Venezuela aims for biggest military reserve in Americas

[vimto]

The American people have a way of applying political pressure to extracate themselves from unpopular wars, like Vietnam.

Because if the politicans support unpopular measures they won't be re elected.

Put that in english and we'll see how far we can take your argument

 

[vimto]

First of all, I'm a bitch not a bastard.

You're weird

 

[Azrael23]

The American people have a way of applying political pressure to extracate themselves from unpopular wars, like Vietnam.

Because if the politicans support unpopular measures they won't be re elected.

If George Bush was not re-elected you would have been ruled by John Kerry who was a member of the same death cult as George Bush.
Skull and Bones. They both admit it, There are numerous mainstream articles about this and there have been several well documented books.

Heres a news clip MSNBC Report

They rub your faces in it my friend.

Oh and to add the insult even further the statue of liberty doesn`t stand for freedom, it is the very goddess of which the clip speaks of in its analysis.
The same is true with Britannia the strange Goddess of the British Empire, the same Goddess. Identical portrayal and themes go right back. Its all very strange to be honest

 

[vimto]

If George Bush was not re-elected you would have been ruled by John Kerry who was a member of the same death cult as George Bush.
Skull and Bones. They both admit it, There are numerous mainstream articles about this and there have been several well documented books.

Heres a news clip MSNBC Report

They rub your faces in it my friend.

Are you an admirer of LaRouche Azrael?

 

[spring-peeper]

Put that in english and we'll see how far we can take your argument

This is the internation section of this board and using a common language is essential.

Allow me to attempt an translation. You can trust me, I'm a Canadian

The American people have a way of applying political pressure to extracate themselves from unpopular wars, like Vietnam.

Because if the politicans support unpopular measures they won't be re elected.

The United States of America has a democratic process with sufficient checks and balances to ensure that the will of the people is respected.

mears - close?

 

[spring-peeper]

You're weird

Bastard = male
Bitch = female

Same traits, different sexes. It was a flame. I think your equivalant is "sexist".



Oh my, you really do have a problem in an international forum, don't you?

 

[spring-peeper]

Are you an admirer of LaRouche Azrael?

hon, trolling 101: DON'T TROLL YOUR OWN SITE!!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

You thought I was joking the other week, right?

Nope, I knew you were deadly serious, and you were RIGHT!

That's what scares me!

 

[Andy the Don]

What I find disturbing is that this military reserve will be under the direct command of Chavez & not the military command. What is to stop Chavez, should he not be elected in the next Venezuelan general presidential election from mobilising this military reserve against the direct will of the people. Although I wish him to succeed, by democratic means, Chavez at times shows worrying leanings toward dictatorship.

 

[nino_savatte]

The last direct US military intervention into the southern hemisphere was the invasion of Granada if I am not mistaken. Hardly a long, bloody intervention.

Er, Panama?

 

[nino_savatte]

Andalucia here we come ...

Don't tell him about Al Andalus for heaven's sake!!!

 

[nino_savatte]

The American people have a way of applying political pressure to extracate themselves from unpopular wars, like Vietnam.

Because if the politicans support unpopular measures they won't be re elected.

And many of those people get swept along by the rhetoric of war; a choice is given to the people by the Leadership and its supporters: support the war or be accused of 'treason' (or anti-Americanism/un-Americanism/Bush-hating...or whatever the plat du jour happens to be).

 

[colacho]

Please, the US has no intention of going into Venezuela. Its political rabble rousing, a way to unify the country and get measures like private militias into existence. The American people would not support such a war. But I think you all know that.

There are all sorts of problems with this mears, problems that a moment's thought would allow you to work out. And by " a moment's thought" I mean entertaining the possibility of seeing things without immediately assuming that the good old US of A and its honest citizens are always or even usually in the right when it comes to international affairs. You complain about a kind of ideological blind, a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But you are always ready to give the US the benefit of the doubt- why is that, then, in the face of the overwhelming evidence? Any bells ringing? In the same way you accuse those who have a different take on Chavez of not living in Venezuela. But have YOU ever been there? So your point is?

The US and Latin America? You have to be joking when you suggest that US influence in the region is positive. What is the US's main goal down here? As ever, to turn a fast buck. "The business of America is business" and all that crap. And secondly, to make sure that no-one gets in the way of that simple goal. At this very moment FTAs are destroying local industries which do not have the benefit of the protectionism that initially allowed US industry to grow and still allows it to enjoy comparative advantage. Colombia's just signed one with the result that local medicine prices are going to go up dramatically. No surprise there: the US doesn't like generic drug production because the administration is there to serve the interests of the thieving corporate fucks who profit through the misery of others. And for decades US goals have generally been furthered by murderous proxies. Have you heard of Plan Colombia? Well, that's a lot of money for a particular group of murderous proxies known as the Colombian army. There ARE some social programmes associated with the PC, but they're largely window-dressing, whatever the good intentions of the people involved in them.

You mention Grenada, which was a kind of tragicomedy. But more tragic than funny for Grenadians, no? It's an absolutely shameful case of international bullying that is conveniently forgotten by those who refuse to understand US policy for what it is- blatant self-interest accompanied by naked aggression. But if you bothered to investigate the thinking of the neo-cons whose ideology is so important in the US right now then you'd realise that it's not just Condie "I'm Working for Whitey" Rice who thinks of "developing" countries as "the road-kill of history". It's explicit, so explicit it's obscene. Try reading Irving Kristol on gunboat diplomacy, for example.

More to the point you have the time line all wrong. Grenada was in 1983. But what about Panama? How many Panamian civilians did the US kill during the invasion in 1989? Each one of those deaths was a state sanctioned murder of foreign nationals- which doesn't matter because they don't count.

Back to Chávez, then. I have mixed feelings about him, not least because I don't think that the personalisation of politics is ever healthy. And yes, I do think there is a lot of automatic left support for him which romanticises his government. But whatever the pros and cons of the "quinta república" (and let's not forget the many pros) there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of, and that is that he's a lot more legitimate than Dubya. And I'm also sure that if the Venezuelan people wanted to remove him in the December elections there would be no problem at all. But they won't because he's the best option there is right now. As to the militias- well, they might be scary in a totalitarian state. They may also be a propaganda stunt. But given the US and the UK's disgraceful backing for a completely unjustified, illegitimate attempt by the old, discredited elite, to re-establish their control over the country (democracy having "failed"), could you blame Chavez for making sure that it's some form of democracy, however limited, that makes changes in the country and not a coup?

While we're on it, you could also do with thinking about what democracy might mean in the US. I wouldn't classify the US as a democracy right now as just getting to vote on some project dreamed up by a particular section of the elite every four years doesn't quite make the nut as far as I'm concerned. Democracy ought to be about shared decision making and accountability- but it's clearly not that in our so called western democracies is it? They are societies in which corporate scum bags who are accountable only to shareholders, and often not even to them, get to dictate policy while the politicians babble their insane lies.

 

[Col_Buendia]

I think you will find American aid has helped in central and south america in many circumstances.

And that's an even better/sicker joke.

Keep going. I haven't found it yet, but I'm sure you'll come up with some evidence soon...

 

[nino_savatte]

Let's not forget the shit that's happened to Haiti as a result of US 'good neighbourliness' either.

 

[mears]

What I find disturbing is that this military reserve will be under the direct command of Chavez & not the military command. What is to stop Chavez, should he not be elected in the next Venezuelan general presidential election from mobilising this military reserve against the direct will of the people. Although I wish him to succeed, by democratic means, Chavez at times shows worrying leanings toward dictatorship.

Exactly. This is a very serious situation. To become El Presidente for life you might need such a private army.

 

[mears]

There are all sorts of problems with this mears, problems that a moment's thought would allow you to work out. And by " a moment's thought" I mean entertaining the possibility of seeing things without immediately assuming that the good old US of A and its honest citizens are always or even usually in the right when it comes to international affairs. You complain about a kind of ideological blind, a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But you are always ready to give the US the benefit of the doubt- why is that, then, in the face of the overwhelming evidence? Any bells ringing? In the same way you accuse those who have a different take on Chavez of not living in Venezuela. But have YOU ever been there? So your point is?

The US and Latin America? You have to be joking when you suggest that US influence in the region is positive. What is the US's main goal down here? As ever, to turn a fast buck. "The business of America is business" and all that crap. And secondly, to make sure that no-one gets in the way of that simple goal. At this very moment FTAs are destroying local industries which do not have the benefit of the protectionism that initially allowed US industry to grow and still allows it to enjoy comparative advantage. Colombia's just signed one with the result that local medicine prices are going to go up dramatically. No surprise there: the US doesn't like generic drug production because the administration is there to serve the interests of the thieving corporate fucks who profit through the misery of others. And for decades US goals have generally been furthered by murderous proxies. Have you heard of Plan Colombia? Well, that's a lot of money for a particular group of murderous proxies known as the Colombian army. There ARE some social programmes associated with the PC, but they're largely window-dressing, whatever the good intentions of the people involved in them.

You mention Grenada, which was a kind of tragicomedy. But more tragic than funny for Grenadians, no? It's an absolutely shameful case of international bullying that is conveniently forgotten by those who refuse to understand US policy for what it is- blatant self-interest accompanied by naked aggression. But if you bothered to investigate the thinking of the neo-cons whose ideology is so important in the US right now then you'd realise that it's not just Condie "I'm Working for Whitey" Rice who thinks of "developing" countries as "the road-kill of history". It's explicit, so explicit it's obscene. Try reading Irving Kristol on gunboat diplomacy, for example.

More to the point you have the time line all wrong. Grenada was in 1983. But what about Panama? How many Panamian civilians did the US kill during the invasion in 1989? Each one of those deaths was a state sanctioned murder of foreign nationals- which doesn't matter because they don't count.

Back to Chávez, then. I have mixed feelings about him, not least because I don't think that the personalisation of politics is ever healthy. And yes, I do think there is a lot of automatic left support for him which romanticises his government. But whatever the pros and cons of the "quinta república" (and let's not forget the many pros) there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of, and that is that he's a lot more legitimate than Dubya. And I'm also sure that if the Venezuelan people wanted to remove him in the December elections there would be no problem at all. But they won't because he's the best option there is right now. As to the militias- well, they might be scary in a totalitarian state. They may also be a propaganda stunt. But given the US and the UK's disgraceful backing for a completely unjustified, illegitimate attempt by the old, discredited elite, to re-establish their control over the country (democracy having "failed"), could you blame Chavez for making sure that it's some form of democracy, however limited, that makes changes in the country and not a coup?

While we're on it, you could also do with thinking about what democracy might mean in the US. I wouldn't classify the US as a democracy right now as just getting to vote on some project dreamed up by a particular section of the elite every four years doesn't quite make the nut as far as I'm concerned. Democracy ought to be about shared decision making and accountability- but it's clearly not that in our so called western democracies is it? They are societies in which corporate scum bags who are accountable only to shareholders, and often not even to them, get to dictate policy while the politicians babble their insane lies.

Listen to you. Going on and on about the US. You just can't help yourself.

Western democracies are the envy of the world. Millions want to come to our shores. We even have the time to sit around and chat on computers.

Corporations provide good paying jobs to millions of people. There are a benefit and one reason we remain the envy of the world. It one reason why Britian and the US works and Cuba and North Korea do not.

We have our problems of course, but just not as many as most countries.

 

[JHE]

What I find disturbing is that this military reserve will be under the direct command of Chavez & not the military command. What is to stop Chavez, should he not be elected in the next Venezuelan general presidential election from mobilising this military reserve against the direct will of the people.

There's more of a risk of the anti-Chavistas trying (again) to oust Chávez by undemocratic means. The role of the new mobilisation is to make it more difficult for them.

 

[DOA]

I don't know what Chavez is worried about, I really don't

eh mears !

 

[mears]

I don't know what Chavez is worried about, I really don't

eh mears !

Chavez needs a private militia because of this man? Lets hear your reasoning on this.

It should be good

 

[mistere]

Ok, I'm usually a lurker and I don't really like posting on boards but this has been bugging me for the past four pages of this thread and no one has picked up on it.

The last direct US military intervention into the southern hemisphere was the invasion of Granada if I am not mistaken.

Yes you are very much mistaken; Grenada is not in the southern fucking hemisphere. If you want to talk about US military intervention then at least do yourself the favour of looking at a fucking atlas to see what countries you have invaded or are planning on invading next.

Christ, I always hoped those stories about Americans not being able to pick out their own country, let alone important places like China, or Iraq, on an atlas were wrong; clearly they're not.

 

[Andy the Don]

There's more of a risk of the anti-Chavistas trying (again) to oust Chávez by undemocratic means. The role of the new mobilisation is to make it more difficult for them.

He was able to defeat the coup without an armed milita, using popular democratic support.

 

[JHE]

He was able to defeat the coup without an armed milita, using popular democratic support.

Popular support plus those sections of the armed forces that remained loyal to the government!

When push comes to shove, organised groups of armed people determine who prevails. You cannot rely on the coup-makers deferring to popular feeling.

 

[mears]

Ok, I'm usually a lurker and I don't really like posting on boards but this has been bugging me for the past four pages of this thread and no one has picked up on it.



Yes you are very much mistaken; Grenada is not in the southern fucking hemisphere. If you want to talk about US military intervention then at least do yourself the favour of looking at a fucking atlas to see what countries you have invaded or are planning on invading next.

Christ, I always hoped those stories about Americans not being able to pick out their own country, let alone important places like China, or Iraq, on an atlas were wrong; clearly they're not.

Good input. I will try harder to make the grade

 

[vimto]

There are all sorts of problems with this mears, problems that a moment's thought would allow you to work out. And by " a moment's thought" I mean entertaining the possibility of seeing things without immediately assuming that the good old US of A and its honest citizens are always or even usually in the right when it comes to international affairs. You complain about a kind of ideological blind, a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But you are always ready to give the US the benefit of the doubt- why is that, then, in the face of the overwhelming evidence? Any bells ringing? In the same way you accuse those who have a different take on Chavez of not living in Venezuela. But have YOU ever been there? So your point is?

The US and Latin America? You have to be joking when you suggest that US influence in the region is positive. What is the US's main goal down here? As ever, to turn a fast buck. "The business of America is business" and all that crap. And secondly, to make sure that no-one gets in the way of that simple goal. At this very moment FTAs are destroying local industries which do not have the benefit of the protectionism that initially allowed US industry to grow and still allows it to enjoy comparative advantage. Colombia's just signed one with the result that local medicine prices are going to go up dramatically. No surprise there: the US doesn't like generic drug production because the administration is there to serve the interests of the thieving corporate fucks who profit through the misery of others. And for decades US goals have generally been furthered by murderous proxies. Have you heard of Plan Colombia? Well, that's a lot of money for a particular group of murderous proxies known as the Colombian army. There ARE some social programmes associated with the PC, but they're largely window-dressing, whatever the good intentions of the people involved in them.

You mention Grenada, which was a kind of tragicomedy. But more tragic than funny for Grenadians, no? It's an absolutely shameful case of international bullying that is conveniently forgotten by those who refuse to understand US policy for what it is- blatant self-interest accompanied by naked aggression. But if you bothered to investigate the thinking of the neo-cons whose ideology is so important in the US right now then you'd realise that it's not just Condie "I'm Working for Whitey" Rice who thinks of "developing" countries as "the road-kill of history". It's explicit, so explicit it's obscene. Try reading Irving Kristol on gunboat diplomacy, for example.

More to the point you have the time line all wrong. Grenada was in 1983. But what about Panama? How many Panamian civilians did the US kill during the invasion in 1989? Each one of those deaths was a state sanctioned murder of foreign nationals- which doesn't matter because they don't count.

Back to Chávez, then. I have mixed feelings about him, not least because I don't think that the personalisation of politics is ever healthy. And yes, I do think there is a lot of automatic left support for him which romanticises his government. But whatever the pros and cons of the "quinta república" (and let's not forget the many pros) there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of, and that is that he's a lot more legitimate than Dubya. And I'm also sure that if the Venezuelan people wanted to remove him in the December elections there would be no problem at all. But they won't because he's the best option there is right now. As to the militias- well, they might be scary in a totalitarian state. They may also be a propaganda stunt. But given the US and the UK's disgraceful backing for a completely unjustified, illegitimate attempt by the old, discredited elite, to re-establish their control over the country (democracy having "failed"), could you blame Chavez for making sure that it's some form of democracy, however limited, that makes changes in the country and not a coup?

While we're on it, you could also do with thinking about what democracy might mean in the US. I wouldn't classify the US as a democracy right now as just getting to vote on some project dreamed up by a particular section of the elite every four years doesn't quite make the nut as far as I'm concerned. Democracy ought to be about shared decision making and accountability- but it's clearly not that in our so called western democracies is it? They are societies in which corporate scum bags who are accountable only to shareholders, and often not even to them, get to dictate policy while the politicians babble their insane lies.

Hey...its a bot run wild

 

[In Bloom]

Western democracies are the envy of the world. Millions want to come to our shores. We even have the time to sit around and chat on computers.

Nothing to do with the devastation and poverty imposed by the same system upon which these much vaunted "democracies" depend then? Nope, all envy, innit mears?

 

[mears]

Nothing to do with the devastation and poverty imposed by the same system upon which these much vaunted "democracies" depend then? Nope, all envy, innit mears?

Generalized bollocks.

But if you want to take a specific example where a country faces devastation and and poverty because of our economic systems than go ahead.

It works much better with examples

 

[vimto]

Generalized bollocks.

But if you want to take a specific example where a country faces devastation and and poverty because of our economic systems than go ahead.

It works much better with examples

So why did you train Death Squads in Central America for starters?

 

[nino_savatte]

Chavez needs a private militia because of this man? Lets hear your reasoning on this.

It should be good

The US puts a man, whose record on human rights has been comparable to that of Nazis like Klaus Barbie, in charge of national security and you see nothing wrong?

Of course, you can't accept that Negroponte is a human rights violator; it is outside your programming.

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

 

[Azrael23]

So why did you train Death Squads in Central America for starters?

don`t talk historical fact!!!!