28 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFI don't think chavez should be interfering with other people's affairs, regardless of whether it is good or bad in the long-term, it is up to the colombian and american governments to decide what to do, not chavez or lula or anyone else.
Is whether they "agree with it" or not the only factor?
Surely this debate ought to be about long term strategy too?
Do you think U.S. boots on the gound in Latin America - perhaps in several countries - is the right way forward?
Do you share elefejesus' view that Venuzuela presents a threat comparable to the U.S.S.R.?
I think that militarily venezuela isn't as powerful as chavez says it is, but they could do a lot of damage if they wanted.
Also lets not forget that venezuela's connection with far-left guerrillas does present a threat.
29 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFFor Columbia, at least, I think so only because Chavez continuously forces the Columbians to fear for their safety and to plan to defend themselves from acts of aggression or preemptive strikes.
There is no confusion whatsoever about the comparison you made.
Do you think U.S. boots on the gound in Latin America - a la Colombia, and then perhaps in several countries - is the right way forward - strategically, for the region?
'CARACAS – Opposition Metropolitan Mayor Antonio Ledezma warned that President Hugo Chávez was “irresponsibly playing with a war against Colombia – and trying to use the occasion of the Union of Southern Nations (Unasur) summit as a “trench or a tribune” in his so far verbal battle with Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe.
In this, Ledezma was reflecting what appears to be a cause of concern in some quarters – namely, that Chávez’s warlike rhetoric could somehow slip into the real thing. Or as one worried citizen in Chacao recently put it, “talking himself into an accident waiting to happen”.
Ledezma has been on a foreign tour trying to get his view of developments in Venezuela across to foreign onlookers whom he and his sympathizers suspect do not understand the true nature of Chávez’s authoritarian, populist approach to politics.'
...
' In the United States, Congressman Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, disagreed with Chavez about the agreement:
“In spite of reports to the contrary, this bilateral agreement only regularizes cooperation between the U.S. and Colombia," said Engel. "It envisions no permanent U.S. bases or increased military deployments." '
29 Aug 09
1 edit
Anyone and everyone:
Chavez is buying up tanks...
what do you think his excuse will be?
Do you believe him?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0806/p99s01-duts.html
edit, summary:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced Wednesday that his country would seek to purchase "several battalions" of Russian tanks in apparent response to a pending US-Colombia deal that would give the US military broader access to bases Colombia, which Mr. Chávez called part of a US "policy of aggression."
Agence France-Presse reports that Chávez hopes to finalize the arms sale and several other trade pacts with Russia on mining, oil, and agriculture in September, when he is set to visit Moscow.
Under the new deal, Venezuela would buy a modern battalion of "30 to 40" Russian-made BMP-3, T-72 and MPR tanks, Chavez said following a telephone conversation with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
"Our army will continue to grow," vowed Chavez, who is leading a leftist surge in Latin America and repeatedly lambasts the United States for perceived "imperialist" policies in the region.
The Agence France-Presse adds that Chávez called the US-Colombia military base plan a "threat" to Venezuela, and criticized US President Barack Obama, saying "The [US] policy of aggression against Latin America is the same... It's as if no change had occurred from (former president George W.) Bush to Obama. It's all the same."
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWell generalissimo, it was a good post. I think the far left is getting a bit tired of defending this madman for now, but they'll be back. Roaches like Chavez always hide when the lights come on and then multiply in hiding, gathering tanks. Stinking war-mongering roaches...
I don't think chavez should be interfering with other people's affairs, regardless of whether it is good or bad in the long-term, it is up to the colombian and american governments to decide what to do, not chavez or lula or anyone else.
I think that militarily venezuela isn't as powerful as chavez says it is, but they could do a lot of damage if th ...[text shortened]... lets not forget that venezuela's connection with far-left guerrillas does present a threat.
31 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusThis thread has been about the U.S. deploying troops in Colombia. Who has been defending Chavez? Your presumably earnest angst about "roaches" is endearing but what does it have to do with the issue of U.S. military increasing its presence in Latin America?
Well generalissimo, it was a good post. I think the far left is getting a bit tired of defending this madman for now, but they'll be back. Roaches like Chavez always hide when the lights come on and then multiply in hiding, gathering tanks. Stinking war-mongering roaches...
You yourself posted a link to an article that suggests that Venuzuela's militray plans are a direct response to U.S and Colombian moves.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFSo what you're saying is you believe Chavez, who is quoted in the article, but the article writer doesn't say that he believes Chavez. You do though, right? You are a true believer?
This thread has been about the U.S. deploying troops in Colombia. Who has been defending Chavez? Your presumably earnest angst about "roaches" is endearing but what does it have to do with the issue of U.S. military increasing its presence in Latin America?
You yourself posted a link to an article that suggests that Venuzuela's militray plans are a direct response to U.S and Colombian moves.
Do you stand by Chavez today, yes or no?
I clearly do not.
Your posts clearly defend him.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusCan you quote me on that? No I don't think so. My concern here is whether the U.S. military deploying to Latin American countries is a sound strategy for the years ahead.
Your posts clearly defend him.
What I cannot establish clearly from either you or generalissimo, is whether you think this escalation and raising of the stakes is in the best interests of the region. Instead from generalissimo there is only waffle about if so and so wants such and such it is ok by him, and from you only attempted macho swagger about the 'madman' and 'cockroaches' and the 'far left', which quite frankly, does not exactly make for convincing strategic analysis.
31 Aug 09
1 edit
The US is cooperating with Columbia militarily. That is not a bad thing it itself. To make further conclusions about the future presupposes that Chavez will continue on his war-seeking path. He probably will, but it's funny to hear Chavez defenders argue against moves that have yet to be made.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusWell the issue is the ramification of a U.S. deployment in Colombia. I think a widespread deployment of the U.S. military across the Latin American region would be a bad move. In a discussion of strategy, why is it "funny" to discuss the future?
it's funny to hear Chavez defenders argue against moves that have yet to be made.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFPersonally I see no point in having US bases in latin america, and it is to a certain extent an outdated imperialist policy.
Can you quote me on that? No I don't think so. My concern here is whether the U.S. military deploying to Latin American countries is a sound strategy for the years ahead.
What I cannot establish clearly from either you or generalissimo, is whether you think this escalation and raising of the stakes is in the best interests of the region. Instead from generali ...[text shortened]... 'far left', which quite frankly, does not exactly make for convincing strategic analysis.
However, if the colombian government sees no problem with it then its their decision, and nobody should bully colombia because they don't agree with it.
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusAgain, at this point the US and Columbia are merely cooperating on certain operations.
The US is cooperating with Columbia militarily. That is not a bad thing it itself. To make further conclusions about the future presupposes that Chavez will continue on his war-seeking path. He probably will, but it's funny to hear Chavez defenders argue against moves that have yet to be made.
Chavez is ranting about Obama and Bush being the same and pushing towards a certain direction.
If he does not seek to warmonger, then there will be no issue.
You fears of US involvement assume that Chavez will continue to draw the US in to get involved in the region by provoking defensive posturing to prevent Chavez's belligerence.
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusI don't think there is any debate over that, you're basically stating the obvious.
Again, at this point the US and Columbia are merely cooperating on certain operations.
Chavez is ranting about Obama and Bush being the same and pushing towards a certain direction.
If he does not seek to warmonger, then there will be no issue.
You fears of US involvement assume that Chavez will continue to draw the US in to get involved in the region by provoking defensive posturing to prevent Chavez's belligerence.
did FMF say chavez wasn't a warmonger?
05 Sep 09
Originally posted by generalissimoFMF, as you've read in his posts, is taking the basesin Columbia scenario and extrapolating it out into an argument that nobody is having, which is to question the US have soldiers throughout latin america as opposed to having access to Columbian bases.
I don't think there is any debate over that, you're basically stating the obvious.
did FMF say chavez wasn't a warmonger?
The need for this is supported by my point. FMF does not offer any solutions to counter Chavez or the fact that he is a warmonger.
05 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusOn the contrary, it was you who raised the NATO model - the arrangment whereby U.S. boots on the ground gives credibility to a regional/continental military pact that guarantees security. It wasn't me who raised the idea of the US having soldiers throughout Latin America. It was you. It was only after that that it turned out that you didn't really know what NATO was in realpolitik terms or what it had done and hadn't done, or even how it worked on even the most basic command and control level, during its half-century of existence. As for me, I am saying that the bases in Colombia are a bad idea and if it is a sign of strategic things to come, and a similar trend right across the region, then it is a terrible idea.
FMF, as you've read in his posts, is taking the basesin Columbia scenario and extrapolating it out into an argument that nobody is having, which is to question the US have soldiers throughout latin america as opposed to having access to Columbian bases.