Chavez wants war

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.