Given the woeful state of the other thread on this topic, I thought I would try again. Chavez seems to have a lot of defenders on this site, so I'm wondering what people make of his bizarre decision to stand up for FARC, and in doing so, trigger an international incident. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V6N6982&show_article=1 Could it be that Hugo knows his grip on power is slipping? That he needs to stoke the "viva revolution" ilk to gain support? Time will tell. An interesting article from this month's Foreign Affairs details how there's more bluster than substance to the Chavez machine... http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html
Worms often turn, and like all people, Venezuelans will grow weary of Chavez and his band 'o thugs. ¡Viva la revolución! ~String
There's already a thread on this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78325 ...Sorry about that, this thread seems to be the one discussing the actual issues, I will open it and close the other one.
Chavez is trying so hard to be the next revolutionary hero. Too bad there ain't no Oppressive Empire to be revolting against. You know those kids in highschool that try too hard, don't you? They are the laughing stock of the neighbourhood Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You know who Chavez reminds me of? Doink from WWF. Teh phunny.
So I read the OP link and - not really to my surprise - it contains nothing about Chavez sticking up for FARC or starting any international incidents. Apparently Colombia launched military operations into Ecuador to kill its enemies. That has created an international incident - actually, that is an international incident. Venezuela shares a border with Colombia, as does Ecuador, and concern about US-backed Colombian bombing raids across those borders is not really all that hard to understand. Neither is ordinary dealing - even sympathetic dealing - with FARC. They're ruthless drugrunning thugs, in one aspect of their operations, but then so are the Colombian government's paramilitaries.
That's your opinion, Ice, and you're welcome to it (and welcome to your continued support, rationalization of Chavez's actions). Meanwhile... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_farc_laptop
That you misrepresented your link (a habit of yours) is not merely "opinion" - your representation and the link material are easily comparable, and quite different. But since despite your chosen OP you don't want to talk about the international incident created by the Colombian raid into Ecuador and the implications of it, except for whatever it has to do with Chavez, so be it - Chavez has been supporting rebels and partisans opposed to US client state governments for years, we read to our complete lack of surprise. Was there anything else there ?
Moreover, it proves that Chavez is the true aggressor in Columbia since he is funding insurgents there. That Columbia is a "US client government" is not the issue: Columbia and the USA are free to form whatever alliances they want, and Chavez needs to keep his XXL sized nose out of Columbian affairs, including withdrawing his support (which ITSELF is an act of war) for FARC. Again, your unspoken support for Chavez is plain in how you describe Columbia. Columbia did the right thing. Any neighboring nation which aids and harbors cross border insurgents is committing an act of war, Columbia responded the same way any nation would. ~String
So the US installing and changing and training and supporting client governments, sponsoring paramilitary death squads and carrying its drug war to foreign countries without the local citizenriy's permission or support, injecting hundreds of millions of dollars in military gear, biological and chemical weaponry employed against peasants, for fifty years and more, is not "true aggression" while Chavez's alleged (on perfectly believable evidence, but even accurate does not mean genuine or unforged ) support of that faction of the several lawless paramilitaries operating in the country which opposes US interference, for maybe a dozen years, proves Chavez is the "true aggressor" ? Looks more like a johnny-come-lately dabbler. Advice: Stick to misinterpretations of the spoken stuff. You'll go less stupidly wrong. Any nation that could get away with it, and had no respect for ordinary diplomacy or international laws and treaties, maybe. Be interesting to see Iran try that, against the MEK bases in Iraq. With missiles and bombers and commandos capturing laptops. Do you think the US, or Russia, would blame Saudi Arabia for the "international incident" thus created ? How about Cuba bombing the druglords in Miami, who have sponsored so much terrorism against it. That OK too - or do we have different standards for some people ?
Oh, please. Enough with this tiresome charade where you argue about arguing and question everyone's honesty. I posted my opinion, backed with primary sources, something you routinely ignore. Did you even read the FA piece? I doubt it. But why let that stand in the way of your consistent defense of this man? The link spoke of Bush's reaction to the problem in the region, a problem which appears to have largely been created when Chavez decided to thrust himself into an episode between Ecuador and Colombia. Unless, of course, you think Chavez has a reasonable reason to be aggrieved by the death of a Marxist, Narco-terrorist? Or do you want to debate even that distinction? The facts are Colombia killed some very nasty people in a neighboring state. This should be celebrated. The fact it isn't, in some corners, speaks to what I would label a disturbing ideology — and in the case of Chavez, as I have already asserted and supported, a desperate need to look powerful in the face of waning power and influence at home. So you think Colombia is wrong to kill people that pose a threat to its security? You mean beyond Chavez's duplicity, his questionable moral choices and his support of thugs, most of which is overlooked, rationalized and excused by his supporters? No, not really. I just think throwing a little light on the man, and in doing so, assessing his international objectives is fun. Plus, it rattles bleeding hearts, such as yourself. Sounds like you're sticking up for drug dealers and Marxist rebels, largely because it offers yet another avenue for you to criticize American foreign policy. How typical. I mean, you're really not worth talking to, are you? When I started this thread, I knew exactly the sort of rubbish you would post, and low and behold...
I think in other people's countries they should get permission to launch commando raids and conduct aerial bombardment of the residents. Let's try your standard out in Florida: Cuba launches rockets and a surprise commando raid at nasty druglords who have been sponsoring terrorism in Cuba, and kills them in their Miami bungalow. Do you celebrate the event ? Pardon, but It appears to have been created when Colombia raided and bombed in Ecuador without bothering to even inform Ecuador of its plans. Chavez didn't thrust himself in where he wasn't before - he shares a long and vulnerable border with Colombia, and is under constant threat from the heavily armed and lawless Colombian paramilitaries the US sponsors on that border. When US-backed Colombia violates its neighbor's borders, he's involved - he's directly threatened. If you're deaf. What I'm doing is attacking the primary and most important drug dealers and death squads and ugly military operations in Colombia, and not celebrating them. That the US installed and has been backing that Scarface crowd with heavy weapons and hundreds of millions of dollars is just one of those realities that keeps being politically biased in your kaleidoscope eyes.
In theory, you're right. In practice, that's tough to do when you're moving on actionable intelligence and dealing with a difficult government that hasn't cooperated in the past and may leak your intentions to the target. Consider, for example, the US predator strikes in Pakistan. I doubt we go through all the official channels there for many of the same concerns I just listed. Let's not. First, it's not "my standard." Second, your scenarios seems to be a horrible comparison, for all sorts of reasons. Per my understanding, the Colombian attack occured in a rural region that is essentially lawless and sparsely populated. Are you really comparing a strike there to someone conducting an operation in a metropolitan environment, one that has a police force that is reasonably efficient and actually fights crime? Sorry, but the entire scenario, and your attempt to compare it to what happened, is just ... dumb ... And that's your opinion. Look, I'm sure Colombia expected some response, but that response should be measured to the act. It shouldn't be a ridiculous escalation, one that threatens war. You seem over-eager to condemn Colombia, and in doing so, argue the side of those they seek to destroy. That's perplexing, but not out of character for you. What's the connection here? Your hatred of American foreign policy? Your overt sympathy for Marxists? You attack String for calling you on your apparent cheerleading for Chavez, when every time his name has popped on this board, you rush to defend him or his actions, then qualify it (after the fact) with some vague suggestions, never really explicitely voiced, about not really supporting the man? I'm curious, what gives? FARC, for example, aren't nice people. The less of them, the better... He's also been tied to FARC before, something you seem willing to rationalize away. So which is worse, in your esteemed estimation, FARC or the those awful US-backed paramilitaries? A second question, getting back to my initial post. Do you think none of Chavez's posturing has to do with his penchant for trying to look "tough" on the international scene? I mean, I seriously doubt he will actually go to war. I'm not sure what any of this means. Perhaps you can elaborate in something other than subjective generalities?
Interesting question. The US backed paramilitaries have certainly done more evil and vicious harm: killed more journalists and clerics and nurses and such, tortured and terrorized more peasants, dealt more drugs, wrecked more of Colombia's landscape and infrastructure and local economy, corrupted more government, stolen more money, etc etc but that is at least partly because they've had so much help. They're better armed, better trained, better fed even. They have much more capability and opportunity. What FARC or that other one (name slips my mind) would have done with such capability is unknown. So how does one judge ? Just don't bother with what I "seem", to you. Don't paraphrase. Problem solved, no perplexity, great savings in bandwidth.
Ice, the reason I am prone to give my assessments of your positions is because you do such a piss-poor job of explaining yourself. You continually obfuscate, qualify, suggest, deny, hint, disregard and generally play rhetorical games, all of which combines to create a total confusion among those of us who aren't privy to the brilliant thoughts contained in your brain. Your "support" of Chavez is a perfect example, and one you did not address in your last response, presumably because you just didn't want to, even though you were asked, because why would you ever want to pull the wool away and reveal what you're really thinking? Better to let people stay confused, so you can tell them how wrong they are when they puzzle over your muddled opinions. Here's my problem: You consistently rationalize and defend the man's actions, which would lead one to think you "support" him, but then you like to say you don't support him, or at least you suggest as much, as you never clearly "say" much of anything, unless, of course, it's to besmirch the policies of the US. I've figured that out. The US is bad. Bad, bad, bad. And no matter what happens in the world and no matter where it happens, somehow there is a component that illustrates how "bad" the US policy truly is. Getting back to the real issue, which has less to do with the US than you think, non-state violence is a growing trend in the 21st century. If a state allows non-state, paramilitary groups to lash out at other states, what's your suggestion for dealing with them?
