Originally posted by intrepid
The US is spread pretty thin right now. Also, how will the government be able to spin this to get the American public online? Venezualian terrorists? Not buying that one. Maybe we can go back to the Regan years and attack Ven. as another "War on Drugs"?

Guess what gents: Porter Goss is a big-time latin-America spook, and in congress, according to his biography page, he has been a big supporter of the war on drugs in Andean nations. The new intelligence chief is being chosen based on his ability to increase America's power over this hemisphere.

Assuming that Kerry is not elected, there will be questionable elections or a coup in Venezuela- we won't have to fire a shot, unless of course Cuban meddling in Venezuela is used as an excuse to take action against Castro. You might have noticed that he overthrew Aristide in Haiti (for the second time) not that long ago. It seems that the current administration intends to build a strong base out outside the sphere of concern and influence of rival powers. Covert actions which do not raise as much international concern will be much more politically acceptable at home as well.

Venezuela won't even result in a pause in the war on terror. Completely apart from the war on terror, there are going to be low-visability advances in South America, The Carribean, and Georgia/Azerbaijan/(?Chechnya?).

Iran falls next in the war on terror, and it won't even be long before it happens. If you map out US forces and expected future moves on an atlas everything becomes clear. We are building a wall around Russia. Iran is the next important because it results in a solid wall of US pawns between Russia and the middle east. It also provides greater access to Georgia and Azerbaijan for our forces.
Syria actually might not go for a while. All that would accomplish is the final defeat of the Palestinian cause. We are more likely to turn our attention to Northern Africa. Control of Sudan and Ethiopia allow us greater pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as "veto power" over the Suez via the straight at the southern end of the Red Sea.


One last though- if Bay of Pigs were tried again, we could provide air support and the rebels would win. There is no looming threat of WWIII to hold us back. If an equivalent operation took place in South America somewhere rather than Cuba it would be all too easy. That means that South America is ours for the taking without even a hiccup in the real war.

Originally posted by upuaut
Chavez has been in power for a while now. For all the hype and propaganda being disseminated, his government is very dissimilar to Cuba's. Just because he is implimenting the positive aspects of Cuba's regime does not allow you to bash him.
For one, he is not a dictator as of yet, or did that subtlety escape you?

U.

His government is dissimilar to cubas, but not by his doing. Second, yes - I will bash any leader that admires, sympothises with, or aspires to impliment communism. Third, yes I understand he is not a dictator yet (yet being the key word). Perhaps my prior posts have subtley escaped you.

I agree vagabond

I don't think military action will be taken because there are more pressing needs in the ME.

One thing though - why a wall around Russia. If we were going to wall in any country I would say eitherr China or N. Korea.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
His government is dissimilar to cubas, but not by his doing. Second, yes - I will bash any leader that admires, sympothises with, or aspires to impliment communism. Third, yes I understand he is not a dictator yet (yet being the key word). Perhaps my prior posts have subtley escaped you.

He would be a dictator now if that was his intent, or do you have any compelling argument to the contrary.
The only reason why I added the word yet is that if we apply pressure to overthrow him, he may clamp down on the country with the military and effectively become a dictator. One of our making.

You won't bash a thing, unless you have the armies of our nation at your beck and call. No, the thugs that devise our foreign policy will do it for you, leaving you to bask in their 'glory' and imagine it is somehow yours too.

What Chavez does in Venezuela is his business. He was elected by the people of Venezuela, and far from looking like a fledgling dictator, he has agreed to a referendum which could end his presidency.
If you think you have the right to overthrow his government, then you also concede that others have the right to overthrow the American government if they don't like it. Right now, there would be at least a decent excuse for doing such a thing: we have shown every sign of being on the path of aggression, something Venezuela is quite innocent of.

U.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by upuaut]

Originally posted by upuaut

He would be a dictator now if that was his intent, or do you have any compelling argument to the contrary.
The only reason why I added the word yet is that if we apply pressure to overthrow him, he may clamp down on the country with the military and effectively become a dictator. One of our making.

Maybe you missed this, but everything I have been saying about going in there and taking him out was based on the assumption that he does not pass the referendum, and thus that is the reason that the US would go in - because he does not resign and instead goes the dictator path.

You won't bash a thing, unless you have the armies of our nation at your beck and call. No, the thugs that devise our foreign policy will do it for you, leaving you to bask in their 'glory' and imagine it is somehow yours too.

As I said, yes - in fact I will bash any comunist suporter. Sorry, I thought the 20th century proved how bad it is. And guess what - there are no armies at my beck and call, just me myself and I. And no, I will not "bask in their glory", there is no 'glory'.

What Chavez does in Venezuela is his business. He was elected by the people of Venezuela, and far from looking like a fledgling dictator, he has agreed to a referendum which could end his presidency.
If you think you have the right to overthrow his government, then you also concede that others have the right to overthrow the American government if they don't like it. Right now, there would be at least a decent excuse for doing such a thing: we have shown every sign of being on the path of aggression, something Venezuela is quite innocent of.

And here is where you are wrong. It is our (the US) buisness what is going on their. They are our 3rd leading oiler importer - to me that makes our futures mutually tied together. As for the right to overthrow governments, this is just silly. Again, I was saying we would invade if he was voted out and refused to leave\.

Back to topic.......

Anyone know a proper pawn that the US would replace him with? Or would we simply replace their whole government and then pick 2 guys that can run against each other to have a pretend election, when in actuality they are both in our pocket?

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Maybe you missed this, but everything I have been saying about going in there and taking him out was based on the assumption that he does not pass the referendum, and thus that is the reason that the US would go in - because he does not resign and instead goes the dictator path.

And here is where you are wrong. It is our (the US) buisness what is going on their. They are our 3rd leading oiler importer - to me that makes our futures mutually tied together. As for the right to overthrow governments, this is just silly. Again, I was saying we would invade if he was voted out and refused to leave\.

It seems to me you contradict yourself several times. You say you would bash a communist supporter and that it is our business what happens down there because we need Venezuelan oil, but you also say you would only go in if he becomes a dictator....

So if he is admirative of certain Cuban initiatives (which for you spells Communism), but remains democratically in power, you won't bash him, even though he hurts our interests ? Which is it?

Originally posted by upuaut
It seems to me you contradict yourself several times. You say you would bash a communist supporter and that it is our business what happens down there because we need Venezuelan oil, but you also say you would only go in if he becomes a dictator....

So if he is admirative of certain Cuban initiatives (which for you spells Communism), but remains democratically in power, you won't bash him, even though he hurts our interests ? Which is it?

No I did not. By "bash" I mean to be verbally critical, not to physically attack someone (are you from the US? I thought this was understood). Venezuela is the US's buisness/problem because they are a major oil importer of ours.

As for what I have been saying about going in and taking him out, that is NOT what I would do, but speculation on what the US government would do.If I were in power, I would not take any action so long as he made it through this vote and did not attempt to use his oil as an economic weapon against the US.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
No I did not. By "bash" I mean to be verbally critical, not to physically attack someone (are you from the US? I thought this was understood). Venezuela is the US's buisness/problem because they are a major oil importer of ours.

As for what I have been saying about going in and taking him out, that is NOT what I would do, but speculation on what the US government would do.If I were in power, I would not take any action so long as he made it through this vote and did not attempt to use his oil as an economic weapon against the US.

My mistake... I am from the US, but I have heard the term bash to mean both verbal and physical aggression...

What would you consider the use of his oil as an economic weapon against the US?

Being the consumer in the relationship infers a disadvantage. One the US is having trouble dealing with in a sociable manner, being so used to running the show, and all...

We have used our economy as an economic form of coercion the world over... and since we are talking about Cuba, Cuba is but one example of it. If Chavez were to even go half as far as we have, I wonder if you would take this as use of his oil as an economic weapon, and an excuse for regime change?

U.

Originally posted by upuaut
My mistake... I am from the US, but I have heard the term bash to mean both verbal and physical aggression...

What would you consider the use of his oil as an economic weapon against the US?

Being the consumer in the relationship infers a disadvantage. One the US is having trouble dealing with in a sociable manner, being so used to running the show, and all...

We have used our economy as an economic form of coercion the world over... and since we are talking about Cuba, Cuba is but one example of it. If Chavez were to even go half as far as we have, I wonder if you would take this as use of his oil as an economic weapon, and an excuse for regime change?

U.

I would say that oil being used as an economic weapon would be to intentionally minipulate our supply to force a specific action (or inaction) out of the US or to intentionally do damage to our economy directly or indirectly. Obviously there are more ways it could be one, but i think you get where I am going here.

Being a consumer - and a very dependent one at that - is definately a disadvantage. But that does not mean we are not have the overall advantage. To say tht the US is having trouble dealing with anything is kind of out there - ou government has not even mentioned the possability.

I do not deny that we have used our vast economic power as a tool and a weapon, and if I were a Cuban who supportd Castro, yes - I would say that the US needed a regime change. The thing is, I am not Cuban, I hate communism, I AM American, and thus I believe we should do what is best for us, the United States.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Being a consumer - and a very dependent one at that - is definately a disadvantage. But that does not mean we are not have the overall advantage. To say tht the US is having trouble dealing with anything is kind of out there - ou government has not even mentioned the possability.

We still have the upper hand only because we can resort to 'regime change' if we do not like the terms posed by the producers.
Notice that I said 'having trouble dealing with it in a sociable manner. I do not consider manipulating the governing of sovereign nations and undermining their self-reliance and self-determination as sociable.
A sociable entity would examine and work to fix its dependance (addiction) to the product it greedily seeks to acquire. In this regard, the US shines through its mediocrity: we are notorious for having impeded reduced consumption of petrol through delayed adoption of readily available and more efficient combustion technologies, and through our continuing infatuation with unnecessarily large gas-guzzling vehicles.

I do not deny that we have used our vast economic power as a tool and a weapon, and if I were a Cuban who supportd Castro, yes - I would say that the US needed a regime change. The thing is, I am not Cuban, I hate communism, I AM American, and thus I believe we should do what is best for us, the United States.

I understand your position now, and am grateful for you patient, articulate and concise expression of it.

I wholeheartedly agree that America should do what is best for her, but I do not believe that that should include disrupting the sovereignty of foreign nations. Its kind of like the notion of freedom to pursue happiness: its ok as long as it doesn't infringe upon the same pursuit of others.

Chavez will certainly cause our obese elites to loose a certain degree of margin, and they will certainly in turn 'selflessly' pass on all the discomfort to the American people, as they systematically do. Chavez will simply be doing what everyone takes for granted as a right: to sell his resources at whatever price he sees fit, or even not to sell it at all.
He has proven that he will act so as to shift the focus from Venezuela being vampirized by outside economies, with most of the profits from her own resources passing into foreign hands, to protecting Venezuela's economy, and seeing a greater portion of those profits benefit Venezuela as a whole, and not just a handful of corrupt members of her affluent, industrial elites.

You can, if you so choose, act in the real interest of America and the rest of the world by trying to change things at home so that:

a) your comfort does not depend so much on the discomfort of foreign nationals (reduce your pathological dependancy on their goods) and regain control of your leadership so as to stop their manipulation of foreign political life

b) blame the real culprits of hardship when economic balance is restored through foreign protectionism (a la Chavez): the elites of our land who would rather see us be reduced to poverty than give up two inches of their wealth and status

Stay well,

U.


[edit on 16-8-2004 by upuaut]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I agree vagabond

I don't think military action will be taken because there are more pressing needs in the ME.

One thing though - why a wall around Russia. If we were going to wall in any country I would say eitherr China or N. Korea.

There are several reasons that we are still hemming in Russia.
1. The world is still run by cold warriors.
2. Russia still has the means to be a potent threat if its economy were controlled well. This reminds me of the old theory that the USSR's breakup was a hoax to secretly gain the upperhand in the arms race.

3. Russia is a dangerous partner to China, and America is justifiably wary.
A. Russia can complicate a pacific war between China and America. If Russian airpower deprived the US Navy of operations in the Northern Pacific, then Chinese airpower in Pacific islands could force a WWII style island campaign.
B. Russia can complicate American involvement in a Chinese sponsored war between Pakistan and India by threatening to become involved in the event of American involvement in Western Pakistan (obviously I am discussing the prospect of a restored USSR which holds Khazakstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmienistan, which would otherwise stand in the way of a Russian move on South Asia).

4. Russia is best suited to stand up to America in the middle east, because they have nukes, are not traditional allies of ours, and are less dependent on us than other nations. America is building a wall on land between them and the middle east, as well as seizing control of black-sea nations which can control Russian access to the Med. This also boosts America's freedom to take action in Northern Africa.


This is imperialist global strategy, plain and simple.

I agree it is certainly imperialist strategy in action!

Now, back to Chavez: it looks like he has won

U.

It isn't Venezuela that is next on Bush's places to wage war, its Iran. They are already trying to build up evidence to go into Iran and stage a war. It subtle now but becomes larger and larger after the elections.

If we go in to Venezuela then Bush should be yanked out of office and charged with theft. Our only interest in them is their oil. If we go in it is simply to steal what is theres. And I will NOT allow a thief to run our country. I'd vote for Stalin before I'd vote for Bush.