Chavez Ready to Rumble

[legion]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

our nation should not be involved in the internal affairs of sovereign nations unless it presents a clear and present danger to our nation.

While very noble, it completely ignores the standard the rest of the world follows (including when meddling in our internal affairs): they meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations when it is in their best interest to do so.

To not do so ourselves puts us at an articial disadvantage to our enemies.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

The points that you make, albeit valid, all disregard the central issue: our nation should not be involved in the internal affairs of sovereign nations unless it presents a clear and present danger to our nation. This is not true in this case so far.

We have made excuses for doing exactly that for over 40 years and it seldom ends well. And sometimes it is at the cost of American lives. What in Colombia or Venezuela is worth a member of your family?

WI - You're conflating "Issue" with "Opinion".

We can be intimately involved in the "internal affairs of a sovereign nation" at such nation's request -- humanitarian aid, logistics, support, etc. Helping restore power, water and government (pretty "internal affairs" from a classical position) in Indonesia involved no "clear and present danger" posed by Indonesia, just as one of countless instances.

So, I disagree with the thesis of your opinion.

Second "seldom ends well" -- what, like the outcome of the Marshall Plan, or the reconstruction of Japan, or preservation of South Korea, or a good chunk of Southeast Asia, or Grenada, or Panama, or Nicaragua, or Kuwait...

Also, your "seldom ends well" blithely glosses over the fact that things, while you might not think they ended "well", could have, and likely would have, ended "worse" for us or those on whose behalf we intervened.

Where things have ended sub-optimally, I'd argue that in most cases, the poor outcome was the result of a failure of our resolve to either (1) properly prosecute the effort and/or (2) stick around and finish it -- though (1) can easily beget (2).

Personally, I'd rather leave this to Colombia. They're reasonably well armed, and what, really, is Chavez going to do? He might attack, but any material invasion is madness (so ... likely?)

Nations do make promises to each other for support and mutual defense (NATO, SEATO, etc.) -- so grown up nations promise to intervene to protect the interests of allies even if such intervening nation's interest are not clearly and presently endangered. This has been the way of the world for much, much longer than 40 years.

Saying that nation's shouldn't do this is naive. They do, they have, they will. And reliable allies will see through on their commitments. I don't know exactly what promises for mutual defense or intervention the US has made to Colombia, but whatever they are, the US must follow through on them. The credibility of the US to its partners and allies is (and has been) worthy of blood and treasure.

What in Poland, France or England was worth American lives in the late 30s? I doubt by any present Liberal standard, Nazi Germany would have qualified as a 'Clear and Present Danger' to the United States.

JP

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by RWebb

when things like this happen it is always interesting to check out where the carrier battle groups are.

Indeed!

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker

WI - You're conflating "Issue" with "Opinion".

We can be intimately involved in the "internal affairs of a sovereign nation" at such nation's request -- humanitarian aid, logistics, support, etc. Helping restore power, water and government (pretty "internal affairs" from a classical position) in Indonesia involved no "clear and present danger" posed by Indonesia, just as one of countless instances.

So, I disagree with the thesis of your opinion.

Second "seldom ends well" -- what, like the outcome of the Marshall Plan, or the reconstruction of Japan, or preservation of South Korea, or a good chunk of Southeast Asia, or Grenada, or Panama, or Nicaragua, or Kuwait...

Also, your "seldom ends well" blithely glosses over the fact that things, while you might not think they ended "well", could have, and likely would have, ended "worse" for us or those on whose behalf we intervened.

Where things have ended sub-optimally, I'd argue that in most cases, the poor outcome was the result of a failure of our resolve to either (1) properly prosecute the effort and/or (2) stick around and finish it -- though (1) can easily beget (2).

Personally, I'd rather leave this to Colombia. They're reasonably well armed, and what, really, is Chavez going to do? He might attack, but any material invasion is madness (so ... likely?)

Nations do make promises to each other for support and mutual defense (NATO, SEATO, etc.) -- so grown up nations promise to intervene to protect the interests of allies even if such intervening nation's interest are not clearly and presently endangered. This has been the way of the world for much, much longer than 40 years.

Saying that nation's shouldn't do this is naive. They do, they have, they will. And reliable allies will see through on their commitments. I don't know exactly what promises for mutual defense or intervention the US has made to Colombia, but whatever they are, the US must follow through on them. The credibility of the US to its partners and allies is (and has been) worthy of blood and treasure.

What in Poland, France or England was worth American lives in the late 30s? I doubt by any present Liberal standard, Nazi Germany would have qualified as a 'Clear and Present Danger' to the United States.

JP

Actually in this context, an "opinion" can be just about anything a person expresses as his own thoughts berift of positive proof or absolute knowledge. An "issue" on the other hand is a matter of public concern or a matter of debate, discussion, or dispute. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion!

And that is because we were in fact talking about an "issue" rather than an "opinion" per se.

Also, perhaps my wording was not clear enough per the "interferring in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation" since I most certainly did not mean "at such nation's request -- humanitarian aid, logistics, support, etc. Helping restore power, water..." or anything of that nature. I meant when we use military force to obtain our agenda AGAINST the wishes of the people or the legal rulers of that sovereign nation. Such as we did in Iran when we instilled the Shah and in Iraq when we deposed Saddam and the numerous times we have supported despots around the globe as we do today with the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia and Mushareff in Pakistan. The majority of the people of those nations supported little if any of our actions. That is what I was talking about.

As for Colombia, I spent more than a little time there and got to know the locals quite well. And I can tell you that for the most part they do not agree with much if not most of our actions.

Perhaps you could list which of your family members you would be willing to sacrifice for the "credibility" you mentioned that is so important and that the USA must preserve?

For me personally, although I have many Colombian friends and a great affinity for the nation (since we have done them mostly harm and no favors) there is not a single hair on any of my children or grand children that is worth involving ourselves militarily in their affairs at this time.

[RWebb]

Well, your idea has never been followed. It would require abrogating hundreds of treaties. Countries regard treaty responsibilities very seriously, and so does our court system.

Also "I meant when we use military force to obtain our agenda AGAINST the wishes of the people or the legal rulers of that sovereign nation" -- still needs more refinement. We could not have gone to war against Tojo under this standard.

BTW, do I get an apology for the "talk like idiots" line?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Actually in this context, an "opinion" can be just about anything a person expresses as his own thoughts berift of positive proof or absolute knowledge. An "issue" on the other hand is a matter of public concern or a matter of debate, discussion, or dispute. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion!

And that is because we were in fact talking about an "issue" rather than an "opinion" per se.

Also, perhaps my wording was not clear enough per the "interferring in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation" since I most certainly did not mean "at such nation's request -- humanitarian aid, logistics, support, etc. Helping restore power, water..." or anything of that nature. I meant when we use military force to obtain our agenda AGAINST the wishes of the people or the legal rulers of that sovereign nation. Such as we did in Iran when we instilled the Shah and in Iraq when we deposed Saddam and the numerous times we have supported despots around the globe as we do today with the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia and Mushareff in Pakistan. The majority of the people of those nations supported little if any of our actions. That is what I was talking about.

As for Colombia, I spent more than a little time there and got to know the locals quite well. And I can tell you that for the most part they do not agree with much if not most of our actions.

Perhaps you could list which of your family members you would be willing to sacrifice for the "credibility" you mentioned that is so important and that the USA must preserve?

For me personally, although I have many Colombian friends and a great affinity for the nation (since we have done them mostly harm and no favors) there is not a single hair on any of my children or grand children that is worth involving ourselves militarily in their affairs at this time.

I'm finding your writing convoluted, but I'll take a crack at the salient points, in reverse order:

I would be willing to 'sacrifice' those of my family that have voluntarily opted to serve their country's interest(s) and to go where and do what the government tells them to do (without the adolescent hubris of 2nd guessing b/c they 'know better' than their employer/government).

I do not care, nor do I think it is relevant, the opinions of those you met in Colombia of the United States. I could surround myself with thousands of anti-American douchebags in Berkeley alone, and my anecdocal information on the "opinions of Americans" would not be interesting or apposite. Your opinion of these matters has been formed by your experiences, however cogently expressed ... but expounding personal anecdote as geopolitical expertise carries no weight with me.

I don't agree with most Colombian's actions... meaning the average Colombian in the street? or of their government? Both. BFD. Our governments have made commitments to each other, and if we don't live up to them the consequences of the failure of our credibility are manifold -- our other allies, who put themselves at risk (or expense) for us, in exchange for our promises, will devalue our promises and take fewer risks for us; those of our adversaries and enemies who exercise any restraint due to our promises to intervene and protect our allies will be more bold.

If, for example, our commitment to protect Israel was seriously in question, how long would it be before there was a large-scale attack against it? The collateral and potential opportunity costs of a failure of the US to follow through on its security commitments could (and I believe would) cost much more than a few ill-conceived (or executed) interventions.

We intervened in Iraq in the Gulf War to push them out of Kuwait and destroy their ability to pull another stunt. Most Iraqis were against us coming into their country and killing their murderous, looting, rapist soldiers. Tough shyt, AFAIC.

BTW, once Iraq had seized control of Kuwait, who spoke for the population in Kuwait? Who espouses the "wishes of the 'people'". Once Iraq controls Kuwaiti territory, does Iraq speak for Kuwaitis?

Further, if they don't ... then who does? The government in exile? OK, the Iranian government in exile wants us to intervene in Iran. It serves our interests, and we've been invited in. Albeit against the wishes of a theocratic government that rules with ruthless vengeance seized control in a bloody coup. But do the Mullahs represent the will of the PEOPLE of Iran?

Well, at the risk of taking this ad nauseam (too late!) my point is that a lot of the terms you're using permit you a wide swath of interpretation, agenda and opinion. Who the "people" are, what the issue is, whether there is a "clear and present danger" (as I alluded to earlier, that's a standard all but eviscerated by modern Liberalism -- try to get one of them to give you a series of events that would amount to "Treason" nowadays); who or what is to be "sacrificed", etc.

We have put American lives on the line and expended much for our allies. Our willingness to do so, and efficiency when we do, has bought us the cred to be able to avert many flare-ups for our allies because we'll walk the walk. Once we won't do that any more, we've thrown away those sacrifices that have bought us power-by-presence and influence-by-commitment.

Gotta run.

JP

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by legion

While very noble, it completely ignores the standard the rest of the world follows (including when meddling in our internal affairs): they meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations when it is in their best interest to do so.

To not do so ourselves puts us at an articial disadvantage to our enemies.

Not sure about how much of a "disadvantage to our enemies" our meddling in the internal affairs of other nations might do but without a doubt it certainly has increased dramatically the number of our enemies!

Just as you would be an "enemy" of any nation that had military troops runing around our nation.

[Mule]

Slacker, are you actually trying to reason with wiwb?

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker

I'm finding your writing convoluted, but I'll take a crack at the salient points, in reverse order:

I would be willing to 'sacrifice' those of my family that have voluntarily opted to serve their country's interest(s) and to go where and do what the government tells them to do (without the adolescent hubris of 2nd guessing b/c they 'know better' than their employer/government).

I do not care, nor do I think it is relevant, the opinions of those you met in Colombia of the United States. I could surround myself with thousands of anti-American douchebags in Berkeley alone, and my anecdocal information on the "opinions of Americans" would not be interesting or apposite. Your opinion of these matters has been formed by your experiences, however cogently expressed ... but expounding personal anecdote as geopolitical expertise carries no weight with me.

I don't agree with most Colombian's actions... meaning the average Colombian in the street? or of their government? Both. BFD. Our governments have made commitments to each other, and if we don't live up to them the consequences of the failure of our credibility are manifold -- our other allies, who put themselves at risk (or expense) for us, in exchange for our promises, will devalue our promises and take fewer risks for us; those of our adversaries and enemies who exercise any restraint due to our promises to intervene and protect our allies will be more bold.

If, for example, our commitment to protect Israel was seriously in question, how long would it be before there was a large-scale attack against it? The collateral and potential opportunity costs of a failure of the US to follow through on its security commitments could (and I believe would) cost much more than a few ill-conceived (or executed) interventions.

We intervened in Iraq in the Gulf War to push them out of Kuwait and destroy their ability to pull another stunt. Most Iraqis were against us coming into their country and killing their murderous, looting, rapist soldiers. Tough shyt, AFAIC.

BTW, once Iraq had seized control of Kuwait, who spoke for the population in Kuwait? Who espouses the "wishes of the 'people'". Once Iraq controls Kuwaiti territory, does Iraq speak for Kuwaitis?

Further, if they don't ... then who does? The government in exile? OK, the Iranian government in exile wants us to intervene in Iran. It serves our interests, and we've been invited in. Albeit against the wishes of a theocratic government that rules with ruthless vengeance seized control in a bloody coup. But do the Mullahs represent the will of the PEOPLE of Iran?

Well, at the risk of taking this ad nauseam (too late!) my point is that a lot of the terms you're using permit you a wide swath of interpretation, agenda and opinion. Who the "people" are, what the issue is, whether there is a "clear and present danger" (as I alluded to earlier, that's a standard all but eviscerated by modern Liberalism -- try to get one of them to give you a series of events that would amount to "Treason" nowadays); who or what is to be "sacrificed", etc.

We have put American lives on the line and expended much for our allies. Our willingness to do so, and efficiency when we do, has bought us the cred to be able to avert many flare-ups for our allies because we'll walk the walk. Once we won't do that any more, we've thrown away those sacrifices that have bought us power-by-presence and influence-by-commitment.

Gotta run.

JP

First of all, I did not meet any "douchebags" in Colombia. They were mostly hard working, decent people that I mentioned only as a point of reference because many ignorant Americans who have no knowledge of foreigners often make equally ignorant assumptions about those people. These Americans are often the very same ones who like to pretend that they know what is best for the people of other nations. There is a name for people who do that, but since it's not nice I will let you guess it.

Also, what you put "weight" on means even less to me than what my experiences mean to you and I'm certain what you think means far less to the people in those other nations that you seen to want to fuk with because you think that you know what is best for them. Perhaps if you did have some personal involvement it would be a benefit to your thought process. Seeing people suffering (because of our actions) on the 10 o'clock news is one hell of a lot different than possibly realizing that they are real, live humans just like you and me.

Most of what you list is the very reason that our nation gets into these half-ass situations where we can't use the fact that we ARE the most powerful military on the planet. If there really was a situation where our nation is truly in danger we could obliterate that menace in a matter of days if not hours. Yet, we get bogged down in multi-years fiascos where we seem afraid to win. Perhaps you could ponder that for a while and try to figure why that happens.

As for "credibility" surely you jest. We have less credibility around the world than we have ever had in our nation's history. Meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and then pretending that we are doing it for our "credibility" is absurd...at best.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Mule

Slacker, are you actually trying to reason with wiwb?

Mule, take your meds and stop back after they wear off. Or are you drinking again? You are old enough right?

[Mule]

Slacker, are you actually trying to reason with wiwb?

[WI wide body]

Also slacker,

Could you possibly list some of those agreements and treaties and committments that you mention are the reaon we should be meddling with what's going on between Colombia, Venezuela, or any South American nations?

Not a bunch, just the short list, maybe the top 6 or 7.

Thanx.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Mule

Slacker, are you actually trying to reason with wiwb?

Mule, when those meds wear off look up "redundant" in the smallest dictionary that you can find. If you fail, ask one of the upper classmen at your school to do it for you.

[Seric]

Originally Posted by RWebb

when things like this happen it is always interesting to check out where the carrier battle groups are.

Nimitz CSG is down in the Gulf of Mexico right now. It's stationed to the Western Pacific currently. So yea, we got some guns down by Chavez Chavez.

[legion]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_farc_laptop

Files in the computer seized in Saturday's raid into Ecuador that claimed the lives of Reyes and 23 of his comrades offer an intimate portrait of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's desire to undermine Colombia's U.S.-allied government.
...
Venezuela says the documents are lies and fabrications. If they are, they are expertly done.

Not only do they offer an unprecedented glimpse into the rebels' mind-set, they also discuss diplomatic overtures from governments including the United States — cryptically — and France — explicitly.
...
They indicate that Chavez, seeking to raise the FARC's stature and relieve it of its international pariah status, shares their goal of isolating and discrediting Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe.

But do they prove that Venezuela was actually financing the FARC's bid to overthrow a democratically elected government? That's not clear.
...
In a Jan. 14 missive, Briceno discusses what to do with the "dossier."

"Who, where, when and how will we receive the dollars and store them?" he asks fellow members of the FARC's seven-man ruling secretariat.

Uribe has worked as no other Colombian president to defeat the FARC. So it's no surprise that in the Jan. 14 message, Briceno discusses a desire to undermine Uribe by making him cede a safe haven to the rebels for talks on a prisoner swap.

"Uribe will become more isolated, together with his boss from the North," a clear reference to President Bush, whose government provides Colombia with some $600 million a year in military aid.
...
Marquez tells Marulanda and the other secretariat members that Venezuela wants documentation of damage by Colombia's military to "the civilian population, also images of bombardments in the jungle and its devastation — to use as a denunciation before the world."

Marquez also relays that Chavez's government "invites the FARC to participate in some sessions of the analysis group he's formed to follow Colombia's political situation."

In a letter the previous day to the same recipients, Marquez discusses Chavez's plan to try to persuade leading Latin American nations to help get the FARC removed from lists of international terror groups.
...
"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
...
Another message, to Reyes from a lower-ranking commander and dated Feb. 16, includes mention of a possible purchase of 50 kilos — 11 pounds — of uranium.

Uribe's government has claimed that means the FARC was seeking to build a dirty bomb. But the message discusses a different motive: selling the uranium at a profit.

[onewhippedpuppy]

I say for the next ten years or so, we should let the world take care of itself, with the exception of the countries that have stood beside us. It seems that we are more than willing to commit troops and resources to help others, but they are not willing to reciprocate. So, if the UK, Australia, or Israel gets in trouble, we'll be happy to help. To anyone else, piss off. Let someone else take care of the world for a while, we've got our own problems. We're so busy trying to fix the world, we're letting our country go to *****.

[Scuba Steve]

Sounds like a good idea to me...

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Mule

Slacker, are you actually trying to reason with wiwb?

it looks that way, someone who claims he fails to understand why Hillary Clinton is so vehemently disliked is not someone who can be swayed with logic or reason.

BTW, the ignore feature is effectively defeated when you guys keep quoting people on my list. Fastpat is gone, so nobody tries to persuade him of anything around here anymore.

the world is getting to be too small a place to go putting your head in the sand when trouble is brewing.

[Super_Dave_D]

This is interesting! I was wondering where our WWII hellcats went! It would take 1 aircraft carrier task force to eliminate his airforce, navy and tanks.



Venezuelan Military Statistics as of 2006:

Personnel:

· 34,000-member Army

· 18,300-member Navy

· 7,000-member Venezuelan Air Force

· 24,000-member National Guard of Venezuela

Navy:

· 2 submarines

· 6 frigates

Air Force:

· Approximately 80 fighters

· 27 attack helicopters

· Over 60 transport aircraft

-Tanks:

· The only main battle tank known is the French-made AMX-30, of immediate post-World War II vintage.

· Approximately 81 tanks

Light tanks or tank destroyers:

· M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer: approx. 75

[Overpaid Slacker]

It'd be like "The Final Countdown" when the F-14s encounter the Zeros!

Just to reiterate -- I'd like for us to leave this alone. I'd prefer not to put more of our troops at risk right now for this cause. However, if Chavez is stupid enough to test our commitment to our ally, we need to respond. Maybe not by carpet bombing Caracas, but a few well-placed JDAMs spread over Chavez' antique tanks (I tried to coin a word by fusing those two, but it wouldn't work) would bloody his nose, and at heart he's a blowhard coward.

JP