Should we support a known human rights violator and homophobe?

[arcos]

Should we support a known human rights violator and homophobe (Fred Phelps like), just because he opposes neoliberalism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1242959#
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1244440

[nickinSTL]

1. This may seem like a dumb question...

But what, exactly, is neoliberalism?

[arcos]

3. Basically, conservative economics...

Free trade, low tariffs, trickle down economics, tax cuts... What the World Bank and the IMF prescribe to developing economies to "encourage growth", but it really ends up with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer... wealth concentration and not wealth distribution.

on edit:
Take a look at this link: http://www.cb3rob.net/~merijn89/ARCH1/msg00349.html

1) Rule of the market
2) Cutting public expenditure for social services
3) Deregulation
4) Privatization
5) Eliminating the concept of public good or community

[nickinSTL]

4. Neoliberalism

So, neoliberals are, what...the same as moderate Republicans?

[arcos]

6. the same as conservative Republicans on economic issues...

There are neoliberals who are liberal on social issues. Neoliberalism is an economic-only ideology.

[FDRrocks]

71. I genereally associate Neoliberalism

with Libertarians, of the Randian ilk.

[wuushew]

2. Even Buchannan opposes outsoucing and PNAC

it is not an all or nothing situation. People must be praised or denounced baised on their specific stances on issues.

[arcos]

8. this poll is in response to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1244440

[cprise]

5. This is a neocon-style "push" question

I am gay and will support any foreign leader that insists on farms producing FOOD for a starving population instead of tobacco for Europeans' recreation.

Homophobe or not.

[arcos]

7. even though he's a human rights violator? n/t

[cprise]

9. I don't know. Is he comitting genocide?

Because if he isn't, then we have bigger human rights violations to worry about from our own government.

[arcos]

15. he isn't...

and the issue is not whether the US does it or not. Is whether you as a progressive should support Mugabe or not.

Check this out:

Zimbabwe: Food Used as Political Weapon

(New York, October 24, 2003) - Zimbabwean authorities discriminate against perceived political opponents by denying them access to food programs, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Some international relief agencies in Zimbabwe fail to ensure that access to food is based on need alone and is not biased by domestic or international political concerns.

The 51-page report, "Not Eligible: The Politicization of Food in Zimbabwe," documents how food is denied to suspected supporters of Zimbabwe's main opposition party and to residents of former commercial farms resettled under the country's "fast-track" land reform program. The report examines the widespread politicization of the government's subsidized grain program, managed by the Grain Marketing Board, as well as the far less extensive manipulation of international food aid.

According to the report, government authorities and party officials of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) manipulate the supply and distribution of government-subsidized grain and the registration of recipients for international food aid. Though international aid agencies, including the World Food Programme, have gone to great lengths to prevent interference, this kind of manipulation remains a problem. International aid agencies must devote greater resources and attention to preventing the manipulation of recipient lists. The report also examines international community's tacit complicity in preventing food from reaching former commercial farm areas resettled under land reform.

<snip>

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/zimbabwe102403.htm

---

Mugabe Challenged Again over Human Rights

Mrs Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has made a direct appeal to President Robert Mugabe drawing his attention to international concern over respect for the right to life, security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and association in his country.

In references which some will take to be ironic, she urged Mr Mugabe to "intervene personally" to help assure the full exercise of human rights in the country. "As one who fought for your country's freedom ...you would understand the importance of a free media, including the local independent press, and the freedom of journalists to inform the public," she wrote. Mrs Robinson also urged the President to "use your best endeavours (to secure) … the well-being of the Chief Justice and other judges and magistrates."

As the local independent press has been bombed, journalists intimidated and expelled and the independence of the judiciary threatened in recent weeks by those widely believed to be acting under orders from the Presidency, some may believe that Mrs Robinson's tongue was firmly in her cheek.

But the letter also left no doubt of the concern of the world community over the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe about which she said numerous and persistent representations had been made to her Office. Mrs Robinson, the letter said, remained deeply concerned and was following the situation closely with a view to assessing future avenues of action.

<snip>

http://www.europaworld.org/issue25/mugabechallengedagain9301.htm

------


Mugabe crack-down on human rights defenders
Media Release, 22 Jan 2002
Reports in state-owned Zimbabwe media indicates that the government is preparing to crack down on human rights activists.

According to unfounded allegations in the state-owned Zimbabwean newspaper "The Herald", the AMANI Trust in Zimbabwe is funding safe houses for criminals and pay them 200 dollars a day for undertaking nocturnal raids where members of President Mugabe's Zanu-PF party are beaten up and their property destroyed.

The director of Amani Trust, Mr. Anthony P. Reeler is a member of the Council and the Executive Committee of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT).

<snip>

http://www.irct.org/usr/irct/home.nsf/unid/JREW-5F9G8L



Now... do YOU, on a personal basis, support Mugabe?

[cprise]

30. I can't give you a Yes/No answer

If I lived there, I would probably work to replace him with someone else who can resolve the country's land use problem.

Do I support the opposition? If it's like Venezuela's opposition, then NO.

[arcos]

32. I agree with you on that...

I don't support Mugabe at all... I would be very happy to see him go. I can't give an answer on whether the opposition is better, though. And I agree re: Venezuela too.

[noiretextatique]

11. is bush? perhaps your outrage should be redirected

to your own human rights violator, homophobe, thug, and dictator.

[arcos]

16. I'm not American...

so you should consider saying that to someone else... oh, and read post #15, please.

[noiretextatique]

23. what, exactly, are you arguing for...regime change?

i don't pretend that mugabe is a saint, nor that his government is perfect...is your government, whereever you live? who are we, and i speak as an american, to dictate what is and is not democracy to any country? if there are human rights violations, they need to be addressed...just as we here in america need to address a PLETHORA of human rights abuses right here in our own country.
i'm all for a regime change here, btw.

[arcos]

24. I'm not arguing for regime change...

I never said that... no one said anything should be dictated. I was asking if DUers, on a personal basis, support or reject someone like Mugabe. Should WE, as liberals/progressives, support someone like Mugabe?

I was very happy that the Popular Party was defeated in Spain. I supported the PSOE, even though I'm not Spanish either and obviously can't vote. I was totally against the PP.

Now... Do YOU support Mugabe?

[noiretextatique]

27. what difference does it make if i support mugabe?

:shrug: it seems a patently absurd and useless question to me...unless it's some kind of litmus test (in your mind). i don't think mugabe is a bad as bush, for example.

however, i do support land reform, just as i support affirmative action here...that is, it's a policy that should be repaired if it not working properly, not scrapped.

i do not support ANY government's human rights abuses. nor do i support the GLOBAL human rights abuses perpetrated by the american government.

[arcos]

33. well...

Some people believe that those who oppose neoliberalism should be supported, regardless of whether they systematically violate human rights or not. And that was the purporse of this poll... I wanted to gauge the opinion here on DU about it. I personally don't think they should be supported, but some here do.

Yes, it's kind of absurd and useless, but then again, 99% of polls here are absurd and useless, although most are interesting.

And I don't think Mugabe is as bad as Bush just because he is not as powerful as Bush is. If Mugabe were in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth, he would probably be worse.

[cprise]

41. i beg your pardon... corporate globalization

...and 'free-trade' practices are themselves human-rights violations, often cutting local populations off from legal redress of basic matters involving food, water, energy and pollution. These movements are inherently anti-democratic and worse they try to negate self-determination.

Also, according to the UN, access to food and water are human rights.

Lets not be overly selective in evaluating governments.

You know, these non-white leaders turn into boogeymen very easily when viewed through the same lenses that whitewash the violations of other leaders. I am sick of it.

[noiretextatique]

58. you know...that's something we will never know...will we?

i don't see zimbabwe becoming a superpower like the USA in the near future...so as to whether mugabe would be as bad a bush...that's irrelevant.
i support land reform...that's a more honest (and on point) question than is support for mugabe, an individual. if that's considered neoliberalism, then i support it. i certainly don't support the imperialists and corporatists who certainly don't give a SHIT about the human rights of the people of zimbabwe.

as i mentioned, most people have no idea if mugabe is a "bad" person or not...how on earth would they? we can only go by what we read, for the most, and of course, much of that is either biased for political reasons or because of the insidious racism that colors the western view of developing world countries, and their leaders.

[AP]

54. Stealing the wealth of a nation is a HUGE human rights violation.

It's economic slavery.

[noiretextatique]

10. i agree...and I'm a lesbian!!!

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. According to the UN, area used for maize has decreased

from 1.2 to 1.4 million hectares from 1993-99, to 1.1 million hectares this year. Maize is the staple crop.
http://www.zimrelief.info/files/attachments/maize1.pdf

[cprise]

35. So what happened to the rest?

Was it committed to another food crop?

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. From the UN report:

Constraints:

"The main constraint for farmers is the affordability and accessibility of seeds which will jeopardise production levels and quality for many farmers. The shortage and the high price of other inputs (fertiliser, chemicals) and the unavailability of tillage and labour shortage will further reduce planted areas and achievable yields. Fuel shortages (and high fuel prices) are resulting in transport constraints and are adding to the complications for farmers to produce.

"For farmers in the new resettlement areas, the generally insecure situation on “their” land is not encouraging them to plant. Most of the new farmers do not have any legal right to “their” plots. A2 farmers should get a lease, but that has not been implemented and unproductive farmers should vacate plots. A1 farmers have no legal deed and the tenure system to be used for their land is not yet clear.

"Tenure security in the new resettlement areas is reducing the chance of farmers to get outside funding for any inputs. Anticipated government support schemes have largely not been implemented due to financial constrains. This very insecure environment will hamper farmers from investing into their new lands.

"Simple field security is a major issue to all farmers. In the last season, in some areas, theft accounted for large crop losses. Farmers do not have resources to combat that.

"High inflation and controlled prices do not encourage the commercial growing of maize. Maize has to be sold through the GMB for a controlled price (currently Z$330.000/MT). With input costs of over one million dollars per hectare for commercial maize this not feasible. Farmers would have to harvest nearly 4 MT to break even at current prices. Government did not give any indications on prices for the next season and with the high inflation, (>500%) producer prices would have to be much higher for the next season in order to make the production viable and encourage farmers to grow commercially.

"Limited human resources and the effects of HIV/AIDS will undermine the productivity of farmers. Many farmers will not be in the position to implement the necessary field operations in a timely manner, which will unfavourably affect yields and income for farmers."


Also:
"Additionally, the production for wheat has gone down drastically to an estimated 115.000 MT in this season, covering around 25% of the national requirement (about 400.000MT annually). Most farmers have no resources to cover the cost for the production of any cash crops (cotton, tobacco, sunflowers, etc.), which will reduce the productivity of the agricultural sector further."

So there are several reasons for less crops being planted. Several are related to bad government management (eg uncertainty of who actually owns the land; the fuel shortage is due to a lack of foreign currency - in part due to the decrease in exportable cash crops; the new farmers not having the resources needed to farm efficiently).

[AP]

59. Getting into colonialism was disruptive. Getting out will be disruptive.

But you can be sure that they'll be better off in five, ten, fifty and 100 years as a result of land reform.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. You're probably right, especially in the long term

but if Mugabe had done it with international support, and at a reasonable pace, the violence and disruption could have been avoided. He did the fast track stuff to look like he was on the people's side, rather than someone who had been enriching his supporters.

[AP]

66. Asking for international support in the stand against neoliberalism...

...well, I just wouldn't hold my breath.

And the violence in Zimbabwe has been slight compared to, say, the violence in Nigeria and Haiti required to PERPETUATE neocolonialism and neoliberalism.

Mugabe is on the forefront of a battle that will certainly sweep former colonies around the world, and each one will do better than Zimbabwe.

All things considered, this is probably a good way to start.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. We shouldn't answer push-polls

:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

13. ain't that the truth...yours is the best response in the thread eom

[arcos]

18. Yes, this is a push poll in the same spirit as this one..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1244440

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Yes, two completely bogus polls. Should I post a third?

[arcos]

20. go ahead and do it...

I have no problem with it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. I don't have a problem with it either, but I'll pass. n/t

[arcos]

26. good for you...

It was your choice. It was my choice to post this poll.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. And it's my choice to point out that it's a bogus push poll

and that answering push polls is a mistake.

[arcos]

31. Yeah, and I respect your choice...

My choice was to answer your comments.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Actually

you tried to justify your use of push-polling by the fact that someone else did it first.


I don't think that two wrongs make a right.

[arcos]

39. Yes, I'm Satan...

and a neocon... :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. If you say so.

[Ksec]

14. Anybody we know?

Before I answer

[arcos]

17. Robert Mugabe...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1242959#
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1244440

[Ksec]

21. Tough question but we must not support a man like Mugabe

despite his being elected. Isnt there a way of impeaching him instead of a coup?

[ButterflyBlood]

55. I think a coup is in order here

His election was hardly legitimate. Taking out Mugabe is 100% fine and endorsed by me.

[library_max]

22. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

It is possible to help one monster fight another, but it needs to be done with great care and without pretending that "our" monster isn't really a monster. The history of the Cold War is a good source for the fallacies and dangers of this kind of black-and-white, us-vs.-them thinking.

[dpibel]

34. NO! We should get rid of George Bush immediately. n/t

[arcos]

36. Bush supports neoliberalism...

so this poll doesn't apply to him.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Isn't neoliberal a pejorative?

It is meant to be an insult, right?

[arcos]

40. Actually no...

Latin America is full of proud neoliberals, who openly accept that's what they are. Neoliberal = conservative economics.

[cprise]

42. Putting the liberty of capital above all else

In practice, that is what neoliberalism amounts to.

It is extremist in the same way that communism is.

[arcos]

45. I agree...

Communism is not a pejorative word, though, the same as neoliberal is not. It would depend on the context to make it so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. So in a different context than DU, it's not an insult.

Thanks for clearing that up. So are these Spanish-speaking Latin Americans who are openly accepting this English-language description of these views? Could you actually make a citation? Thanks.

[arcos]

44. It's not an English language description...

I believe it is the same word, with the same definition, in most languages. At least in both English and Spanish, it is the same. Neoliberal. Of course, "liberal" is the same word in Spanish and English so there's no reason for neoliberal to be different.

on edit:
In 1998, a neoliberal won the elections in my country (Costa Rica). He was his party's nominee in 1994 too, and ran for the nomination in 1986 and 1990.

In his first 2 campaign, he ran as an open neoliberal. Until he moderated his campaign was he able to win, in 1998.

So, for example, take a look at this: "En 1998 ganó las elecciones el neoliberal Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, líder del Partido de Unidad Social Cristiana. Los inicios de su mandato se caracterizaron por la apertura económica y por la promoción del intercambio comercial con otros países del subcontinente."
http://es.travel.yahoo.com/viajes/america/costa_rica/hista/

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. I've never seen it used on DU except as an insult.

Have you?

[arcos]

69. No, I don't think so...

It is not so commonly used in English, as it is in Spanish. Search for "neoliberals" in Google, and you will get 9,900 results. Search "neoliberales" and you will get 74,000 results, in German, French, Spanish...

In most contexts, it probably carries a negative charge when an opponent of neoliberals say it, but I guess the same happens in conservative forums when they use "liberal" as a bad word.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Have you ever seen it used on DU other than as an insult?

When and where?

[arcos]

74. I already answered... "No, I don't think so..."

If I have, I don't remember.

[AP]

77. Lisa Duggan's book The Twilight of Equality has a good definition of

neoliberalism, and it ain't complimentary.

[AP]

46. FDR wasn't great on race and had a nasty side. But the New Deal was

exactly what America needed in the 30s, and the alternative were American Nazis like Prescott Bush.

I'd have taken FDR over the alternative anyday because he was right on the issues which mattered the most.

[AP]

47. Arco's logic is logic which led the HRC to endorse D'Amato over Schumer,

Picke an issue that isn't the most important to society, and then pick the guy who's good on that tiny issue, but awful on the important issues.

[arcos]

50. ahh... so now human rights are a tiny issue we should overlook? n/t

[AP]

51. You think that D'Amato was better for human rights than Schumer????

You think the MDC, which wanted to return to a status quo which was clealry not working (Argentina, anyone?) is better for human rights than ending neocolonialism?

[ButterflyBlood]

57. what do D'Amato and Schumer have to do with this?

n/t

[arcos]

61. nothing at all... n/t

[AP]

62. Everything. Read Lisa Duggan's last book.

[arcos]

60. I never said that...

Obviously Schumer was much better than D'Amato, not only on human rights, but on everything.

But you seem to think Mugabe's method of "ending neocolonialism" is wonderful and amazing....


Zimbabwe: Food Used as Political Weapon

(New York, October 24, 2003) - Zimbabwean authorities discriminate against perceived political opponents by denying them access to food programs, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Some international relief agencies in Zimbabwe fail to ensure that access to food is based on need alone and is not biased by domestic or international political concerns.

The 51-page report, "Not Eligible: The Politicization of Food in Zimbabwe," documents how food is denied to suspected supporters of Zimbabwe's main opposition party and to residents of former commercial farms resettled under the country's "fast-track" land reform program. The report examines the widespread politicization of the government's subsidized grain program, managed by the Grain Marketing Board, as well as the far less extensive manipulation of international food aid.

According to the report, government authorities and party officials of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) manipulate the supply and distribution of government-subsidized grain and the registration of recipients for international food aid. Though international aid agencies, including the World Food Programme, have gone to great lengths to prevent interference, this kind of manipulation remains a problem. International aid agencies must devote greater resources and attention to preventing the manipulation of recipient lists. The report also examines international community's tacit complicity in preventing food from reaching former commercial farm areas resettled under land reform.

<snip>

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/zimbabwe102403.htm


How exactly is Mugabe making the human rights situation better???

[AP]

64. Ending the grip on Zimbabwe's economy that foreign corporations have is

going to be better for Zimbabwe by every measure.

If the MDC had won the last election, do you think that they would have respected the human rights of citizens who began to ask why big corporations own all the best land and flow wealth right out of the country???

Look at Haiti. That's what you do to people who start asking those questions.

[arcos]

68. That's the same reasoning the right wing uses to justify Pinochet...

they say the economy got better so all his human rights abuses can be excused. I'm sorry, but I could NEVER accept that!

There is no excuse whatsoever for human rights abuses!

[AP]

76. That's so wrong. What Pinochet did is exactly the opposite of what VZ...

...Haiti and Zimbabwe are trying to do.

Pinochet was a neoliberal. He was a fascits who created a state for the benefit of corporations. And you alwasy end up violating human rights to do that.

Don't you see that neoliberalism IS a human rights abuse, and possibly the biggest one there is?

[arcos]

78. Yes, Pinochet was a fascist...

but the right wing claims his human rights abuses should be excused because he "made the economy better"... and that's what you are claiming, that Mugabe should be excused because he made the economy better.

Neither is justified in my opinion.

[AP]

79. No, I'm claiming that fascism and neoliberalism make the economy bad.

And that the sort of things Chavez is doing -- spreading economic, political, and cultural power down and out -- make the economy better.

If you don't believe this, why even be a democrat????

[arcos]

80. Chávez? We are talking about Mugabe here...

I don't like Chávez much but I support him. I don't support Mugabe AT ALL, and was disappointed when Chávez said he is a "freedom fighter" (:puke:).

You seem to believe that human rights abuses are justified or excuse if the economy is working fine. In your case, land reform. This is the same excuse the right wing uses to justify Pinochet, but not with land reform but free market. I don't believe human rights abuses are EVER justified.

[AP]

81. What I'm saying is that neoliberalism requires some of the biggest

abuses of human rights there are.

What do you think Zimbabwe would be like today had the MDC won and had the land reform program been stopped, and if wealth continued to flow out to Europe?

It would require the level of oppression experieced under Pinochet.

[arcos]

82. I don't think Mugabe is any better...

as I said, human rights abuses are NOT justified and ARE NOT excusable, under any circumstance!

[AP]

83. It's so obvious that the abuses would be worse under the MDC.

Their platform is to go back to channeling profits and assets to Europe.

If human rights are so important, you can you advocate for the equivalent of picking Pinochet over Allende, or, in the US in the 30s, picking Prescott Bush over FDR?

[arcos]

84. No, I'm not the one who supports human rights abusers

Did I ever advocate for the MDC?

I didn't think so. I don't know much about them.

If the MDC were worse than Mugabe... does that make his actions justified? Do you really think his human rights violations are excusable??

How can you call yourself a progressive????

[AP]

85. These aren't hypothetical choices. At least I'm not arguing

hypotheticals here. If I were, I'd say, yes, let's get rid of Mugabe and give Zimbabwe someone more like Chavez -- someone who is devolving political and cultural power, as well as economic power, and who has a real committment not to use violence and revenge.

However, we're not talking about hypotheticals.

The debate in Zimbabwe has been, do you want the MDC or do you want Zanu-PF. It's the same debate as in the US: do you want Kerry or Bush.

The choice is obvious. The MDC would have to engage in the most atrocious of human rights violations to perpetuate an unfair system (and to reverse the gains from land reform in the last two years). They'd have to crack skulls left and right. Not only that, the system they're advocating -- neoliberalism -- is, in itself probably the biggest human rights violation being carried out today.

[arcos]

86. the gains in land reform...

were opposition members are not given any food? (according to Human Rights Watch)

[AP]

88. The oppostiion members are advocating a system which would

structurally impoverish and starve Zimbabweans for the next century.

These are REAL choices Zimbabweans have to make.

Mugabe sucks, but the opposittion sucks 100000 times worse.

Duh.

[AP]

89. Furthermore, FDR had innocent people executed in a show trial.

What do you have to say about that?

[arcos]

91. Actually, I've never been fond of any US President...

I would have obviously voted for him over anyone in the GOP, but that would be a vote against, and not a vote in support of.

[AP]

93. So, you didn't like the New Deal? You didn't think fighting fascists in

America and abroad was a worthy endeavor?

[arcos]

94. Yes I did and yes it was...

but as I've said countless times, I'm not very fond of human rights abusers.

[AP]

95. But FDR was a human rights abuser whom you would have voted for,

because you thought he was going to make a bigger, more important change to society, right?

[arcos]

96. yes... but he never denied food to his opponents

or created torture camps.

[AP]

97. He quite possibly executed five innocent people, and he put Japonese-Ams

in internment camps.

Mugabe may have denied food to his opposition, but it's not clear that they starved and died as a result. FDR had a choice about actually killing people, and chose death so that he could win political points. Those internment camps, no matter how you look at it, the equivalent of imprisoning people without a trial. That's some bad shit.

[arcos]

98. yes, it is...

and as I said, no human rights abuses are EVER justified... but I think that pales in comparison to what Mugabe has done over the years.

[AP]

99. The fight against the rule of corporations -- fascism -- is exactly what

FDR thought justified his human rights violations.

This is the same exact battle in Haiti, Venezueala, Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe.

FDR probably saved America from going fascist in 1932, but the stuff he did certainly didn't hold out until today, since we now have a rule by corporations in the US.

Nonetheless, you'll excuse FDR, but you won't excuse any of these other countries, even though you can't possibly be so naive to believe that the alternative to them is MORE democracy and LESS rule by corporations. I mean, the opposition party in Zimbabwe runs on a platform of giving the corporations back their land and returning to the pre-land reform status quo. We're not talking about hypotheticals. There a real choices in all these countries between fascist neoliberalism and devolving some combination of economic, political and cultural power down to the people and away from concentrated capital.

Why do you cut FDR slack on the human rights violations, but nobody else, when there's just as much at stake, if not more, for these other countries?

If it's just that you don't have all the facts, fine. Get some facts. Get an informed opinion. But if you don't have the facts, do you think it's right to have such a firmly held opinion?

[arcos]

100. I don't excuse FDR...

And there are no real choices when human rights will be violated no matter who wins... Opposing someone doesn't mean you support whoever is on the other side.

And yes, I don't know much about the MDC, but I'm still entitled to think Mugabe is a major asshole. I know quite enough about him to think that. But you don't have to worry much, because Mugabe doesn't like free elections.

[AP]

101. Now you're going in circles. Fact is, you got to chose every once ...

...in a while, and sometimes the choice is pretty obvious, as it was with FDR. Even if human rights are the ONLY thing you think about when you make a decision, you'd still have to go with FDR, because he was fighting a fascist alternative.

In Zimbabwe, the alternatives are just obvious.

Again, we're not debating hypotheticals. If we were, I'd be on your side and that would be the end of that.

We're debating the choice Zimbabwe has today. So why don't you read up on the MDC and learn about the choices they're making right there today.

Then we'll talk.

[arcos]

102. ok, I made a search..

and can't find anything about the MDC wanting to give the land back to corporations... care to give a few links?

[AP]

103. It was in their platform on their web site last time I checked, and there

should be a ton of press on it dated around the time of the last national elections.

Take another look.

If you want to have an informed opinion, you can't give up so easily.

[arcos]

90. wow... it took you a long time to say something negative...

about that "great freedom fighter", Mugabe...

Well, at least you now admit he sucks.

[AP]

92. Search the archives. I've been criticizing him since the beginning.

I've always framed this in these terms.

[AP]

87. FDR was a human rights abuser. Would you not have supported him?

[ButterflyBlood]

49. did FDR set up camps were young girls were raped as part of "training"?

n/t

[AP]

52. What do you think the MDC, financed by European governments, was going to

have to do when people started asking for their land???

Psst, look at what's happening in Haiti today.

That's the level of oppression you need to protect corporate profits.

[AP]

53. ...and, by the way, the internment camps sucked during WWII, but I'd still

take FDR over the American Fascists, like Prescott Bush and the DuPont family.

[Suspicious]

63. I'm not quite sure

why you seem to have synthesized these issues into a case of "either/or". It appears that you believe one can not oppose neoliberalism without an automatic assumption of support for Mugabe and his methods - as far as I can tell, you were the first to bring Mugabe into the discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1244440#1244646. :shrug:

I am opposed to neoliberalism, I am opposed to the violation of human rights - it's not a matter of choosing between the two. Neoliberalism is, in effect, a violation of human rights on a grand scale. I can support specific policies of certain leaders and disagree vehemently with others.

Regardless, you can bet your bottom dollar that any human rights violations Mugabe is accused of (or guilty of, for that matter) would be completely ignored and/or dismissed in the corporate media if he toed the appropriate line.

[arcos]

70. No... the issue comes from yet another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1242664#1242753

I am disappointed Chávez met with Mugabe, and calling him a "freedom fighter", since there's nothing farther from the truth.

AP thinks Mugabe should be supporter because he is "fighting neoliberalism". I don't agree...

"You are either with us or against us"... I don't agree with * when he says it, I don't agree with AP either. I don't believe you can comprise when human rights violations are taking place.

You say... "Regardless, you can bet your bottom dollar that any human rights violations Mugabe is accused of (or guilty of, for that matter) would be completely ignored and/or dismissed in the corporate media if he toed the appropriate line."

Yes, probably. Does that make the human rights violations any less important? Do you really think that justifies it?

[Suspicious]

75. We are complicated animals.

I would refrain from judging Chavez based on this single event. The propaganda and misinformation are swirling, these days. It's difficult, but crucial, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Does that make the human rights violations any less important? Do you really think that justifies it?

No, of course not - I would never insinuate such a thing, either.

Choose your battles, that's what is important. We can't fix everything at once. American-style coups are certainly not the answer.

My original point was simply that opposition to the neoliberal agenda does not necessarily mean you support the sins of people who are struggling against it.

[Vladimir]

72. What you mean

GW Bush? Of course not.

V

on edit: damn, someone beat me to it. I guess it was a pretty obvious answer...