Chavez says US-Colombia bases may risk war

[BATMAN]

Chavez says US-Colombia bases may risk war

CARACAS, Aug 5 (Reuters) - A planned increase in U.S. troops on Colombian military bases could be a step towards war in South America, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday.

Chavez has previously put his troops on alert in diplomatic disputes with neighboring Colombia but then backed down. (Reporting by Ana Isabel Martinez; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

 

[BATMAN]

Chavez to Buy Russian Tanks

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said his government will buy dozens of Russian tanks because Caracas feels threatened by a pending deal for the U.S. military to increase its presence in neighboring Colombia.

“We’re going to buy several battalions of Russian tanks,” Chavez said Wednesday, adding that he hoped to sign the deal during a visit to Russia in September.

Chavez’s government has already bought more than $4 billion worth of Russian arms since 2005, including helicopters, fighter jets and Kalashnikov rifles.

His military already has nearly 200 tanks, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It is unclear how many more he plans to buy or how much he plans to spend. He said a battalion typically has 40 tanks.

 

[BATMAN]

Chavez: Lieberman a 'mafia boss'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had some harsh words for Israel and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman after a diplomat suggested last month that Hizbullah had established cells in the South American country.

Chavez heatedly denies the terror group is operating in Venezuela, something his government has already rejected.

In a speech Thursday, Chavez noted that Israeli police had recommended Lieberman be indicted for a string of alleged corruption offenses.

Chavez called Lieberman a "mafia boss."

 

[TruthSeeker]

Actually Chavez needs maybe 10,000 tanks to protect his regime against the popular uprising that will, someday, come. The US should probably give Columbia a unit of Reapers just to keep an eye on Hugo.

 

[BATMAN]

popular uprising that will, someday, come.

Perhaps you want to say.. another proxy is in making!
What a coincidence all leaders who give hard time to US risk facing popular rising by the hands of minority voilent activists in their own country or their local media turn against their leader or human rights organisation suddenly found all crimes against humanity committed by same leader.
ahhh..

 

[TruthSeeker]

Perhaps you want to say.. another proxy is in making!
What a coincidence all leaders who give hard time to US risk facing popular rising by the hands of minority voilent activists in their own country or their local media turn against their leader or human rights organisation suddenly found all crimes against humanity committed by same leader.
ahhh..

Ahhh ... a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, Hugo giving the US a hard time or the US giving Hugo a hard time? And so on for Ahmedinejad, Kim Jung Il, Thwan Shee, etc. It is true, the USA opposes anti-democratic regimes, IF they ALSO call the USA their enemy and act that way. But, the changes in these countries will not come via "proxies" but by genuine majority freedom movements. Violent minority movements are currently the project of salafists worldwide, not the USA.

 

[Thomas]

Chavez to Buy Russian Tanks

the tanks are for use against his own people most likely. tanks offer 0 defense against the U.S.. They are to easily defeated.

 

[BATMAN]

It is true, the USA opposes anti-democratic regimes,

How exactly?

IF they ALSO call the USA their enemy and act that way.

Fair enough!!! this explains the theory behind starting proxies in all over the world.

But, the changes in these countries will not come via "proxies" but by genuine majority freedom movements.

If proxy is sponsored by US and indian wepons than it can change lot of things, where as freedom movement of Kashmiris changed nothing. please support you claim with some examples.

Violent minority movements are currently the project of salafists worldwide, not the USA.

What does this suppose to mean and in what context????

 

[Durran3]

It is true, the USA opposes anti-democratic regimes, IF they ALSO call the USA their enemy and act that way.

Is that why you supported Saddam Hussein back in the day? Or still support Husni-Mubarak in Egypt? What about General Branco in Brazil who overthrew a politically elected President? or Col. Hugo Banzer who overthrew a leftist government with the US's help in Bolivia.

What about Ayatollah Khomenei who you hate so much now in 1954? I'll give a pass to the Saudi Royal family because they sell everyone oil but what about Anastasio Somoza & sons in Nicaragua.. The US has pretty much supported every military dictator in South America.. remember Panama? Noriega there are many actually... just take some time out to learn the dictators that the US has happily helped and most of the those dictators overthrow Democratically elected people

 

[paritosh]

Is that why you supported Saddam Hussein back in the day? Or still support Husni-Mubarak in Egypt? What about General Branco in Brazil who overthrew a politically elected President? or Col. Hugo Banzer who overthrew a leftist government with the US's help in Bolivia.

What about Ayatollah Khomenei who you hate so much now in 1954? I'll give a pass to the Saudi Royal family because they sell everyone oil but what about Anastasio Somoza & sons in Nicaragua.. The US has pretty much supported every military dictator in South America.. remember Panama? Noriega there are many actually... just take some time out to learn the dictators that the US has happily helped and most of the those dictators overthrow Democratically elected people

not to mention spearheading the crusade against communism and the subsequent preventive wars...nam,etc...and the elaborate military maneuvers of the cold war...
the USA is not the guardian of democracy or anything for that matter...you have one of the most aggressive diplomatic stances of all the nations...
take for example the number of wars America has been involved in....I mean for a country situated at the far side of the planet...which covers an entire continent...being at war with so many nations in such a short period speaks volumes about it's aggressive policies....
having boundary issues is one thing...but killing in the name of protecting 'democracy' or 'capitalism' is hard to sell..

 

[gambit]

not to mention spearheading the crusade against communism and the subsequent preventive wars...nam,etc...and the elaborate military maneuvers of the cold war...
the USA is not the guardian of democracy or anything for that matter...you have one of the most aggressive diplomatic stances of all the nations...
take for example the number of wars America has been involved in....I mean for a country situated at the far side of the planet...which covers an entire continent...being at war with so many nations in such a short period speaks volumes about it's aggressive policies....

Are you saying that 'the crusade against communism' was a bad thing? As for US 'aggressive policies', we are 'aggressive' for what? Against whom? Saying that it is 'aggressive' means nothing. Details matter. Are we 'aggressive' for territorial gains? If so, can you tell US which countries have we forcibly annexed? Are we 'aggressive' for profits? If so, can you tell US which countries have we colonized and plundered natural resources back to continental US?

having boundary issues is one thing...but killing in the name of protecting 'democracy' or 'capitalism' is hard to sell..

We do not kill 'in the name' of anything, whereas communists made no secret on why they kill, from Asia to the Americas, to expand communism. And if we go to war to protect 'democracy' and 'capitalism', our way of life, why is that a bad thing? First...We do not support despots precisely because they are despots. We supported petty despots during the Cold War because of political expediencies. Their independence from the communists were the highest priorities, not their purported claim to cherish democracy and capitalism. You cannot deny the fact that ANY country would do the exact same thing had it been capable of doing so. But since most countries were not capable of militarily resisting the Soviets to maintain independence, they turned to US and these odious but necessary associations gave you convenient clubs to hold over our heads this day, when you are free to do so. The irony cannot be more obvious -- That you condemn the one whose alliance helped secured your independence.

But you are welcome anyway.

 

[paritosh]

Are you saying that 'the crusade against communism' was a bad thing? As for US 'aggressive policies', we are 'aggressive' for what? Against whom? Saying that it is 'aggressive' means nothing. Details matter. Are we 'aggressive' for territorial gains? If so, can you tell US which countries have we forcibly annexed? Are we 'aggressive' for profits? If so, can you tell US which countries have we colonized and plundered natural resources back to continental US?

We do not kill 'in the name' of anything, whereas communists made no secret on why they kill, from Asia to the Americas, to expand communism. And if we go to war to protect 'democracy' and 'capitalism', our way of life, why is that a bad thing? First...We do not support despots precisely because they are despots. We supported petty despots during the Cold War because of political expediencies. Their independence from the communists were the highest priorities, not their purported claim to cherish democracy and capitalism. You cannot deny the fact that ANY country would do the exact same thing had it been capable of doing so. But since most countries were not capable of militarily resisting the Soviets to maintain independence, they turned to US and these odious but necessary associations gave you convenient clubs to hold over our heads this day, when you are free to do so.

War should be the last option for any country...yet the number of wars fought by the USA exceed those by any other nation..
after the WWII...many nations were experiencing popular revolutions...communism was seeping in...be it the case of Korea or vietnam...or china...or latin america...the USA intervened just to 'protect' the world from the wrath of communism.
It might sound nice to you..that your country had been championing the cause of the 'free world'....but many lives were lost....and most of these movements were initially not anti-america(well they were against their own capitalists...till the time the USA decided to manifest capitalism) and communism is not anti-democratic not at all..on the contrary..it is a movement by the people what can be more democratic than that?
you say that the USA supported some of the dictators for political expedience..eh?
where is the cause for democracy in that?
I understand that the whole idea is to be nice and that many nations don't understand your noble endeavors...it's just that meddling in another nation's matters at any point of time...even when the nation's rulers beg you to...would not leave a good impression on the people for years to come.
take Iran for example...under the Shah it was a staunch US ally...after the revolution things changed drastically...
the romantic notion of going to war to protect ideals and principles....spills human blood...and till the time you don't exterminate the entire population witnessing the carnage..you'd have some 'fanatics' remaining vowing to "give it back to America"...hence the suicide bombs and guerrilla attacks...it's a vicious cycle.
I must add that some wars are necessary...the attack on afghanistan had the world backing you...but the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary and as time proved, futile.

 

[paritosh]

The irony cannot be more obvious -- That you condemn the one whose alliance helped secured your independence.

But you are welcome anyway.

as far as our independence is concerned...there is no irony...it was the evil Germany of Hitler that we should be thankful to...neither Hitler's Germany nor the allies had the intention of going to war to champion the south-asian cause...no Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi owes anything to the USA or the allies.
America that time was one of the world's worst places for a non-white....I hope you agree to that.

 

[gambit]

War should be the last option for any country...yet the number of wars fought by the USA exceed those by any other nation..

That is debatable. But once again, you are implying without telling the readers the details I sought. War should be the last option...Yes, that is desirable. But even if it is true that US military involvements exceed those of 'other nation', why are you avoiding the question: 'What for?' For those whose soil the US touched, did they became US territories in some ways? Did we loot their natural resources and left their people starving and destitute? The Soviets did.

after the WWII...many nations were experiencing popular revolutions...communism was seeping in...be it the case of Korea or vietnam...or china...or latin america...the USA intervened just to 'protect' the world from the wrath of communism.

Again...Is opposing a clearly evil ideology a bad thing?

It might sound nice to you..that your country had been championing the cause of the 'free world'....but many lives were lost....and most of these movements were initially not anti-america(well they were against their own capitalists...till the time the USA decided to manifest capitalism) and communism is not anti-democratic not at all..on the contrary..it is a movement by the people what can be more democratic than that?

Buddy...I come from a country that when the communists were not yet in power, they killed anyone who opposed them. Violence is the trademark of communism. Why do you not defend those whose lives were lost in opposing communism in their own countries? Or are you disqualifying them as members of 'the people'? How convenient for you.

you say that the USA supported some of the dictators for political expedience..eh?
where is the cause for democracy in that?

You need to look up the definition of 'expedience'.

I understand that the whole idea is to be nice and that many nations don't understand your noble endeavors...it's just that meddling in another nation's matters at any point of time...even when the nation's rulers beg you to...would not leave a good impression on the people for years to come.

Right...So if the US 'meddle' in a country's affairs in response to Soviet aggression and if the result is the country remained independent, we should be condemned anyway. The way I see it, if YOU possess sufficient intelligence to gather data in order to condemn US, then in the interest of intellectual honesty, you should gather more data and do some thinking to see the why would the US, with all of its natural wealth back home and with an attitude of isolationism prior to WW II, decided to be active in global affairs after WW II.

take Iran for example...under the Shah it was a staunch US ally...after the revolution things changed drastically...
the romantic notion of going to war to protect ideals and principles....spills human blood...and till the time you don't exterminate the entire population witnessing the carnage..you'd have some 'fanatics' remaining vowing to "give it back to America"...hence the suicide bombs and guerrilla attacks...it's a vicious cycle.

Only 'some'? Why do you take the opinions of 'some' to be representative of the whole? What about those who, while do not like US, realized that their independence from Germany's, or Imperial Japan's, or Soviet's aggression, was the result of US willingness and capability to stand up against enemies that in hindsight were truly hostis humani? We do not want your obeisance. We want your money-making ability. We want your trade. We want your people to spend your money on our soil buying kitsch. I do not see Vietnamese terrorists going after the US, do you? Or how about Panamanian ones? Or how about Nicaraguan ones? Or how about German ones? Or how about Chilean ones? Those countries the US had involvements. And yet we see terrorists from the ME with a religious grudge and people like you taking their hostile attitude to be representative of the rest of the world.

I must add that some wars are necessary...the attack on afghanistan had the world backing you...but the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary and as time proved, futile.

Like it or not, we did the ME a huge favor by taking out Saddam Hussein. The muslims there know it. Their immaturity prevented them from effectively police each other so when Kuwait fell they had no choice but to cry 'Uncle Sam'.

 

[paritosh]

That is debatable. But once again, you are implying without telling the readers the details I sought. War should be the last option...Yes, that is desirable. But even if it is true that US military involvements exceed those of 'other nation', why are you avoiding the question: 'What for?' For those whose soil the US touched, did they became US territories in some ways? Did we loot their natural resources and left their people starving and destitute? The Soviets did.

well...let's start from a known fact...the USA has gone to war just to contain the spread of communism.
now are you asking me why is it necessary to contain communism?

I agree the USSR had also stuck to intervening and meddling in other country's affairs to seek the spread of communism...afghanistan being a classic case.
tell me why is the middle-east of such high importance to the USA?
Territorial gains are not the only stimuli to a war...oil is an indispensable resource...the endangering of the American oil interests in Kuwait was a reason to engage with Iraq.
and did America listen to Indira Gandhi when she pressed for American intervention in the east Pakistani atrocities?
like it or not...America fights for it's interests...and their is nothing wrong in that...but your saying that it's the pursuit of democracy and a free world is something that is arguable...your admitting the American support for friendly despots obviously goes against the claim of being there for democracy.

Again...Is opposing a clearly evil ideology a bad thing?

Buddy...I come from a country that when the communists were not yet in power, they killed anyone who opposed them. Violence is the trademark of communism. Why do you not defend those whose lives were lost in opposing communism in their own countries? Or are you disqualifying them as members of 'the people'? How convenient for you.

well people who kill people for whatsoever reasons are labeled murderers except when trying to protect themselves....you actually have summarized a lot of what I have posted previously...if you apply the same concept to the American wars against the spread of communism...you'd see that the 'evil' has rubbed on to you...it's like a witch hunt.
as far as communism being evil is concerned...have you noticed that the people who strive for communism are basically from the lower most strata of the fabric of the society?
the classic american hatred of communism has baffled me!
your country has arguably the smoothest running models of capitalism(some of the recent economic trends suggest otherwise...but it's a phase that'll pass)
there are other countries which had tremendous corruption and a very large population where the implementation of capitalism caused more problems than it solved...the capitalists will make money and even with govt. business guidelines and governing supervisory bodies...the corruption and large population result in the last man being over-burdened...in short there were these poor and very old third-world countries that needed socialism...which you went against...what was the reason to prevent the spread of communism to the "rest of the world"?

Right...So if the US 'meddle' in a country's affairs in response to Soviet aggression and if the result is the country remained independent, we should be condemned anyway.

no.Gambit...I guess I haven't been clear enough...
take for example the Indian intervention in east-pakistan...now we had a reason(the exodus of refugees was eating our limited resources and straining the very fragile economy...) and our cause was just(the atrocities were proven without doubt)
and the result was very favorable to the Bangladeshis...
yet we have mistrust...which you can even judge on this forum.
Howsoever 'just' and righteous be your cause...if the target country doesn't rise from the ashes on it's own and strive for economic growth like most modern nations...it would curse the 'invaders'.
Vietnam and Germany are the examples of countries doing good.

The way I see it, if YOU possess sufficient intelligence to gather data in order to condemn US, then in the interest of intellectual honesty, you should gather more data and do some thinking to see the why would the US, with all of its natural wealth back home and with an attitude of isolationism prior to WW II, decided to be active in global affairs after WW II.

I am actually not against America...it's just that I did not like your notion that America starts wars for the greater good...and for the protection of democracy...all wars have vested interests...and if the end-result garners democracy to the country in question...all's good....but saying that you have no vested interests and it's just the golden goal of shedding American blood to pull xyz country out of it's misery is not true.

Only 'some'? Why do you take the opinions of 'some' to be representative of the whole?

All of the Afghans would not have wanted 9/11.
It is the few who plot.
had Mullah Omar's Afghanistan handed OBL and his troupe to America..would bush have still invaded Afghanistan?

What about those who, while do not like US, realized that their independence from Germany's, or Imperial Japan's, or Soviet's aggression, was the result of US willingness and capability to stand up against enemies that in hindsight were truly hostis humani? We do not want your obeisance. We want your money-making ability. We want your trade. We want your people to spend your money on our soil buying kitsch.

we don't have someone doing a Nelson on Maynamar and north korea...which is intelligent...engage in dialogue..get the world opinion in your favor...if all fails...try even more.

I do not see Vietnamese terrorists going after the US, do you? Or how about Panamanian ones? Or how about Nicaraguan ones? Or how about German ones? Or how about Chilean ones? Those countries the US had involvements. And yet we see terrorists from the ME with a religious grudge and people like you taking their hostile attitude to be representative of the rest of the world.

yes, religion to blame partly...but had the Germans,the Vietnamese and the others doing bad...they'd have surely caught your attention.

Like it or not, we did the ME a huge favor by taking out Saddam Hussein. The muslims there know it. Their immaturity prevented them from effectively police each other so when Kuwait fell they had no choice but to cry 'Uncle Sam'.

where are the WMDs?
Saddam was a stupid fukc...he killed them Kurds...why didn't you punish him in 1991?
your goal wasn't to aid the mid-easterners in both the gulf wars...american interests were to be catered and then whadeva was left was to be managed so that no future Saddam or OBL takes power...i don't see anything wrong with this approach.