Chavez: The U.S. will bite the dust

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

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).

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

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).

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

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.

And conservatives claim Chavez supports FARC. Doesn't this contradict?

Anti-Chavez terrorists, the AUV, United Self Defense Forces of Venezuela have ties to the AUC, FARC's arch-enemy. That's about the only armed resistance to Chavez you got, and they'd support occupation, but they are quite small and nowhere near as powerful as FARC or AUC. So no doubt FARC would back resistance, and in this case they would be in the right, as they are simply trying to throw out the occupiers who are backed by people tied to their archenemies who are far worse (AUC are responsible for more than 70% of civilian casualties in Colombia)

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?

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

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?

OK, maybe they're not really best friends, but crazies everywhere believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they seem to be allied for the moment.

[Blue Rectangle]

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?

OK, maybe they're not really best friends, but crazies everywhere believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they seem to be allied for the moment.

So you admit that Saddam and bin Laden were allies?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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).

hey guess what, lots of people in Iraq didn't like Saddam either! (for rather obvious reasons)

As for if Russia or China invaded the US, no, because those are dictatorships, however if Canada invaded the US and could possibly take over (a ridiculous hypothetical but so is any invasion of the US) and Bush was still in office, I'd support Canada. And so would most people on DU, judging from a thread I saw.

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.

but the AUV, the anti-Chavez armed resistance, is still very small. ANd they are really just the Venezuelan wing of the AUC, so I really hope no conservative honestly would support allying with them, since Chavez doesn't kill union leaders, human rights activists, or assault and threaten teachers are schools that teach "class warfare". Even you can't deny that AUC is worse than Chavez. There's also the fact that the State Department designates AUC as a terrorist group.

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. 

then what's your problem with him? That he supports FARC is the only valid criticism of him I've ever heard.

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.

As of now, no. But it isn't neccesarily "pro-Chavez" people who'd be putting up the resistance, just as most of the insurgency in Iraq is not neccesarily pro-Saddam. And Chavez himself might change his positions to get back into power, which I would support as he would be illegal removed by an imperal power in this case accepting support from terrorist groups. And of course FARC would have interests in here, why wouldn't they want to get rid of him a government friendly to the AUC?

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

Because one is a dictatorship and the other isn't, and thus the people in the non-dictatorship will be much more resentful.

[AuH2O]

Let BRTD be. He believes in silly fantasies where socialism "works" and power-hungry rebels playing communist are staffed by "hot" peasant women, fighting for the right to prostitution around the world.

He is less focused on such things as... economic law... the tendency for social conservativism in socialist/communist states, and so on.

[WMS]

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.

Actually, you underestimate just how much damn oil Chavez is giving Castro. This replaces the need for tourism revenue or for even the tiny bits of private enterprise Castro has previously allowed. Chavez is keeping the Cuban government's coffers full and thus keeping the repression ramped up.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But Castro survived for 40 years before that. It's not necesary.

And the same could be said for the US and the Saudis.

P.S. The New People's Army are holding marriages for gay rebels in their ranks. Not socially conservative.

[John Dibble]

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

Because one is a dictatorship and the other isn't, and thus the people in the non-dictatorship will be much more resentful.

Well, for one thing, one has lots more fundamentalist Muslims in it. I'd think that would have been very obvious to you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

Because one is a dictatorship and the other isn't, and thus the people in the non-dictatorship will be much more resentful.

Well, for one thing, one has lots more fundamentalist Muslims in it. I'd think that would have been very obvious to you.

The insurgency in Iraq is not mostly fundamentalist, but rather ex-regime elements, who are obviously not since Saddam was no friend to them.

And Venezuela does have lots of socialists and communists, who'd be just as much of a problem.

[Blue Rectangle]

But Castro survived for 40 years before that. It's not necesary.

And the same could be said for the US and the Saudis.

No.

The Soviets supplied Castro with below-market-price oil for 30 of those 40 years.  Cuba suffered badly when the Soviet subsidy was removed.

And no, the same cannot be said of the Saudis, because they certainly do not sell oil to the U.S. at far below market prices.

[AuH2O]

But Castro survived for 40 years before that. It's not necesary.

And the same could be said for the US and the Saudis.

P.S. The New People's Army are holding marriages for gay rebels in their ranks. Not socially conservative.

Looks like we need a center for kids that can't read good. I said once in power. i.e. USSR, China, Vietnam, etc.

[WMS]

But Castro survived for 40 years before that. It's not necesary.

And the same could be said for the US and the Saudis.

No.

The Soviets supplied Castro with below-market-price oil for 30 of those 40 years.  Cuba suffered badly when the Soviet subsidy was removed.

And no, the same cannot be said of the Saudis, because they certainly do not sell oil to the U.S. at far below market prices.

What the Blue Rectangle said.

[The Duke]

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

Because one is a dictatorship and the other isn't, and thus the people in the non-dictatorship will be much more resentful.

Well, for one thing, one has lots more fundamentalist Muslims in it. I'd think that would have been very obvious to you.

The insurgency in Iraq is not mostly fundamentalist, but rather ex-regime elements, who are obviously not since Saddam was no friend to them.

And Venezuela does have lots of socialists and communists, who'd be just as much of a problem.

It has already been repeatedly established that Saddam wasa  friend of Islamists.  Here's a picture of a check his government wrote funding Palestinian suicide bombers, who I assure you aren't secular.



It has also alread been established not 24 hours ago by myself in the General politics thread that most of the insurgents, particularly the insurgent leadership is in fact Islamist.

Why do you persist in basing your arguments on things that are so overwhel mingly discredited?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But Castro survived for 40 years before that. It's not necesary.

And the same could be said for the US and the Saudis.

P.S. The New People's Army are holding marriages for gay rebels in their ranks. Not socially conservative.

Looks like we need a center for kids that can't read good. I said once in power. i.e. USSR, China, Vietnam, etc.

Except that East Germany's abortion laws were much less restrictive than West Germany's, and Poland had much less restrictive abortion laws under the communist regime than now.

It has already been repeatedly established that Saddam wasa  friend of Islamists.  Here's a picture of a check his government wrote funding Palestinian suicide bombers, who I assure you aren't secular.

Which is why on the eve of the invasion Osama sent a message calling it a conflict between "two great infidels" and calling upon the Iraqis to oust Saddam themselves. Which is also why his archenemy in the region was Iran. Yeah, those Islamists loved Saddam.

I obviously can't see who that check is made out to, but there are plenty of secular Palestinean terrorist organizations, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine being most prominent. So I don't buy you're assurance that they neccesarily aren't secular. And yes, secular terrorist groups have committed suicide bombings before, unless you think the Tamil Tigers and Kurdistan Workers Party are Islamist.

And the primary reason Arab countries back Palestinean terrorists is not religious but that they hate Israel for reasons that has little to do with religion. The military regime in Egypt that attacked Israel during the Six Day War was very secular and suffered much trouble from Islamists as wel.

[dazzleman]

Castro handled fine for 40 years before Chavez came around.

Not really.  It was the Soviets who massively propped up Castro for 3 decades. 

Conditions in Cuba got markedly worse when they lost their Soviet sponsorship in the early 1990s.  So I don't think it's fair to say that Castro survived on his own for 40 years.

[The Duke]

But Castro survived for 40 years before that. It's not necesary.

And the same could be said for the US and the Saudis.

P.S. The New People's Army are holding marriages for gay rebels in their ranks. Not socially conservative.

Looks like we need a center for kids that can't read good. I said once in power. i.e. USSR, China, Vietnam, etc.

Except that East Germany's abortion laws were much less restrictive than West Germany's, and Poland had much less restrictive abortion laws under the communist regime than now.

It has already been repeatedly established that Saddam wasa  friend of Islamists.  Here's a picture of a check his government wrote funding Palestinian suicide bombers, who I assure you aren't secular.

Which is why on the eve of the invasion Osama sent a message calling it a conflict between "two great infidels" and calling upon the Iraqis to oust Saddam themselves. Which is also why his archenemy in the region was Iran. Yeah, those Islamists loved Saddam.

I obviously can't see who that check is made out to, but there are plenty of secular Palestinean terrorist organizations, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine being most prominent. So I don't buy you're assurance that they neccesarily aren't secular. And yes, secular terrorist groups have committed suicide bombings before, unless you think the Tamil Tigers and Kurdistan Workers Party are Islamist.

And the primary reason Arab countries back Palestinean terrorists is not religious but that they hate Israel for reasons that has little to do with religion. The military regime in Egypt that attacked Israel during the Six Day War was very secular and suffered much trouble from Islamists as wel.

Of course you can't read the check, its in Arabic.  The point is that photographic proof shows that they exist and that Saddam did fund terrorism, despite your reepeated false claims that he didn't.

As for funding only secular suicide bombers, a laughable suggestion!  Saddam gave large sums of cash to Hamas, which is not secular, and we can document this without much trouble.  Furthermore, the cash from Saddam was not to only a group or collection of groups of Palestinian bombers, it was to each and every bomber.  Here is a quote from Tariq Aziz: “President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,”.

Osama can issue a Fatwa if he wishes, but he took Saddam's money when offered and he took Saddam's shelter for his factions when offered, deeds matter more than words, and Osama's deeds speak louder than a thousand video taped messages ever could.

As for Iran, Saddam hated the iranians because they are Persian and not Arab.  It doesn't have much to do with religion, in any case Saddam was Sunni and the Ayatollah was Shi'a, so even in a case where Saddam was opposed to Iran on religious grounds (which he wasn't) he'd still not have to do it on grounds of secularism vs. religion.  It would be a straight Sunni-Shi'a divide.

The Nasser regime did not suffer too much trouble from Islamists.  It was not until after the Camp David Accords that Islamists began seriously trying to undermine the secular government.

[A18]

Just nuke him.