He certainly was vitriolic against the West, particularly the US, and if that is your measure of a great leader, then he was certainly a 'great leader', just like Kim Jong Il was a 'great leader'.
But if the measure of a leader is the wealth and prosperity of their country, then Chavez has failed miserably.
If the measure of a leader is a real independent judiciary and relatively safe streets then Chavez has failed miserably.
If the measure of a leader is to be free of foreign influence, then Chavez has failed miserably. Chavez certainly rid his country of much US and European influence, only to bend over for the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and Cubans. The man didn't make Venezuela independent, he only switched his masters. Of course you wouldn't care, to a person like you, anything that is against the west and the US must be to the good.
People in Venezuela are certainly more equal, equal in poverty. Everyone has a more equal share of the pie, (except for those in power, who of course have a more 'equal' share than the others) but the pie isn't any bigger, and it tastes like crap.
Thanks for the lengthy response and I agree it's of relevance for an argument.
Yet you failed in erecting your reasoning in assumptions, all assumptions with little foundation.
No one can make sure the country of Venezuela can be better off without this beloved leader, if this country is under the exploitation of dual discharge of domestic and western giant oil firms.
No one can garantee an independent of judiciary even in mature nation like the US where frequent aggression of judiciary and due process happens each day, pirating people's free life, threating wall steet protests by the name of patriast act ect.
Chaves was not bending to Russion, China, Cuba and Iran, who are his allies against an overwhelming world rogue on his nation's doorway.
He certainly was vitriolic against the West, particularly the US, and if that is your measure of a great leader, then he was certainly a 'great leader', just like Kim Jong Il was a 'great leader'.
But if the measure of a leader is the wealth and prosperity of their country, then Chavez has failed miserably.
If the measure of a leader is a real independent judiciary and relatively safe streets then Chavez has failed miserably.
If the measure of a leader is to be free of foreign influence, then Chavez has failed miserably. Chavez certainly rid his country of much US and European influence, only to bend over for the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and Cubans. The man didn't make Venezuela independent, he only switched his masters. Of course you wouldn't care, to a person like you, anything that is against the west and the US must be to the good.
People in Venezuela are certainly more equal, equal in poverty. Everyone has a more equal share of the pie, (except for those in power, who of course have a more 'equal' share than the others) but the pie isn't any bigger, and it tastes like crap.
Thanks for the lengthy response and I agree it's of relevance for an argument.
Yet you failed in erecting your reasoning in assumptions, all assumptions with little foundation.
No one can make sure the country of Venezuela can be better off without this beloved leader, if this country is under the exploitation of dual discharge of domestic and western giant oil firms.
No one can garantee an independent of judiciary even in mature nation like the US where frequent aggression of judiciary and due process happens each day, pirating people's free life, threating wall steet protests by the name of patriast act ect.
Chaves was not bending to Russion, China, Cuba and Iran, who are his allies against an overwhelming world rogue on his nation's doorway.