the similarity.
                          He had other priorities once he was a prophet but he did not preach against property rights nor encouraged taking property away from individuals.
                          1. Communism does not preach a hereafter, nor does it preach to drop worldly needs.
                          2. The main princple of Islam is not to drop worldy need but it emphasis other things as more important.
                          3 Free market capitalism does no necessarily lead to exploitation of workers. That usually happens when regulators are not doing their job to prevent monopoly because monopolies destroy competition which is what leads to exploitation of people and communism is a monopoly that is why Marx theorized that capitalism leads to communism becasue capitalism if unchecked leads to the eventual monopolization of everything which is what communism is.

                          monopolization slows down progress and leads to a few people controlling everything which leads to the exploitation of people by taking away their property and transferring it to themselves.

                          When I talk about freedoms and desires, I am talking about haq(rights). The desire to express opinion, the desire to seek education, the desire to want something better for your kids, etc. Islam does not preach against those desires. It actually encourages it.
                          Last edited by khushal; 03-06-2013, 06:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tjanaparh View Post
                            Me am far from any communism, still i consider that it has been better to capitalism in many ways. I agree with Khushal, thatbackground "democracy" or "dictatotship" may exist in both, but still communism in soviet times with all the bad, promoted far better qualities than now are promoted. Still I am not a friend of both models, because a social system cannot work if people in reality long for the opposite, that was also the problem in Soviet union, most people were only out on own profit, perhaps in the worst way..
                            That is why education has a big importance. To me it is horrible that people could be so stupid to destroy everything good the Soviet union has created, to adopt quickly the American modell while still keeping all the bad created by the Soviet union.

                            Also I have to say that I agree with the thought that personal property should be limited to a sane level, the level a person can do with his own work, and the level he really uses it.
                            But here no rules will help until people won't understand that themselves.

                            Force the most noble ideas on people, and they will oppose. Same with religion, religion is hypocrisy in difference to faith and belief, and not in case people opposed it in communist times, while today we have a blooming of religion on postsoviet space, people have forgotten how much bad has been done by the same churches and religious leaders.

                            the difference between faith and religion is the same like between communism and and selflessness
                            The transition the Soviet union took from its former state to its current state was very chaotic. Gorbechev was a poor leader with no backbone. He could have made the transition much more smoother. He should have made smarter decision to prevent the conflict between the hardliners and the reformists in the party and the transition should have been slow and give time for the people to adapt like the way china is doing.
                            Reforming a society overnight is destructive and there is much evidence in history but people fail to learn from history.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That is true brother, however many things shouldn't have been changed i think, while otheres weren't changed but should have been changed. I think even if Chine took the slow changes way, still they developed the bad characteristics of capitalism. I think to a sane grade some social institutions of the SU were quiet good, but they were never applied in a sane but in a barbaric way, because in reality theideology was such meterialistic that it could never function, and all the changes and ideas were applied by brutality instead of understanding. Look at what the have done to Afghanistan, it was their idea of how to achieve their aims, where every method could be used..
                              I would have liked to see exactly this change, but the changed mostly only the human component of soviet society, while the barbaric one remained unfortunately deep.
                              Ա՜խ, ընկել եմ քար ու քարափ,
                              Իմ սրբություն, ե՛տ արի, ե՛տ,

                              Ես ծովակ եմ առանց կարապ,
                              Իմ էություն, ե՛տ արի, ե՛տ:

                              Ես անտառ եմ առանց եղնիկ
                              Իմ վեհություն, ե՛տ արի, ե՛տ:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X