Chavez: The U.S. will bite the dust

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, that's not very nice at all.

Anyway, he's a strongman demagogue, the traditional sort of dictator that comes to power in South America.  Unless y'all think that ex-military officers in South America can really be trusted to run a fair election with competitive candidates.

[Lunar]

Good to see you in the International thread as always, Lunar.

If the forum was more active, I'd live here.  International Relations and Political Theory are my passions.

[Lunar]

BRTD, I've never seen you defend a non-socialist country or rebellion.   That's just a side-note.

Yeah, remember that massive lack of support for Chavez after that botched coup? Oh wait, no. Why it was largely massive demonstrations of support for Chavez that brought the coup down! I think facts of what actually happen is a better indicator than what a few Veneuzelan elites wealthy enough to travel to the US think.

And according to opinion polls, FARC has the support of about 5% of Colombia. Now if you are going to claim Chavez only has the support of 5% of Venezuelans, I'm just going to have to chuckle. Therefore such an insurgency would be much stronger, and while there wouldn't be as much funds from the drug trade, they also would have access to much weapons of the Venezuelan military, and probably would receive aid from all other left leaning governments in South America.

Remember too that a large portion of Venzuela is anti-Chavez  and oppressed at the moment.   This portion could easily be tapped for support in any hypothetical invasion.  There is significant opposition to Chavez, even if it is not the majority (I fear the majority of Venzuela is moderately apathetic).

Iraq lacked internal resistance, which is, in my humble opinion, the key reason why the country requires such a large troop commitment (Afghanistan, with a similar population and rougher terrain, requires far less for stability).

Regarding the other governments in South America, hah.   Brazil is far more interested in preserving American-Brazilian trade relations than simply spiting the USA by enforcing anti-American militia (with its own money).   You'll find ideology takes a back seat in this type of scenario.

Regarding Venzuela 'holding out in the South,' a slight hah.  Chavez's support, I believe, is in the easily attained cities.  Chavez doesn't have much love among the drug traffickers, since his military *tries* to knock them around a little bit.  FARC survives off of cocaine, I doubt pro-Chavez forces would be able to forage enough berries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's right-wing, heh.

We don't invade countries based upon their Freedom House scores, nor do we invade countries merely for being authoritarian.  In Singapore's case, we can be far more influential with economic and political pressure than dealing with the diplomatic mess that is an invasion.

I don't support an invasion of Venzuela, but you are wrong on a number of accounts.  I do support removing him from power if we're able.  Not just because of the human rights-abuses (as you said, we might invade Singapore or a host of other countries if that was the sole motivator), but rather because of its threat to the world economy, regional stability, and the regional narcotics problem.  I wouldn't even care if the democratically elected president who replaces him was also a socialist.

I think it would take about 1,000 troops and 6 months active support from an aircraft carrier for the country to be forcefully transitioned to a stable democracy.

[Lunar]

BRTD, I've never seen you defend a non-socialist country or rebellion.   That's just a side-note.

Have you seen what I've said about Northern Ireland? And you can add Taiwan to that.

I haven't seen either of those, heh.  My comment was just because you're always talking about the Nepalese Maoist, or socialist governments in Nicaraugua/Venzuela/wherever.  Regardless of the validity of the comments, I was just noting that you seem to have an infatuation with justifying communism/socialism to the point of ignoring just non-socialist regimes.

All this is a side note of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey that sounds kind of like Bush too. Oh wait, it could be said about every leader everywhere![/quote]

First of all, that sounds nothing like Bush unless you believe Bush is oppressing dissidents in this country.

Secondly, oh come on, surely you don't believe that if Russia and China invaded the United States that a huge portion of Democrats would side with them?  At best you're nitpicking and dodging my point.

My point was that the troop commitment becomes exponentially reduced if we have allies among the population (which even Chavez and you would probably admit due to the coup attempts and 'right-wing' dissidents).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh really? Was there some magical forcefield around Kurdish territory that kept Saddam out of it for 10 years?[/quote]

Huh?  I don't like to debate like a prick dude, but you're completely dodging my point again.  At best, you're nitpicking over an irrelevant detail.  I'd love for our discussion to be direct, but you got to look at what I'm trying to convey rather than simply cherrypick out a few words that you can disagree with and ignore everything else.

What I was talking about was that Afghanistan's territory lends itself to paramilitary operations and resistance.  This is why the Northern Alliance (our allies among the population) was able to exist for so long and why Osama could still be there now.   Not only does Iraq have millions less people, but Iraq is also relatively flat with the ONLY mountains being in the relatively sparsely populated area in the North that we never really had to invade.  My point was that the presence of the Northern Alliance [whatever you may have to say against them] allowed Afghanistan to be taken with a few thousand troops rather than hundreds of thousands.

If anything, your comment actually supports my point.  Notice how the Kurdish area was the easiest to stabilize?  Well, that's because the only real allies we had among the population were the Kurds, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And conservatives claim Chavez supports FARC. Doesn't this contradict?[/quote]

You would have caught me in the middle of a logical fallacy if I was a conservative (remember, I voted Kerry) AND you could somehow catagorize me so that I represent everyone who had a remotely similar ideology as me.  But I'm not, and you really can't. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is important to note that Chavez isn't really FARC's ally (we both agree that these imaginary conservatives are wrong, right?).   Unless they thought that they would have an easier time accessing the Venzuelan coast by supporting the hypothetical ex-Chavez forces, they would have no reason to ally with them.

FARC is a bunch of drug-lords trying to fly under the international radar.  They really don't have the capability to pose a serious challenge to the Colombian government, let alone the Venzuelan one.

I think it would take about 1,000 troops and 6 months active support from an aircraft carrier for the country to be forcefully transitioned to a stable democracy.

AHAHAHAHAAHA. Yeah, what's it taking in Iraq?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, you see, the two countries are..umm.. different?

Again, I would not support a military invasion of Venzuela for the forseeable future.  However, you overestimate the chances of a bunch of coastal cities that get their sustenance from a bunch of off-shore oil fields to be able to defend themselves in an unstable country.