Hugo Chavez vs. the Saudi Royals

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Another matchup. I wonder how Republicans are going to argue Chavez is worse. In the case of Saddam a case can be made, but Chavez never used poision gas, never invaded another country, doesn't execute political prisoners, etc. And yet you don't think Bush will be hugging and kissing Chavez any time soon, do you?

[dazzleman]

Well, this is a harder one.  I don't know.  They're both bad, but in a different way.

As far as which one is worse for the US, I don't know that either.  Probably Chavez in the short run, but the Saudis in the longer run.

We need to wean ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil, and then we'll no longer have to kiss up to (literally, apparently after last week) the Saudis of the world.  But in the short run, if we didn't kiss up to them, those who criticize our bi-partisan policy of engagement with them would be howling about the consequences.  It's not a simple problem.

[Jake]

Chavez supports terrorism, Saudis support terrorism; Chavez wants to screw us over for oil, Saudis don't. I'll take the Saudis

[dazzleman]

Chavez supports terrorism, Saudis support terrorism; Chavez wants to screw us over for oil, Saudis don't. I'll take the Saudis

Good summary.  Still, in the long run, our policy of supporting the Saudis is a dangerous one.  But we can't retool our foreign policy all at once.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh yeah, Chavez loves Al-qaeda and bin Laden. They have so much in common.

Chavez doesn't ban alcohol, Chavez doesn't ban women from driving cars, Chavez doesn't stone or behead people for adultery or homosexuality, Chavez respects religious freedom. It's a no-brainer.

[dazzleman]

Oh yeah, Chavez loves Al-qaeda and bin Laden. They have so much in common.

Chavez doesn't ban alcohol, Chavez doesn't ban women from driving cars, Chavez doesn't stone or behead people for adultery or homosexuality, Chavez respects religious freedom. It's a no-brainer.

None of these things really matter to me, in the grand scheme of things, except on an abstract level.  I would guess that his regime has been treated with kid gloves by the media because it is hostile to the US, so we may not know of his human rights abuses, just as the media has treated Castro with kid gloves.

I think Chavez is bad, and is unfriendly to the US.  From that perspective, I am friendlier toward the Saudis, at least in the short run.  But as I said, support of the current Saudi regime is fraught with danger, and it is only our weakness for foreign, and the fact that our economy would collapse almost instantaneously without it, that keeps us supporting them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom House gives Venezuela a 3,4, Partly Free. That's a hell of a lot better than Saudi Arabia's 7,7, the lowest possible score.

and what you're saying is things like basic rights and civil liberties only matter to you on an abstract level?

[dazzleman]

Freedom House gives Venezuela a 3,4, Partly Free. That's a hell of a lot better than Saudi Arabia's 7,7, the lowest possible score.

and what you're saying is things like basic rights and civil liberties only matter to you on an abstract level?

It's not my job to secure those things for other people.  I care about them insomuch as they affect my own freedom and civil liberties.  What do you think Cuba's score is?

[opebo]

Obviously the Saudis are worse than Chavez by far.  Chavez is really only marginally bad, and then only if you are an owner.

[The Duke]

Since the Saudi royal family is a large and diverse organization with competing interests and values, it is terribly ignorant to portray them all as lackeys of bin Ladenism.

It is also terribly ignorant to pretend that simply because Chavez doesn't support Al Qaeda, that he doesn't support terrorism.  Ever heard of FARC?

Its terribly ignorant to pretend that simply because Chavez has never sent a standing army into a foreign nation in a formal invasion that he has somehow been peaceful towards his neighbors.  I think COlombia would disagree with BRTDs loving characterization of Chavez' foreign policy.

I also think its terribly ignorant to say that the Freedom house scores of the two countries are the sole arbiter of a nation's freedom.  Venezuela may be freer now that SA, but they were freer before Chavez took over than they are today.  There were no rigged elections and political prisoners, for example.  Venezuela is moving in the wrong direction.  Saudi Arabia just held free and fair municipal elections, so they are moving in the right direction.  The leaders don't always get to determine where there country is, only where its going.  Where they are is mostly a function of the predecessors, usually hundreds of years of predecessors are the cause of a country's situation.

I choose the Saudis, because they are not monolithically working to destroy the west, whereas Chavez is one man, one very consistently destructive man, who can be easily categorized.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom House gives Venezuela a 3,4, Partly Free. That's a hell of a lot better than Saudi Arabia's 7,7, the lowest possible score.

and what you're saying is things like basic rights and civil liberties only matter to you on an abstract level?

It's not my job to secure those things for other people.  I care about them insomuch as they affect my own freedom and civil liberties.  What do you think Cuba's score is?

so you'd prefer the Saudis to say, Chirac or Zapatero, even though France and Spain are 1,1 countries?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is also terribly ignorant to pretend that simply because Chavez doesn't support Al Qaeda, that he doesn't support terrorism.  Ever heard of FARC?

FARC may be despicable, but they are not terrorists by a definition you've argued many times, they are simply a guerilla group. If they're terrorists, so were the Contras, either both are terrorists or neither are.

whatever the case, I find Al-qaeda far more worrisome than FARC.

[opebo]

It is also terribly ignorant to pretend that simply because Chavez doesn't support Al Qaeda, that he doesn't support terrorism.  Ever heard of FARC?

FARC may be despicable, but they are not terrorists by a definition you've argued many times, they are simply a guerilla group. If they're terrorists, so were the Contras, either both are terrorists or neither are.

A 'terrorist' nowadays is simply someone fighting on the other side in any given conflict.

[dazzleman]

Freedom House gives Venezuela a 3,4, Partly Free. That's a hell of a lot better than Saudi Arabia's 7,7, the lowest possible score.

and what you're saying is things like basic rights and civil liberties only matter to you on an abstract level?

It's not my job to secure those things for other people.  I care about them insomuch as they affect my own freedom and civil liberties.  What do you think Cuba's score is?

so you'd prefer the Saudis to say, Chirac or Zapatero, even though France and Spain are 1,1 countries?

France and Spain aren't affecting my own personal civil liberties.  Your argument on this point is a non sequitur.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom House gives Venezuela a 3,4, Partly Free. That's a hell of a lot better than Saudi Arabia's 7,7, the lowest possible score.

and what you're saying is things like basic rights and civil liberties only matter to you on an abstract level?

It's not my job to secure those things for other people.  I care about them insomuch as they affect my own freedom and civil liberties.  What do you think Cuba's score is?

so you'd prefer the Saudis to say, Chirac or Zapatero, even though France and Spain are 1,1 countries?

France and Spain aren't affecting my own personal civil liberties.  Your argument on this point is a non sequitur.

well Chavez isn't threatening you either. The point is their current governments are less friendly to Bush than the Saudis, which appears to be the only thing you base how good governments are on.

Hell, no foreign country is threatening your civil liberties. Only Bush and the religious right are.

[dazzleman]

well Chavez isn't threatening you either. The point is their current governments are less friendly to Bush than the Saudis, which appears to be the only thing you base how good governments are on.

Hell, no foreign country is threatening your civil liberties. Only Bush and the religious right are.

Chavez threatens destabilization in Latin America, which could have a bad impact on hemispheric security.

As far as Spain and France go, I don't really care.  They're poor allies, but they're too weak of will to pose much of a threat, except in a negative sense. 

I have said earlier that I have reservations about our relationship with the Saudis, but you've chosen to overlook that.  You are oversimplifying things and looking at them from a very skewed perspective, as usual. 

And I don't consider Bush or the religious right as a threat to my liberties.  I consider radical feminists and hard-left liberals much more of a threat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hey, I'm hard left and I don't want to ban strip clubs.

Just answer then, who's better: Chirac or the Saudis?

[Jake]

Now that you've been wrong, you move to another world leader. Who's next? Blair or the Saudis? The Pope or the Saudis? This is getting old.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

just about anyone's better than the Saudis. the only world leaders I can think of that are worse are the guys running Sudan and Kim Jong-Il.

The point is though, Bush kisses the Saudi thug, which he would never do to Chavez.

[dazzleman]

Hey, I'm hard left and I don't want to ban strip clubs.

Just answer then, who's better: Chirac or the Saudis?

I thought the question was whether Chavez was better than the Saudis.  And I have no idea what strip clubs have to do with anything.  I don't look at the existence of strip clubs as the most important indicator of liberty.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well I'm curious if you rate governments based on how they cooperate with Bush, regardless of their civil rights record. France has the best possible FH rating, Saudi Arabia has the worst.

[The Duke]

It is also terribly ignorant to pretend that simply because Chavez doesn't support Al Qaeda, that he doesn't support terrorism.  Ever heard of FARC?

FARC may be despicable, but they are not terrorists by a definition you've argued many times, they are simply a guerilla group. If they're terrorists, so were the Contras, either both are terrorists or neither are.

whatever the case, I find Al-qaeda far more worrisome than FARC.

Since FARC is deep into assasinations and kidnappings, they're more than simply guerilla soldiers.  They are in fact involved in terrorist activities.

[dazzleman]

Well I'm curious if you rate governments based on how they cooperate with Bush, regardless of their civil rights record. France has the best possible FH rating, Saudi Arabia has the worst.

If you asked me where I would rather live, it would be France.

But in terms of which country is more important to our immediate interests, it's Saudi Arabia.  France is a weak country, and therefore not worth much as a friend, and not a strong enemy either.

I don't consider the Saudis a real friend, or think they're necessarily cooperating that well with the US.  As I have said repeatedly, I have long-term reservations about relationships with this type of regime.  But I think at least the appearance of cooperation with them is necessary in the short run.

If two governments are both bad, as is the case with Chavez and the Saudis, then I do rate them by how their relations are with the US.  Why shouldn't I?  It seems to me that the more anti-US a government is, the more you favor them.  You have little sophistocation or subtlety to your views.  Situations in the real world are not always as black and white as you might imagine them to be in your mind.

Your thought process doesn't seem to include potential consequences for the policies that you advocate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If two governments are both bad, as is the case with Chavez and the Saudis, then I do rate them by how their relations are with the US.  Why shouldn't I?  It seems to me that the more anti-US a government is, the more you favor them.

No, you should rate them based on which one is better even if both are bad. The last sentence is completely false. If it was true, I would be a huge fan of North Korea, which I am not. And I would've LOVED the Taliban. Was that the case? And I do consider say the pro-US regime in Pakistan to be better than the anti-American one in Iran, because Pakistan is a much better place to live. And since Venezuela is a much better place to live than Saudi Arabia, I consider Chavez better the Saudis. I consider every country better than the Saudis except Sudan and North Korea, and thus all world leaders, whether they are anti-American or not, are better than the Saudis, except the leaders of those two countries.

In a nutshell though, I consider all countries that allow strip clubs and alcohol to be better than all countries that do not allow those regardless of how they feel toward the US. Furthermore I think a lot of governments don't hate the US, just hate Bush, like me. Why should I feel bad toward a government because they are opposed to someone I am?

[dazzleman]

Furthermore I think a lot of governments don't hate the US, just hate Bush, like me. Why should I feel bad toward a government because they are opposed to someone I am?

You're kidding yourself, man.