Venezuela 'sends tanks to border'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7274038.stm

My take:

Fuck FARC. Uribe is one of the great South American leaders. I sure hope the US has his back all the way. Hugo Chavez and his little puppet Correa are nothing but dangrous wild dogs.

This is not good though. Its small brushfires like this that may require the US Armed Forces to put out. It's frightening to think that next year Barack Obama may be the Commander in Chief.

Chavez called Colombian President Alvaro Uribe “a criminal,” and branded his government a “terrorist state,” likening it to Israel for its U.S.-backed attacks on militants.

He called Uribe a “lapdog” of Washington, saying “Dracula’s fangs (are) are covered in blood.”

These are the types of people that Senator Obama feels he needs to have a face-to-face talk with? Do you think there is ANY reasoning with them? Is there ANY reason to think that talking and negotiating will solve anything? When thugs like Chavez negotiate, they demand capitulations from their adversary and refuse to offer anything in return. This is really frightening to me. God Forbid Obama becomes president.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought we already knew that thugs could be leaders, just look at the Republican party.

If he's such a thug, how come he could negotiate with FARC ?

His escalation was unwarranted, but I see nothing overtly wrong about it.
It's not as if he invaded another country on false reasons...right ?.

It never hurts to try and talk to anyone, no matter who they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Winston Churchill, who was half American, said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war." I think that applies at least as much today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

^

Very interesting, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that quote. Do you happen to know the context in which it was said? I would be very interested to hear the rest of the speech or other medium in which he made that quote.

Challenger78:

Quit trying to be so cute. You're only making youself look foolish. What is it you were trying to say with that post? That republicans are thugs on the same level as Hugo Chavez? Are you seriously going to bring up Chavez's negotiations with FARC as if theyre some great testament to his statesmanship? Colombia's negations with FARC in the past was precisely the problem - weakening the Columbian state and allowing FARC to dig in and strengthen. Negotiations DO NOT WORK when one party (FARC) makes deals and fails to even attempt to live up to them. Interestingly enough, this just reinforces my point that "sitting down and talking" to some world leaders is both an effort in futility and potentially dangerous.

Shame on you Challenger. Why did you feel the need to completely skirt the issues and concerns I brought up by making little quips about how nasty Republicans are and the Iraq war. Time for a new tactic, eh?

 

Asserting that Hugo Chavez is a thug is false , and so far you have shown no evidence. He has not used the strong arm tactics or bullying demeanor that many republican pundits have used. Or the foreign policy of a thug, which the US has aptly demonstrated.

His objective was to get the refugees out, he volunteered and he succeeded in his objective. Just because he had friction with the colombian government and is taking proactive measures does not mean he is a thug.

As for your point on Barrack Obama, It never hurts to try and avoid bloodshed whenever possible. If only his predecessors followed this possibility, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. It is actually would be quite relieving to see someone who explores all diplomatic options before calling in the tanks. Chavez and Eucador are responding to an incursion by a foreign power. His rhetoric, while obviously hyperbole and exaggerated, is in response to the close association and backing both the IMF and the World Bank (US-centric institutions) have given to Columbia.

 

Chavez is only trying to take the cameras off of him and point them eleswhere right now. There's no way anything will develop with this ruse.

 

He said it at a White House luncheon on June 26, 1954.

 

Chavez is the "lapdog" of Putin so talk to Putin about his "boyz".

 

I don't disagree. It just got me thinking about the ridiculousness of some of the things Obama says and the frightening thought of having him as Commander in Chief.

Challenger:

It is my opinion that Hugo Chavez is a thug. I was not asserting it as some absolute truth. It has very little to do with the thread in the first place, yet again you've decided to latch on to one of the most insignificant parts of the thread in a useless attempt to bring it off course. I simply used thug as an adjective to describe Chavez and other heads of state like him who use blustery rhetoric, unfounded demands (kinda like Ahmedinijad today "demanding" that the US withdrawl from Iraq), and strong arm tactics to steamroll political opponents in foreign affairs AND domestic. Now that we got yet anther irrelevant thread out of way...

Of course, everyone, including the United States, Hugo Chavez, and Iraqis included, should try to avoid bloodshed and explore diplomatic options before calling in the tanks (or autistic suicide bombers). To make the claim that "it never hurts" is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen you claim yet. It certainly hurt the Jews in Europe when significant time and diplomatic efforts were spent negotiating with Hitler. Another example, both to refer back to my earlier point and keep with the Colombia/FARC theme of this thread, would be when the Colombian government thought the best way to deal with the FARC guerrillas was to negotiate and give political control of large streches of territory to the FARC leaders. It without a doubt hurt many honest Colombian citizens when FARC took that territory, fortified themselves, and strengthened their base in order to continue their reign of terror in the region. What was that you were saying about it never hurting?

Keep trying though, I'm rather enjoying this. I think I'm gonna start posting more in the political and current event sections here.

 

So, what, you're contradicting yourself now?, On one hand you say that diplomatic efforts should be expended and used as much as possible. But then you turn around and claim that, because it hurts, we should never pursue diplomatic efforts in the first place? Referring to the original point about the US military, and whether Obama should talk to these people, So, your ideal solution would be to barge in there, put up a puppet government without any discussion with leaders of the region, and march back out.

I said, It never hurts to try. and it doesn't. Any country can go to war, but greater countries avoid it.


You asserted that Obama was frightening you because he intended to try and reason with Chavez, specifically.

So, if we take that statement, in your opinion, Obama shouldn't even try to have a face to face talk with Chavez ? Why ? because he's a thug ?.
I would understand if chavez had called Obama a monkey, but simply because he uses heated rhetoric ?, I can understand if Chavez didn't talk to Pat Robertson, he actually threatened to assassinate the man.
So we shouldn't try and talk to people who feel that they have been let down/oppressed by their government ?

So are the rest of us.

 

colombia reportedly enter ecudor to do so chavez is coming to the aid of an ally nothing is wrong or thuggish about that. that negotiating tactic you described is being used by the republican in the us right now

 

Challenger:

Do you see what you did there? You took the crux of my argument, a fairly well thought out and nuanced position, and took each side to its fullest extreme in some sort vain attempt to make it appear that I've contradicted myself. Thats a very dishonest way to debate a point there, chief. I know sometimes that people don't realize they do that though, so I'll give you a pass.

Nowhere did say that I believe diplomatic efforts should be expanded and used as much as possible regardless of the situation. Thats just an absurd statement and precisely the type of policy that I am against. I believe that you need to take each situation and use the policy that would be most effective. Ideally, of course, diplomacy and talking with other states would be the best way to resolve an issue. I am not some sort of psychopath that has no respect for human life and enjoys a state of perpetual war.

Of course, however, there are certain people in the world who can not and should not be negotiated with. These are the types of people who have no intention of conceding anything and use the diplomatic process to stall their opponents, consolidate their power, take advantage of people, or in the worst case cause massive amounts of human suffering. When it comes to these situations, it is important to recognize the limited and perhaps dangerous results of overly pursing diplomatic solutions.

I find it rather presumptuous that you put such words in my mouth and spelled out my "ideal situation". It really has nothing to do with anything I've said. It just appears that you are running right through the liberal play book for a discussion about politics whether the play is relevant or not.

You said "it never hurts to try". I still think you dead wrong on that and have presented nothing to support your claim. "Any country can go to war, but greater counties avoid it". Do you have anything besides more platitudes and subjective opinions that sound nice on paper but really have place in the real world?

***

You are correct though in realizing that it is my position that there is absolutely no reason why Obama should have a face to face meeting with Chavez if the situation 1 year from now is the same. After all the bullshit heated rhetoric, lies, and propaganda Chavez has spewed towards the United States, it would be an insult to the Presidency and the country for him to meet with him for no reason other than to try and work that Obama charm on him. Thats what we have diplomats and the State dept for.

If you feel that I am being condescending towards you, that is clearly my intent. You're original repose to this thread was nothing more than you trying to act cute and derail the thread before it even begun. You've continued by putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting things I am spelling out very clearly, and further attempts to bring irrelevant liberal talking points into the discussion.

Try to bring something to the table next time or dont bother.

 

So then why isn't Chavez in diplomatic talks with Columbia instead of sending in tanks?

 

But it is about extreme isn't it. Your talking about using the US military to fight someone else's war, why ? Aren't military solutions always extreme solutions? Shouldn't we use force as a last option ? Of course, nothing is free, so what exactly are the Columbians giving up in return.

I just find it hard to believe, with all the monroesque interference in Latin America, that it still continues to this day, just because someone stands up and says " you big bully. I hate you" .

Why ?

Glad we agree.

Please explain how attempting to negotiate with anyone caused massive amounts of human suffering, perhaps a case study, or some tangible evidence in the annals of history?.

So after the bullshit, rhetoric and lies the current presidency has spread about Iran, the Iranian president should never meet with the USA ? (who knows, he still might not).

 

DubStyle: "Its small brushfires like this that may require the US Armed Forces to put out."

No. Considering American history, that would be like fighting fire with gasoline. So far, this tempest is just a drama between drama-queen leaders, unhappy with being upstaged by popular movements beyond their control (I'm thinking of the anti-FARC demonstrations). Dangerous as it seems, I expect that this is going to blow over if we can keep the superpower intrigues out of it.

 

This thread has devolved into irrelevant anti-Americanism. Will someone please let me know when the actual topic is regained?

 

Venezuela has tanks?

~String

 

This thread was about pro-Americanism versus anti-Americanism from the start. Americanism meaning pro Bush/Limbaugh/ American flag and "USA is number one" pride. Do you think DubStyle knows or cares anything about Uribe, Chavez, Venezuela and Columbia other than which side they are on?

 

I sure hope those Columbian extremist puppets of USA get their share of bullets.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I tried to start a thread that stuck to topic, but Spider, in all his infinite wisdom, closed it. Go figure...