Chavez: The U.S. will bite the dust

[ThePrezMex]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/09/chavez.invasion.ap/index.html

Just the most recent sample of Chavez's dementia. Hey BRTD, what do you say now? or would you like to be part of his revolutionary brigades?

[KillerPollo]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/09/chavez.invasion.ap/index.html

Just the most recent sample of Chavez's dementia. Hey BRTD, what do you say now? or would you like to be part of his revolutionary brigades?

Chavez is a bit out of his mind if he thinks the US is going to invade his ass!
Although I support his opinion on the matter, I at least, am smart enough as to not bad-mouth the military juggernaut! or behave like a child like A la Kim Jong Il

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Taken far out of context. He said that if the US were to invade Venezuela, it would lose. With the US so bogged down in Iraq, and considering the Venezuelan military is far superior to the Iraqi one (no 12 years of sanctions on it), and  the terrain in Venezuela is much better for defense, I have to say he's right.

Of course I doubt even Bush is dumb enough to invade Venezuela.

[KillerPollo]

Taken far out of context. He said that if the US were to invade Venezuela, it would lose. With the US so bogged down in Iraq, and considering the Venezuelan military is far superior to the Iraqi one (no 12 years of sanctions on it), and  the terrain in Venezuela is much better for defense, I have to say he's right.

Of course I doubt even Bush is dumb enough to invade Venezuela.

^^^^^

Yeah it'll be like 128736x worse than vietnam! and the US would still lose.
But what If venezuela WERE to invade the US? lol

[WalterMitty]

that despot needs to be relieved of his duties.

[ragnar]

that despot needs to be relieved of his duties.

Why is he a despot in your opinion?

[Blue Rectangle]

 

Taken far out of context. He said that if the US were to invade Venezuela, it would lose. With the US so bogged down in Iraq, and considering the Venezuelan military is far superior to the Iraqi one (no 12 years of sanctions on it), and  the terrain in Venezuela is much better for defense, I have to say he's right.

Of course I doubt even Bush is dumb enough to invade Venezuela.

Park a carrier group off his coast and control his offshore oil fields.  This would require very little of the resources used in Iraq or Afghanistan.  This would technically be an invasion and Chavez could do nothing to stop it.  I don't think Chavez would last long with that kind of embarrassment and with the U.S. in full control of his oil production.

[AuH2O]

that despot needs to be relieved of his duties.

with extreme prejudice

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/09/chavez.invasion.ap/index.html

Just the most recent sample of Chavez's dementia. Hey BRTD, what do you say now? or would you like to be part of his revolutionary brigades?

Chavez is a bit out of his mind if he thinks the US is going to invade his ass!
Although I support his opinion on the matter, I at least, am smart enough as to not bad-mouth the military juggernaut! or behave like a child like A la Kim Jong Il

Uhh, we already had a coup against him. Good thing it was unsuccessful.

[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.

[John Dibble]

Taken far out of context. He said that if the US were to invade Venezuela, it would lose. With the US so bogged down in Iraq, and considering the Venezuelan military is far superior to the Iraqi one (no 12 years of sanctions on it), and  the terrain in Venezuela is much better for defense, I have to say he's right.

Of course I doubt even Bush is dumb enough to invade Venezuela.

Park a carrier group off his coast and control his offshore oil fields.  This would require very little of the resources used in Iraq or Afghanistan.  This would technically be an invasion and Chavez could do nothing to stop it.  I don't think Chavez would last long with that kind of embarrassment and with the U.S. in full control of his oil production.

Not to mention you could send in air strikes with those carriers parked there.

[WMS]

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.

Good to see you in the International thread as always, Lunar. And Chavez is just a POS. We all do realize that it is Venezuelan oil keeping Castro's regime afloat and enabling it to become even more repressive, right?

Taken far out of context. He said that if the US were to invade Venezuela, it would lose. With the US so bogged down in Iraq, and considering the Venezuelan military is far superior to the Iraqi one (no 12 years of sanctions on it), and  the terrain in Venezuela is much better for defense, I have to say he's right.

Of course I doubt even Bush is dumb enough to invade Venezuela.

Park a carrier group off his coast and control his offshore oil fields.  This would require very little of the resources used in Iraq or Afghanistan.  This would technically be an invasion and Chavez could do nothing to stop it.  I don't think Chavez would last long with that kind of embarrassment and with the U.S. in full control of his oil production.

Not to mention you could send in air strikes with those carriers parked there.

Blue Rectangle and John Dibble get Neoconservative Medals of Appreciation.

[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.

[WMS]

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.

Cool. I float around all over the place, trying to keep up with any replies I need to make and all that.

[The Duke]

We'll bite the dust, eh?  You first, Hugo.

And we'd not have much trouble invading Venezuela if the army was not in Iraq.  The difficulty in Iraq comes from sectarianism, which does not exist in Venezuela, Islamism, which does not exist in Venezuela, and border states who back insurgents, which again do not exist in the Venezula example.

Most of the population is on the coast, and I'd assume most of the military too.  This means that we'd not have to deal much with the most difficult terrain to wage offensive war, which is in the interior.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We'll bite the dust, eh?  You first, Hugo.

And we'd not have much trouble invading Venezuela if the army was not in Iraq.  The difficulty in Iraq comes from sectarianism, which does not exist in Venezuela, Islamism, which does not exist in Venezuela, and border states who back insurgents, which again do not exist in the Venezula example.

Most of the population is on the coast, and I'd assume most of the military too.  This means that we'd not have to deal much with the most difficult terrain to wage offensive war, which is in the interior.

Wait, sectarianism is the problem in Iraq? We've united the Shia and Sunnis against us. Maybe try some other talking point?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

that despot needs to be relieved of his duties.

Would you support doing the same thing to Singapore, whose Freedom House scores are much worse? Do you really think Chavez is actually anywhere near one of the most repressive rulers in the world? Conservative obssession with him is quite bizarre.

We all do realize that it is Venezuelan oil keeping Castro's regime afloat and enabling it to become even more repressive, right?

Castro handled fine for 40 years before Chavez came around, he's obviously not the only thing keeping him in power now. As the Bush admin props up much worse dictators than Castro Chavez's friendliness with him doesn't bother me at all. Better him than the Saudis.

We'll bite the dust, eh? You first, Hugo.

And we'd not have much trouble invading Venezuela if the army was not in Iraq. The difficulty in Iraq comes from sectarianism, which does not exist in Venezuela, Islamism, which does not exist in Venezuela, and border states who back insurgents, which again do not exist in the Venezula example.

Most of the population is on the coast, and I'd assume most of the military too. This means that we'd not have to deal much with the most difficult terrain to wage offensive war, which is in the interior.

And the people of Venezuela would just accept the US occupying it? Uh, no. The jungle is perfect for guerilla warfare, which is where all the resistance will come from, and it'd be a hell of a lot tougher to beat than the Iraqis. Colombia hasn't even been able to wipe out FARC after more than 30 years, and any Venezuelan resistance would be much higher.

But it's all moot, because the American public would never tolerate the invasion of another Christian country. Regardless, I can hardly blame Chavez for being pissed at Bush. I just want to know why conservatives are so obsessed with the guy, considering he doesn't even have a Not Free score from Freedom House.

[The Duke]

We'll bite the dust, eh? You first, Hugo.

And we'd not have much trouble invading Venezuela if the army was not in Iraq. The difficulty in Iraq comes from sectarianism, which does not exist in Venezuela, Islamism, which does not exist in Venezuela, and border states who back insurgents, which again do not exist in the Venezula example.

Most of the population is on the coast, and I'd assume most of the military too. This means that we'd not have to deal much with the most difficult terrain to wage offensive war, which is in the interior.

Wait, sectarianism is the problem in Iraq? We've united the Shia and Sunnis against us. Maybe try some other talking point?

Since when are the Shia and Sunnis united?  Only yesterday you were arguing the opposite, that whether an Iraqi sect voted or not determined its support for the US occupation, and then cited low Sunni turnout as evidence that the Sunnis disliked us, and by implication that we supported the Shia side.  Consistency, anyone?

that despot needs to be relieved of his duties.

Would you support doing the same thing to Singapore, whose Freedom House scores are much worse? Do you really think Chavez is actually anywhere near one of the most repressive rulers in the world? Conservative obssession with him is quite bizarre.

We all do realize that it is Venezuelan oil keeping Castro's regime afloat and enabling it to become even more repressive, right?

Castro handled fine for 40 years before Chavez came around, he's obviously not the only thing keeping him in power now. As the Bush admin props up much worse dictators than Castro Chavez's friendliness with him doesn't bother me at all. Better him than the Saudis.

We'll bite the dust, eh? You first, Hugo.

And we'd not have much trouble invading Venezuela if the army was not in Iraq. The difficulty in Iraq comes from sectarianism, which does not exist in Venezuela, Islamism, which does not exist in Venezuela, and border states who back insurgents, which again do not exist in the Venezula example.

Most of the population is on the coast, and I'd assume most of the military too. This means that we'd not have to deal much with the most difficult terrain to wage offensive war, which is in the interior.

And the people of Venezuela would just accept the US occupying it? Uh, no. The jungle is perfect for guerilla warfare, which is where all the resistance will come from, and it'd be a hell of a lot tougher to beat than the Iraqis. Colombia hasn't even been able to wipe out FARC after more than 30 years, and any Venezuelan resistance would be much higher.

But it's all moot, because the American public would never tolerate the invasion of another Christian country. Regardless, I can hardly blame Chavez for being pissed at Bush. I just want to know why conservatives are so obsessed with the guy, considering he doesn't even have a Not Free score from Freedom House.

There is no direct parallel to FARC in Venzuela, since the FARC is funded by the drug trade.  The drug trade is not absent from Venezuela, but it is not anywhere near as central as in Columbia.  As someone who knows some Venezuelans personally, I have to say that the suggestion that the US would not be welcome and that resistance to the US would be stronger than FARC is in Columbia can't be taken entirely seriously.

So we'd never invade a Christian country?  Like, oh, Serbia?  Nice one.  As Naso says, you need to have a talk with Archie Bunker.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

The US did not invade Serbia. How many American soldiers marched into Belgrade?

You still didn't explain the obssession conservatives have with a guy who doesn't even have an NF score from Freedom House. Invading Singapore would make much more sense.

[Blue Rectangle]

The US did not invade Serbia. How many American soldiers marched into Belgrade?

Uh, Kosovo was part of Serbia.  Actually, it still is.  We put troops in Kosovo, so yes, we invaded Serbia.  So what if we didn't march on the capital?  That's like saying Germany didn't invade France in WWI because they didn't reach Paris.

If the bombing campaign against Serbia wasn't invasion, they maybe we should not invade Venezuela for a few months in the same manner.  After all, what's the use of having the world's best military when you don't get to use them?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

After all, what's the use of having the world's best military when you don't get to use them?

wow, what a great attitude. Hitler and Stalin probably had the same one, which is why they decided to use it. But it is being used now: in Iraq. Not much of a success there!

Oh and the US campaign in Serbia was part of a NATO operation. There obviously would be no such operation here, and it wouldn't even be like Iraq because we wouldn't even have Britain and the UK this time. You think most Americans would want to waste tax dollars bombing a non-Muslim country because the President said mean things about the US? Uh yeah.

You want to bomb Venezuela and kill thousands of civilians because you don't like some comments their president made and you just want to use the military. You sicken me.

[Blue Rectangle]

After all, what's the use of having the world's best military when you don't get to use them?

wow, what a great attitude. Hitler and Stalin probably had the same one, which is why they decided to use it. But it is being used now: in Iraq. Not much of a success there!

Oh and the US campaign in Serbia was part of a NATO operation. There obviously would be no such operation here, and it wouldn't even be like Iraq because we wouldn't even have Britain and the UK this time. You think most Americans would want to waste tax dollars bombing a non-Muslim country because the President said mean things about the US? Uh yeah.

You want to bomb Venezuela and kill thousands of civilians because you don't like some comments their president made and you just want to use the military. You sicken me.

I sicken you with that quote?  Oh, I'm sorry.

Completely off-topic, here's a picture of a fish:


Anyway, back on subject now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well I always though Albright was a little nuts anyway.

[opebo]

The best advice for Chavez is to aquire nuclear weapons - they are requisite for survival if you wish to be independent of the Empire.

[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.