Venezuela about to go to war?

Venezuela about to go to war?

www.reuters.com

BOGOTA, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Colombia's government said on Thursday Venezuelan soldiers blew up two small pedestrian bridges that stretch across their border in the latest incident to test diplomatic ties between the Andean neighbors.

Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva told reporters that uniformed men apparently from the Venezuelan army blew up the bridges with explosives in what he described as a violation of international law.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It looks like soon America may be joining another war, considering they US has intrests in Columbia with Drug Trafficking, and may consider this war as a cover for traffickers to easily slip between the net.

Its already known that Military Activities are taking place around the LA area and other weapons testing sites, this may be a arena that the US will suffer heavily in. As Carpet-Bombing usually favours tactics as demonstrated in Vietnam when it comes to Sub-Tropical climates.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ROBL240


I wish they had taken photographs. It's easy to claim anything between one government propaganda machine and the other propaganda machine.... and then there's OUR propaganda machine.....

How long before this would-be conflict threatens the enormous land-holdings of the Bush family?

I think the Energy Cartel is still pissed about Venezuela, and Columbia knows exactly how to use that anger for their own gain. Of course, Venezuela is not devoid of culpability either....

Why must WE get involved? Don't say "oil".

[edit on 19-11-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by ROBL240


There would be no American troops involved in a war between Venezuela and Columbia. The only involvement we would have is providing weapons and military gear to Columbia, for a price of course.

Hugo Chavez has been saying for a few years that the U.S. will invade
Venezuela in order to secure the oil fields there. Is he trying to provoke things so he has a self-fullfilling prophecy? I do wonder about Chavez's constant grandstanding. And Castro likes Obama, if one can believe the MSM, and Castro is Chavez's hero, yet Chavez likes to continue to speak provocative words aimed at Obama. Hmmmmmmmm......surely there's a conspiracy here, eh?

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by ROBL240

 

There would be no American troops involved in a war between Venezuela and Columbia. The only involvement we would have is providing weapons and military gear to Columbia, for a price of course.

Uff - you forget military advisers (aka bestial crime teachers), intelligence and propaganda machine. SpecOps actions will be swept under rug of course. Not sure if you count naval artillery/air strikes/UAV operations as "American troops involved in a war".
BTW for what are new basis in Columbia? To boost narcobusiness? I though every think is going pretty well after Iran-contra debacle.

This is just Chavez saying "See Columbia...see U.S...we are serious!" Do not proceed with said agreement or else!

I hardly think blowing up two pedestrian bridges constitutes a precursor to war. Now, if there were people on the bridge when they blew it up...that would be another story. But as far as I've read -- it seemed like a pretty clean demolition. No injuries, deaths.

reply to post by ROBL240


Hugo Chavez has decided to play this game based on the assumption that America will not tolerate yet another war. And to that end, he may be right.

He is also playing the part of willing pawn to the Russians who are eager to establish once again in the western hemisphere and gain leverage in the oil market. Venezuela and Chavez provide both opportunities for no more than a few tanks and some AKs.

The most likely result of a Venezuelan incursion into any of his neighbors would be a return to the policies established by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. The US would provide monetary and military assistance via hardware and cash but not direct personnel. The US has deep ties in the region and regardless of how much they are hated by the Latino left, there is no shortage of those who would flock to fight against Hugo's little red armies.

Chavez could do himself and his nation, not to mention the whole of Central and South America a big favor by setting an example of independence from both Russia and the US, and then prove that neither was required to survive or prosper.

But unfortunately, Mr. Chavez is an ideologue in the name of Marxism and he will ride the same horse into oblivion as so many of his tyranical predecessors.

Edit: Typos
..

[edit on 19-11-2009 by redoubt]

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by ROBL240

 

But unfortunately, Mr. Chavez is an ideologue in the name of Marxism and he will ride the same horse into oblivion as so many of his tyranical predecessors.

You mean Pinochet? Sorry - it was just too obvious bias. Sure Chavez is typical SA populist. Sure he is afraid if only imperial force on planet boost bases in his neighbourhood.
Can you explain me please for what reason are new/enlarged US basis in Columbia?

regards
z.

reply to post by zeddissad

You mean Pinochet? Sorry - it was just too obvious bias. Sure Chavez is typical SA populist. Sure he is afraid if only imperial force on planet boost bases in his neighbourhood. Can you explain me please for what reason are new/enlarged US basis in Columbia?

The US has a long vested interest in South America. It goes way back to the days when there was a determination to see that the European powers didn't expand and encroach in the new world.

Since then, the US has been both friend and foe of the southern continent. But the bottom line here is that while the US is certainly meddlesome, they have never and will never seek to turn any nation into a ballistic missile base or create a target for other nations, overseas, to target... which is exactly what Russia tried to do in Cuba in the early 1960s.

As an American, a US American, I am often ashamed of my government's activity there but at the same time, I can see why it is important to maintain the umbrella over it.

I repeat: Chavez, if his heart is truly with his people, would do far better using their oil wealth to create a distant and healthy independence from both Russia and the US. He could... if he chose to, do just that. He doesn't need the tanks and Hinds and MiGs. All he needs is to prove that it can be done.

reply to post by Maxmars


Why should we get involved if it is not about oil? easy, the war on drugs is a great way to keep the people in check while making lts of money and getting people to snitch on their neighbors so that they will later have no problem snitching for the sake of speaking out against the government. And to think I used to think you conspiracy folks were crazy, guess i took the right pill.

I don't know when we're going to go in Venesuala and intervene but it's not a matter about how but when. I'm sure that when the situation gets pretty tough and more news about how tyrannical it is over there gets out the neoconservatives over here in our country will claim that we need to intervene and that it's a serious situation and that they need help. I wouldn't be surprised if we did.

This is a scary situation to say the least. Sure there's the oil reserves down there but I honestly think it has more to do with the drug trade than anything.

The only time there's a War on Drugs (tm) is when the CIA isn't in control of it.

IMHO I think that the US gov't would be involved in the war if it happens. Like another poster stated, the Us has had an eye on SA for a long time. I watched an documentary a while back and I found that the confederates aimed at taking over mexico and SA if they had won the war against the Union states. That would have given them control of the sugar cane and cotton in the region. Now-a-days there is to many business ops down there to pass up.
I don't see US troops being sent. I see them sending weapons and UAVs. Also, of course, black ops.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by zeddissad

 

The US has a long vested interest in South America. It goes way back to the days when there was a determination to see that the European powers didn't expand and encroach in the new world.

As an American, a US American, I am often ashamed of my government's activity there but at the same time, I can see why it is important to maintain the umbrella over it.

I repeat: Chavez, if his heart is truly with his people, would do far better using their oil wealth to create a distant and healthy independence from both Russia and the US. He could... if he chose to, do just that. He doesn't need the tanks and Hinds and MiGs. All he needs is to prove that it can be done.

Thank you for polite response and my apologies for rude post.
I know Monroe doctrine well. I don't impugn this principles. I know that USA as regional power have special interests in SA. I'm not lunatic and I know that real politic is often very dirty.
If the target of USA policy is calm region where money, goods and ideas can be interchange fluently on bases of law than I must say that - from historical perspective - means used to fulfill this target are at least unfortunate. Installing fascistic dictators, spreading unrest and initiating and supporting civil wars is bad strategy IMO.
Chavez is not threat to Columbia. He have no "suicidal tendencies". He is not mad. Blowing of bridges is just show for domestic public - citizens there expect something similar from him. I don't say that such mummery is good - I don't like it personally. But stick to chronology: first came boost in US military presence in Columbia! Chavez don't trust 1.000 times convicted liars that's why he is changing oil for weapons - again compare it with last 20 years of arms race in your motherland.
You say:

But the bottom line here is that while the US is certainly meddlesome, they have never and will never seek to turn any nation into a ballistic missile base or create a target for other nations, overseas, to target... which is exactly what Russia tried to do in Cuba in the early 1960s.

It simply isn't true. Czech Rep. and Poland was asked to host part of missile defense system. Radar part will pose my country as first strike - maybe nuclear - attack target. You are right that there is no drive to install ICBM to other countries - they are intercontinental .
For shorter range missiles:

A mobile intermediate-range ballistic missile of the U.S. Army, the Pershing-II was deployed at American bases in West Germany beginning in 1983 and aimed at targets in the western Soviet Union. It carried a single thermonuclear warhead with an explosive force equivalent to 5-50 kilotons (5,000©;50,000 tons) of TNT.

Source
Please correct me if I'm totally wrong but I have very bad feeling that US military is spreading around globe like plague. If I look on map just for second than obvious target is elimination of Russia and China. Means are: installation of puppet governments in countries around target, initiation of unrest (color revolutions), support for ethnic divisions, blowing up civil wars (Pakistan), direct war. For me it is obvious enough that current boost in Columbia is part of this imperialistic policy.

There more here than meets the eye

Boeing Co. may lose a $7.5 billion jet fighter sale to Brazil unless the U.S. Senate lifts a four- month delay in confirming President Barack Obama’s nominee for ambassador to Latin America’s biggest country, a former top U.S. diplomat to the region said.

www.bloomberg.com...