05 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFJust look back at the history, anyone can see your lies. I undestand NATO as a treaty amongst North Atlantic countries and you only understand it as a US-led alliance. I proposed that Latin American power join forces (similar to hower North Atlantic countries joined forces) to promote a shield and in cases of acts of agression a saber. Do you get it now or were you purposefully lying?
On 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 ...[text shortened]... egic things to come, and a similar trend right across the region, then it is a terrible idea.
05 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusWe're talking on this thread about U.S. bases in Colombia and then you introduce the idea of using the NATO model right across the region. You expressed yourself badly and putting your incoherence down to "lies" "stupidity" on my part and "typos" on yours is all very unconvincing. Whatever, you don't get what NATO was or is. Since when western European countries been referred to 'Northa Atlantic countries'. LOL. Even the name itself is the result of the U.S. and Canadian involvement. What do I care? So now you DON'T want U.S. troops in Latin America - oh but you DO want them in Colombia, er... right. And, have I got this right... talking about the future is not acceptable when discussing strategy. LOL. And critics of U.S. and Colombian policy are "Chavez defenders" and social democrats and centrists all have The Communist Manifesto in their breast pockets. You're an odd bird eljefejesus. A kind of parody. "Do you get it now or were you purposefully lying?" LOL. 🙄
Just look back at the history, anyone can see your lies. I undestand NATO as a treaty amongst North Atlantic countries and you only understand it as a US-led alliance. I proposed that Latin American power join forces (similar to hower North Atlantic countries joined forces) to promote a shield and in cases of acts of agression a saber. Do you get it now or were you purposefully lying?
05 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFummm.... you do know where the north atlantic is located, right? you know, bordering the us, canada, and europe...
We're talking on this thread about U.S. bases in Colombia and then you introduce the idea of using the NATO model right across the region. You expressed yourself badly and putting your incoherence down to "lies" "stupidity" on my part and "typos" on yours is all very unconvincing. Whatever, you don't get what NATO was or is. Since when western European countries ...[text shortened]... s. A kind of parody. "Do you get it now or were you purposefully lying?" LOL. 🙄
should i ask if you know where latin america is located?
should I copy your act for fun and start nitpicking and start pretending that you don't know the difference between latin america and the north atlantic?
05 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesus
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.
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.
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.
So you're saying that the US army should be in colombia in order to attack venezuela?
If thats what you're saying I completely disagree.
Mr.chavez may be a warmonger, but besides the threats he hasn't done anything yet, so I don't think we should provoke a war in the region based on baseless threats by a mentally unstable caudillo.
Also, the colombian army is capable of fighting the left-wing guerrillas if properly funded, there is no need for a foreign army to intervene.
There are many non-violent solutions to counter chavez, the problem is that the US, and other latin american countries aren't willing to do anything.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWhy would you add "in order to attack Venezuela" rather than stop and using Columbian bases. That is a defensive move in case Venezuela attacks, not an attack.
[b]
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.
So you're saying that the US army should be in colombia in order to attack venezuela?
If thats what you're saying I completely disagree.
Mr.chavez may be a warmonger, but besides the threats he hasn't done ...[text shortened]... e problem is that the US, and other latin american countries aren't willing to do anything.[/b]
As you later realized yourself, he hasn't done anything yet, so be more careful not to start sounding like FMF and put words in people's mouths. What would be the point?
The guerillas are weak. Chavez is not.
What do you propose, not use the bases?
The US is willing to do something, and that is to make its presence felt in the region by using Columbian bases. That will deter Chavez. If Chavez does anything crazy or stupid (again), he knows the US will crush him justifiably to deter aggression. If Chavez has any brains, he won't commit acts of aggression.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusMy point was that this isn't an american war, and if the americans really want to help colombia they should help them maybe financially, but not do the job themselves as if the colombians were too stupid to take care of themselves and their own affairs.
Why would you add "in order to attack Venezuela" rather than stop and using Columbian bases. That is a defensive move in case Venezuela attacks, not an attack.
As you later realized yourself, he hasn't done anything yet, so be more careful not to start sounding like FMF and put words in people's mouths. What would be the point?
The guerillas ar ...[text shortened]... ifiably to deter aggression. If Chavez has any brains, he won't commit acts of aggression.
America's patronising attitude helps no one, it has the contrary effect, it only strengthens the myth of the "yankee interference", the very myth that has kept chavez in power for all these years.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by generalissimoDon't be afraid of allowing Chavez to say something stupid to gain political support, that's gonna happen in Venezuela no matter what the US does.
My point was that this isn't an american war, and if the americans really want to help colombia they should help them maybe financially, but not do the job themselves as if the colombians were too stupid to take care of themselves and their own affairs.
America's patronising attitude helps no one, it has the contrary effect, it only strengthens the ...[text shortened]... the "yankee interference", the very myth that has kept chavez in power for all these years.
However, Chavez has bought up modern weapons and millitary technology with his oil wealth, from rifles to tanks. His army is bigger and better equipped than that of most small to medium sized Latin American countries. He has a good chance of defeating Columbia if the US does not flex some muscle as a regional power.
Better than the US interfearing, perhaps we could agree that if Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina made a pact to defend the peace in the region against any act of aggression (with US financial and weapons sale support) then no other latin american nation could stand a chance to start wars of agrression... (Chavez would be declawed)... and all without outside interference.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusTrue, but we shouldn't constantly perpetuate this myth either.
Don't be afraid of allowing Chavez to say something stupid to gain political support, that's gonna happen in Venezuela no matter what the US does.
However, Chavez has bought up modern weapons and millitary technology with his oil wealth, from rifles to tanks. His army is bigger and better equipped than that of most small to medium sized Latin Ameri ...[text shortened]... tart wars of agrression... (Chavez would be declawed)... and all without outside interference.
True, but believe me, he's not gonna do anything at least officially.
Chavez is always talking about how he's gonna do this and that if such and such happens but at the end he doesn't do anything because of the obvious reasons and also because this is the 21st century, not the 19th, the guy is simply mentally unstable, the average loud mouth.
The only way chavez can harm colombia is through his dirty dealings with the farc, but with a compentent army and detereorating public support for far-left guerrilas, this will no longer be a problem.
That would be great, but again, not gonna happen.
They don't gain anything by opposing chavez, however, if they pretend to support him or at least tolerate him there could be good trade deals as a result, so its money making the world go round again, just business as usual.
06 Sep 09
posted by eljefejesusChavez perpetuates his own myth through control of the media and through populist talk combined with unrestrained cash hand-outs to his political supporters.
"Don't be afraid of allowing Chavez to say something stupid to gain political support...
However, Chavez has bought up modern weapons and millitary technology with his oil wealth, from rifles to tanks...
Better than the US interfearing, perhaps we could agree that if Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina made a pact to defend the peace in the region .
[i] ...[text shortened]...
They don't gain anything by opposing chavez, however, if they pretend to support him..l.[/b]
Chavez IS planning on doing and something and will do so if left to his own machinations.
When the Columbians attacked some rebels approaching Venezuelan hide-outs, Chavez started sending in troops to that border. Mexico's Calderon criticized Columbia, but on the basis that Columbia had transgressed against another country's territorial integrity which would not be suported by Latin Americans neighbors. Chavez was furious, but he did not cross into Columbia. Still, his plans are on hold, not cancelled. He wants to conquer Columbia, not just annoy it or support a few rebels.
What do you think all the tanks and rifles are for?
For show?
Are we going to just let him for now and hope he doesn't do anything? Appeasement? I say lay defensive groundwork in preperation for the coming Venezuelan acts of aggression, but make it clear that there is no intention to go into Venezuelan territory first, as a country should only be invaded if it first invades another nation's sovereign territory.
The "not gonna happen" is too said too soon, before the idea is discussed, considered, and pushed. Let's hope people propose and consider the idea before they give up on it.
07 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFYou didn't know?
Venezuela wants to conquer Colombia?
===
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342370&CategoryId=10717
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged his government and compatriots to prepare for what he described as an inevitable break in diplomatic relations with neighboring Colombia.
He sounded the alarm Tuesday during an official farewell for departing Cuban Ambassador German Sanchez.
“We must prepare for the rupture of relations with Colombia, that’s going to happen,” the leftist president said, reiterating his criticism of a prospective accord between Washington and Bogota that would give the U.S. armed forces access to seven Colombian bases.
“Those seven bases are a declaration of war against the Bolivarian Revolution (Chavez’s political program) and that is how we view it,” he said.
“Let us continue preparing because that Colombian bourgeoisie hates us and there’s no longer any possibility of a return” to friendly bilateral ties, Chavez said, dismissing as “impossible” a rapprochement with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
“We won’t continue with the rose-colored glasses,” the Venezuelan leader said.
He then addressed Bogota’s recent accusation that the Chavez administration’s contacts with opposition politicians and grassroots groups in Colombia constitutes meddling.
“They accuse us of interference, could there be a more cynical and immoral government!,” he exclaimed.
Chavez said he often gets requests for meetings from Colombian social movements “that authorities are pounding under the excuse of fighting against terrorism and drug trafficking.”
===
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8224130.stm
' The Colombian government made its formal protest at the OAS after Mr Chavez described Colombia as a "narco-state" and ordered an investigation into Colombian companies operating in Venezuela.
Colombia also voiced anger at Mr Chavez's calls to his supporters to reach out to left-leaning Colombians in a bid to recreate Gran Colombia, a state that comprised both countries, Ecuador and Panama in the early 19th Century.
"Every state should have the regime it wants and the rest of the states should respect that condition," said Colombia's ambassador to the OAS Luis Hoyos, as he attacked what he called Mr Chavez's "interventionist" plan. '
===
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN27216958
'Colombia accuses Chavez and Correa of not cooperating in its fight against drug-running insurgents. Both leaders have shunned Washington while strengthening ties with China, Russia and Iran.
Chavez has attacked Colombia as a "narco-state," ordered probes of Colombian companies in Venezuela and urged his supporters to reach out to left-leaning Colombian politicians.
Colombia on Wednesday filed a complaint against Chavez with the Organization of American States, accusing him of meddling in its affairs. This followed a scandal in which Venezuela was accused of providing rockets to Colombia's biggest rebel army, known as the FARC.'
===
07 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusNothing in your cut and pastes backs up your theory.
You didn't know?
===
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342370&CategoryId=10717
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged his government and compatriots to prepare for what he described as an inevitable break in diplomatic relations with neighboring Colombia.
He sounded the alarm Tuesday during an official farewell for departing Cuban ...[text shortened]... ng rockets to Colombia's biggest rebel army, known as the FARC.'
===