Chavez wants war

jonny72

"Let's not waste a day on our main aim: to prepare for war and to help the people prepare for war, because it is everyone's responsibility," - Chavez on his TV/Radio talk show.

Lets see..

He has been building up his military at an alarming rate.

He appears on TV/Radio day and night.

He scapegoats all his countries woes and problems on the US.

He apparently thinks the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it (Hitler)

So it has begun..

I defended the guy at first because I believed he genuinely wanted to change the country for the good, but all the rightwingers who argued against me were seemingly right, he's just another megalomaniac trying to dress it up otherwise.

drunkmonkey

Well with neighbours like his you can hardly blame the guy for wanting to be prepared

RedPlanet

jonny72 wrote: »

"Let's not waste a day on our main aim: to prepare for war and to help the people prepare for war, because it is everyone's responsibility," - Chavez on his TV/Radio talk show.

Yeah, nothing like quoting someone without any context.

Two Venezuelan soldiers shot in latest border tension

Gunmen have killed two Venezuelan soldiers near the border with Colombia in the latest incident fueling tensions between the Andean neighbors, Caracas said on Tuesday.

A gang of four men on motorbikes ambushed the two soldiers at a checkpoint in Venezuela's western state of Tachira where Colombian rebels, paramilitary militia on both sides and drug-trafficking groups all operate.

The killings of the soldiers was the latest in a string of incidents on the border, including arrests on both sides, and the discovery of 10 corpses of men whom Venezuela said were mainly Colombian paramilitaries.
http://www.reuters.com/article/americasCrisis/idUSN03484996

There's obviously a lot going on in the region.

OldJay

jonny72 wrote: »

He scapegoats all his countries woes and problems on the US

Do you think he is paranoid to do this?

diverdriver

He scapegoats all his countries woes and problems on the US.

I'm afraid that's pretty standard with oppressive and potentially oppressive regimes and with dictatorships which is essentially what he aims to achieve. Find a scapegoat country to blame and try to get your people to unite in fear against the imagined or sometimes real potential aggressor.

Iran does it, remember the protests after the rigged election. They tried to blame the Brits for organising the protests rather than admit their own people were onto them. The lack of an American embassy meant that the British were focussed on. Naturally they've been scapegoating the Americans and Israelis for years. Then there's North Korea and Cuba of course. Certainly Cuba has some justification. But NK is a classic for paranoia. The Arab countries generally use Israel, it keeps the people from realising the real reason they're poor. We have the Brits too of course. A lot of people in this country go on an on about how terribly the Brits treated us which is convenient for successive incompetent Irish governments who if anything were worse. Until the current lot that is, we can't blame the Brits anymore!

stevedublin

diverdriver wrote: »

The Arab countries generally use Israel, it keeps the people from realising the real reason they're poor.

Which is?

Manic Moran

He apparently thinks the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it

In fairness, that one I agree with. Si vic pacem, para bellum.

NTM

Zynks

RedPlanet wrote: »

There's obviously a lot going on in the region.

To me it is obvious that American activity has a lot to do with this tension. They (US) are loosing their influence in their own backyard, and they don't like that.

I just hope they don't go back to doing what they did in the 60's and 70's like promoting/sponsoring coups and sending CIA agents to train how to torture political prisoners.

OS119

stevedublin wrote: »

Which is?

kleptocratic, oppressive governments?

ANarcho-Munk

Zynks wrote: »

To me it is obvious that American activity has a lot to do with this tension. They (US) are loosing their influence in their own backyard, and they don't like that.

I just hope they don't go back to doing what they did in the 60's and 70's like promoting/sponsoring coups and sending CIA agents to train how to torture political prisoners.

...all the way back to the 60's? Try 2002 mate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

There are quite strong allegations of US involvement in that coup,
but thankfully it turned out to be a complete failure.

An RTE documentary team happened to be filming at the time of the coup, you can watch it all for free (!!!) here: http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=97

It's awesome.

Zynks

It is a very good documentary alright, in spite of all the controversy.

Thing is that in the case of Venezuela '02, the US piggy backed more than anything. In the 60's and 70's, they actively pursued the removal of all governments that were perceived to have left-wing inclination, even if they were democratically elected.

In recent years we have seen a resurgence of left wing governments in Latin America, and undermining them might seem attractive. The Colombian president has already said they will not make any "acts of war", but the US knows that by sending troops in to 'fight the narcotraffic', they will cause a lot of discomfort and tension in the region.

Sand

Yeah, man of the people elected on a populist manifesto after having tried to sieze power by force a few years back. Concentrates power by clearing away "corrupt" structures and institutions. Launches tirades against enemies within and without, calling on people to be ready for war (of defence of course). Begins a programme of re-armament and starts threatening neighbouring countries, aiding dissidents and militias.

Sympathisers in western countries assure us we need to understand the context of his actions, that hes justified and is actually a really nice guy.

Chavez is a clown, but I reckon he is without doubt the most dangerous threat to peace and liberty in that neck of the woods with his desperation to distract from the failure of his regime.

brianthebard

Didn't you support the recent coup in Honduras Sand? How is what the new rightist 'government' there different from Chavez re:clearing away structures? Apart from the obvious repression happening in Honduras of course.

johnathan woss

brianthebard wrote: »

Didn't you support the recent coup in Honduras Sand? How is what the new rightist 'government' there different from Chavez re:clearing away structures? Apart from the obvious repression happening in Honduras of course.

So you think the repression in Venezuela isn't obvious Brian ?

A Dub in Glasgo

jonny72 wrote: »

He apparently thinks the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it (Hitler)

US, UK, France, Israel? The nuclear 'deterrent'?

Pride Fighter

jonny72 wrote: »

"Let's not waste a day on our main aim: to prepare for war and to help the people prepare for war, because it is everyone's responsibility," - Chavez on his TV/Radio talk show.

Lets see..

He has been building up his military at an alarming rate.

He appears on TV/Radio day and night.

He scapegoats all his countries woes and problems on the US.

He apparently thinks the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it (Hitler)

So it has begun..

I defended the guy at first because I believed he genuinely wanted to change the country for the good, but all the rightwingers who argued against me were seemingly right, he's just another megalomaniac trying to dress it up otherwise.

Chavez is not stupid enough do go to war. The Colombian army is at least twice the size with much better equiptment. I have heard it said the Colombian army would wipe the floor with Ecuador and Venezuela combined.

stevedublin

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I have heard it said the Colombian army would wipe the floor with Ecuador and Venezuela combined.

Talk is cheap, they cant even take down a few local drug dealers without the help of the US.

OS119

stevedublin wrote: »

Talk is cheap, they cant even take down a few local drug dealers without the help of the US.

fighting - and winning - against an insurgency (and Columbia's drug war is an insurgency), is both very different and much harder that fighting a conventional war. inability to do the first does not indicate inability to do the second.

Chavez may have bought some shiny toys, but he doesn't have the conventional combat power of the Columbians by any stretch of the imagination.

Dannyboy83

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

An RTE documentary team happened to be filming at the time of the coup, you can watch it all for free (!!!) here: http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=97

Thank you for posting that, that was a fantastic documentary.
A must watch!

Post up or PM me any other good documentary links you have please,
Thanks

Sand

@BriantheBard

Didn't you support the recent coup in Honduras Sand? How is what the new rightist 'government' there different from Chavez re:clearing away structures? Apart from the obvious repression happening in Honduras of course.

Yes, as I discussed at lenth on the relevant thread. It was hardly a coup when the removal of the regime was ordered by the Supreme Court in line with the consitution, and the interim leaders were from the former Presidents party and appointed in line with constitutional requirements. The only thing done that was anti-constitutional in the Honduras case was that he was exiled. His removal from power was perfectly constitutional and shouldnt be described as a coup.

Just because people want to live in a constitutional liberal democracy doesnt mean theyre going to be pussies about stopping populists exploiting the freedoms offered by liberal democracy so that they can remove them for everyone else.

I dont blame Hondurans for resisting Zelayas urge to drag down the path of populism and erosion of their constitution to benefit Zelaya. Chavez has dragged Venezeula down that path, destroying any constitutional check on his power and reducing democracy there to personality driven referendums and is now clowning about banning golf courses, ranting and raving about enemies within and without the country and threatening war with neighbouring countries. Anything to distract the mob from the failure of his regime now the oil revenues are gone and hes got to run an actual economy as opposed to simply sell black gold at record prices.

jonny72

I have no doubt the Americans are meddling, I have no doubt that his military is not quite sufficient to take on the Columbian military, and I have no doubt that as a few people here have pointed out that the best way to avoid war is to have a deterrent.

But, its the pattern, that certain combination that Chavez is following that is alarming. His words, his speeches, they are mimicking something else, and I for one am noticing more and more he is becoming a little besotted with this glass wave of patriotism he is perched on. As time goes on I think we'll see many more words, phrases, talk and soon actions that belie less a leader more of a despot. Who here wouldn't be surprised if he is still in power in 20 years?

Manic Moran

OS119 wrote: »

Chavez may have bought some shiny toys, but he doesn't have the conventional combat power of the Columbians by any stretch of the imagination.

He's bought the wrong kind of shiny toys. Perfect for expeditionary fighting, kindof like Cuba got involved in a couple of decades ago. Not much use against Colombia.

NTM

FlutterinBantam

You see several examples of this sabre rattling all over the world, Iran, Iraq, before someone put manners on them, Zimbabwe, Uganda under Obote,to name a few.

All have the same pattern, some corrupt individual takes power under the socialist left guise as "the people's saviour" and then gets a whiff of power and finds he likes it, and wants to hold on to it

This is what Chavez is up to, hold onto power by trying to raise his profile in the hope that some misguided fools will think he has the capability to be a major power in the region.

Doesn't fool this poster, have seen it all before.

RedPlanet

In fairness Colombia seems like a pretty corrupt and divisive country. Probably wouldn't take much to de-stabilise and demoralize their armed forces by providing weapons to one group, while agitating the other.
Lots of in-fighting potential there.

FTA69

Colombia isn't some sort of powerhouse, it is a massively destabilised country propped up with US aid and military hardware, interestingly enough Colombia has more 'displaced people' than Iraq and has the second highest rate in the world (Sudan has the most). Personally as a socialist I don't view Chavez as some sort of messianic saviour, in most cases the "Big Man" syndrome simply leads to corruption etc. That having been said, the reality of the situation is that within Venezuela Chavez isn't some sort of all-controlling figure, rather the figurehead of a very large and popular grassroots movement which is something much deeper and much more amorphous than Hugo Chavez.

Is he arming the populace and certain militias? Of course he is, and rightly so. The USA and the Venezuelan elite but a few years ago sponsored a military coup against the government, and the likes of Chile remains a very poignant memory in the minds of Latin Americans, even if liberal Westerners tend to brush over it. This isn't a case of mad leftists going off on one, because the threat from the right is very real.

dattley

diverdriver wrote: »

I'm afraid that's pretty standard with oppressive and potentially oppressive regimes and with dictatorships which is essentially what he aims to achieve.

It would interest me greatly to see you attempt to back up this statement.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

@BriantheBard


Yes, as I discussed at lenth on the relevant thread. It was hardly a coup when the removal of the regime was ordered by the Supreme Court in line with the consitution, and the interim leaders were from the former Presidents party and appointed in line with constitutional requirements. The only thing done that was anti-constitutional in the Honduras case was that he was exiled. His removal from power was perfectly constitutional and shouldnt be described as a coup.

It was not ordered by the Supreme Court in the manner you suggest, and it has been proven beyond doubt that it was a coup.

Sand wrote: »

I dont blame Hondurans for resisting Zelayas urge to drag down the path of populism and erosion of their constitution to benefit Zelaya.

Hondurans have been resisting the illegal coupmongers and have been brutally repressed by the army because of it. Several people have been killed by the new illegal government.

brianthebard

Also, on the colombia issue, going to war with Venezuela would not be a smart move for them either considering the existence of FARC and other militias in the country. Directing a war away from those groups only offers them the incentive.

diverdriver

stevedublin wrote: »

Which is?

OS119 wrote: »

kleptocratic, oppressive governments?

Sums it up, thanks OS119. Steve, I hope you don't need me to educate you as to the kind of typical enough regimes that exist in Saudi, Syria etc.

Dattely

It would interest me greatly to see you attempt to back up this statement.

Well let's see, he managed to get term limits removed so he can go on an on in office until he decides he has enough. He is gradually stifling the opposition and private media to ensure only his message can get through thus helping ensure his continued re-election because only his message will get through to the people.

Given his actions so far, even if he was voted out of office, he would probably declare the election void or pull a stunt not unlike the Iranians did last time or Mugabe did previously. Democracy if fine for these people as long as it produces the right result. He is playing the democracy game as long as it suits him. When the votes go against him, do you really expect him to tamely go into retirement to write his memoirs? He has a strong affinity with Castro and Cuba. Fifty years later, there's still a Castro in power in Cuba.

You can see where this is heading.

FTA69

Well let's see, he managed to get term limits removed so he can go on an on in office until he decides he has enough.

Or until people vote him out, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good yarn. Here in this country we have a system where someone can be Taoiseach an unlimited number of times, does that mean the shadow of a dictator is looming over Leinster House?

He is gradually stifling the opposition and private media to ensure only his message can get through thus helping ensure his continued re-election because only his message will get through to the people.

Complete crap. The whole TV station issue has been latched onto by the right and elevated out of all proportion. The vast majority of the private media is anti-Chavez, and some stations supported the illegal coup against the government. What Chavez did was refuse to renew one particular station's broadcast license; he isn't shutting down papers and radio stations left, right and centre.

Not to mention the bigger question of who owns this private media and whose interests does it serve.

MysticalRain

Chavez is just another Latin American megalomaniac and a disgrace to the ideals of socialism. A war with Colombia would be a disaster that would likely lead to the end of his government. The Colombian military is much better equipped than the Venezuelan military, far less corrupt, and much more competent due to recent (and mostly successful) combat experience against FARC and ELN.

meathstevie

stevedublin wrote: »

Talk is cheap, they cant even take down a few local drug dealers without the help of the US.

Do they have the motivation to take them down ? Not all so called narco-terrorists in Colombia are "lefties" either you know and business is business.

RedPlanet

MysticalRain wrote: »

The Colombian military is much better equipped than the Venezuelan military, far less corrupt, and much more competent due to recent (and mostly successful) combat experience against FARC and ELN.

It's funny actually. Colombia just handed over 7 or 8 army bases to the US. This all seems so eerily familar... are you sure you're not talking about the government of S. Vietnam?
You know, better equipped, getting loads of US help....

MysticalRain

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's funny actually. Colombia just handed over 7 or 8 army bases to the US. This all seems so eerily familar... are you sure you're not talking about the government of S. Vietnam?
You know, better equipped, getting loads of US help....

The US has bases in dozens of countries, and provides military support to just as many. Not all of them resemble South Vietnam in the 1960s. Certainly not one that's run by a reasonably popular, democratically elected government which is doing a competent job of running the country by Latin American standards. And the Colombian government is actually winning their war, unlike the South Vietnamese.

RedPlanet

It's not all one way traffic

BOGOTA, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Nine Colombian soldiers were killed when their post was attacked by Marxist FARC guerrillas in a southwestern part of the country.

Question for Sands.

Uribe, whose father was killed in a botched FARC kidnapping in 1983, is a hero to many for his tough anti-FARC stance. He may run for a third term if his backers succeed in amending the constitution to allow him to stand in the May election.

The law already was changed once to allow Uribe to win a second term in 2006. The rebels traditionally step up attacks ahead of elections

I presume that this carry-on puts Uribe firmly in the dictatorship camp right?

Soldie

MysticalRain wrote: »

Chavez is just another Latin American megalomaniac and a disgrace to the ideals of socialism.

Countries seem to have a habit of descending into tyrannies whenever they switch to socialism. Funny that.

brianthebard

Soldie wrote: »

Countries seem to have a habit of descending into tyrannies whenever they switch to socialism. Funny that.

Why is Chavez a tyrant? Because you say so?

jonny72

Soldie wrote: »

Countries seem to have a habit of descending into tyrannies whenever they switch to socialism. Funny that.

Socialist compared to what though? I am not clear on the exact definition. To many in the US, countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway are very socialist countries..

The Saint

Soldie wrote: »

Countries seem to have a habit of descending into tyrannies whenever they switch to socialism. Funny that.

I think you'll find that historically the most repressive regimes in Latin America have been right wing, often military, dictatorships.

FTA69

MysticalRain wrote: »

The Colombian military is far less corrupt, .

It is in its arse, the Colombian military is one of the most corrupt in the world, with huge participation in the drug trade amongst its officer class. The Colombian Army could give some of the crowd in Africa a run for its money in the corruption stakes.

nesf

As much as I dislike Chavez as a perfect example of what's wrong with Big Man Socialism and how it just doesn't work, he's got a fecking border with Columbia, so being worried about border security is fair enough.

That said, as Manic Moran pointed out, he's not building a force to deal with the problems he'd face in Columbia. He's building a fairly traditional army, which honestly would be the last thing you'd want to bring into Columbia to deal with the groups there. He's either getting really bad military advice or he's building an army for a different purpose (quite possibly merely a morale building exercise and mightn't have anything to do with potential invasions abroad). The army might also be needed for internal security, Chavez was funding very large public programs off bumper oil revenues during the boom and that's disappeared pretty much and there might be some unrest we're not hearing about.

nesf

jonny72 wrote: »

Socialist compared to what though? I am not clear on the exact definition. To many in the US, countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway are very socialist countries..

There are people in the US who'd consider our minimally mixed economy as being very socialist. It's all shades of grey, though I'd think you'd find it hard to find someone sensible that doesn't think Chavez is more of a socialist than a capitalist.

jonny72

People are always scrabbling over whether its because of socialism or communism or capitalism.. it doesn't matter.. these are just power hungry ruthless men confined by the constraints of their countries and their political systems.

Create a hypothetically perfect political ideology and there particular sorts of men will always find a way to twist/manipulate it so they can get as close to total power as they can. The best model right now for avoiding this is democracy, its not perfect but its the best we have.

Chavez couldn't get away with half the crap he does if he was the head of Norway, but he could get away with a hell of a lot more if he was head of some poor African country.

Increasingly, over time, sis words, his rhetoric, his actions, etc, etc, are point in one simple classic direction - dictator wannabe

Sand

@BriantheBard

It was not ordered by the Supreme Court in the manner you suggest, and it has been proven beyond doubt that it was a coup.

Its been proven beyond doubt in the court of socialist opinion Im sure. Otherwise, no, it hasnt. I know so called socialists have a real problem with recognising individuality, individuals or the concept of liberty, but checks on populism tend to be a good thing overall and Honduras is quite wise to have a term limit and indeed, a constitutional check on anyone seeking to remove that term limit - it negates politics driven by political charisma and instead demands broadbased support rather than polarising divisive politics. This is a good thing.

I dont expect socialists to agree, but then again, socialists have never created an enduring form of government without secret police, firing squads and gulags.

Also, on the colombia issue, going to war with Venezuela would not be a smart move for them either considering the existence of FARC and other militias in the country. Directing a war away from those groups only offers them the incentive.

And yet its Chavez whose started his own TV show to rant and rave about war against his neighbours.

@nesf

That said, as Manic Moran pointed out, he's not building a force to deal with the problems he'd face in Columbia...he's building an army for a different purpose ...there might be some unrest we're not hearing about.

Chavez's military procurement has been always been directed to dealing with a situation where he loses populist support - his arming of party militias is a clear sign hes looking to ensure that if he loses an election he can declare some sort of US coup, declare a struggle to save the revolution from US agents, and then wage a campaign of oppression against internal enemies - all with the support of the bleeding hearts brigade.

And yet, he wouldnt be the first bombastic popular dictator to willingly blunder into a disastrous war as the Italians might attest.