Chavez Warns of Resistance War With U.S.
 

Hugo is worried. The question is, should he?

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez urged soldiers on Sunday to prepare for a guerrilla-style war against the United States, saying that Washington is using psychological and economic warfare as part of an unconventional campaign aimed at derailing his government.
Dressed in olive green fatigues and a red beret, Chavez spoke inside Tiuna Fort—Venezuela's military nerve-center—before hundreds of uniformed soldiers standing alongside armored vehicles and tanks decorated with banners reading: "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"

"We must continue developing the resistance war, that's the anti- imperialist weapon. We must think and prepare for the resistance war everyday," said Chavez, who has repeatedly warned that American soldiers could invade Venezuela to seize control of the South American nation's immense oil reserves.

U.S. officials reject claims that Washington is considering a military attack. But the U.S. government has expressed concern over what it perceives as a significant arms build-up here.

Chavez—a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro—told soldiers the Washington was trying to weaken and divide Venezuelan society, including the armed forces, without resorting to combat.

"It's not just armed warfare," said Chavez, a former army officer who is leading what he calls the "Bolivarian Revolution," a socialist movement named after 19th-century independence hero Simon Bolivar. "I'm also referring to psychological warfare, media warfare, political warfare, economic warfare."

Under Chavez, Venezuela has recently purchased some $3 billion worth of arms from Russia, including 53 military helicopters, 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 24 SU-30 Sukhoi fighter jets.

Last week, Chavez said he is considering arms purchases, including submarines and a missile-equipped air defense system, as he prepares for a tour of Russia, Belarus and Iran.

"We are strengthening Venezuela's military power precisely to avoid imperial aggressions and assure peace, not to attack anybody," he said Sunday.

Opposition leader Julio Borges condemned the president's interest in acquiring weapons, saying the government should focus on reducing violent crime in Venezuela, which has one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America.

"This isn't resolved with military purchases and foreign tours," Borges said. "This is resolved with the determination of having a country with justice."

Chavez is playing a political card. It works only because the United States government is so unpopular everywhere in the world. The real threat is that most major US oil providers are now unstable - especially Venezuela and Nigeria. Because the George Jr administration has even undermined American credibility (few trust what the US government says anymore), then Chavez who would be completely ignored by Latin America instead gains respect by playing these political cards.

Chavez is simply another symptom of an American government that has political agendas rather than intelligence. Even Uruguay, once a close American ally, has established diplomatic relations with Castro. Chavez is only another symptom of a mental midget president and his supporters who also see enemies hiding everywhere.

Wow, that is a new position.

Got ya in a: :apickle:

Should he be worried?

Yes, the US has messed up many socialistic regimes in the past and it is foolish to think that the US will not try to mess this one up either.

And remember, the US has to attack first for anything to go through...

Careful what you say. TheMercenary also may put you on George Jr's enemy's list for describing reality.

We have been told what the political agenda is. 'Resistance' is futile.

Considering that socialism is nearer the Borg than democracy is...

Chavez, as a socialist and therefore by definition hemipygian, needs to get pantsed, bent over a barrel, and... occupied.

Don't waste any time beginning the subversion. The less this guy's consolidation of power, the less of a mess he'll make of things.

That is very close-minded and arrogant.

Venezuela isn't the one making a mess of HALF THE WORLD!

You have a good point that Chavez destroys one country and Bush destroys many. Chavez will destroy many if given a chance and Bush gives him that chance by raising his profile among nations that resist American hegemony. Both men hate the individual and seek complete government control over humanity. At least Chavez is honest about his thuggery...

How has Chavez destroyed a country?

He got democratically elected three times and besides a dip in the early 2000's has been doing pretty well, for both the poor and capitalists.

He is getting a lot of revenue off of their oil (note, not Western oil companies' oil) and that money is being brought back into the country so everyone is benefiting from it, like I said before, even capitalists (that is actually the biggest sector in growth).

I don’t nessesarly agree with everything that Chavez has done but he hasn’t been as bad as the news reports him as. I didn’t agree with Venezuela’s decision to give him that much power because he is human (even though he has proven to be trusting in the past) but he hasn’t done anything that could be considered destroying a country.

Unless…you have a different opinion of what destroying a country is…

How can you support this notion? Chavez is a Marxist/Socialist.

When outside pollers check the last election it turned out he lost by 60%.
He shuts down free press.
He is a totalitarian dictator...
We should just cut him off completely and support, in any way we can, democratic rebels.

Merc, Pierce is a socalist... you have not figured this out yet?

So that makes it ok?

Some info on the grand support Chavez gets and the good work he is doing for "the people":

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_...pposition.html

How reliable is this? And I wouldn't be suprised, elections have been rigged in every country.

Most of the free press is still anti-Chavez. He shut down RCTV and it is justifiable and they are still able to broadcast on cable and sateliite so the people who can't watch it are most likely poor and would support Chavez anyways...

Be more specific.

But we ignore pro-western dicators that are worst than Chavez? How about we stop intervening with other countries' politics.

I don't follow any political philosophy...

If you post supportive statements of this idiots (Chavez) ideas of government as being a positive thing for the people than I would submit that you would in fact support a particular "political philosophy". You made your bed, support it.

No, I don't have too. I don't support communism but if a communist state made life better for the poor I would support that aspect of it. I support some ideas of capitialism and I do not support that philosophy as a whole.

Just because you support one aspect of a political philosophy does not mean you have support the whole thing. It is like saying just because I like Dennis Rodman's rebounding skills that I support all of Dennis's decisions.

So what you are saying here, correct me if I am wrong, is that you basically have no money, have no real significant income, and do not really own anything. Becasue once people like Chavez get in power and start taking things away from you, you really can't understand my position. So please correct me if I am wrong. What do you do for a living and how much are you pulling in as taxable income?

Notice how TheMercenary makes massive leaping conclusions. Because Chavez promotes socialism, then everypone will have no money, have no real significant income, and not really own anything.

And since France is socialist, then Frenchmen don't have money, don't have real significant incomes, and do not really own anything.

TheMercenary is extremist. Therefore he replies to everything with 'black and white' perspectives. Clearly only 'good and evil' exist in his world. Only one perspective is valid - the 'good' perspective. Any other perspective must be evil. There are no moderates. Tolerance is weakness. His is a world of extremes. We also called that fascism.

TheMercenary will even misquote to promote a political agenda - another characteristic of an extremist. Example: TheMercenary has intentionally and blatantly misrepresented what piercehawkeye45 posted. Somehow TheMercenary has dumbed it all down to "Chavez will take away everything". piercehawkeye45 did not even suggest that. But TheMercenary cannot comprehend the world any other way. His political agenda demands only 'black and white' conclusions; that Chavez will take away everything. TheMercenary translated what piercehawkeye45 posted into something 'black and white'.

That translation automatically proves "Chavez is evil". TheMercenary's agenda that cannot comprehend a world that is tolerant and has numerous perspectives. 'Black and white' is also how Rush Limbaugh's fans believe. Notice how Rush defined Hilary - and TheMercenary also calls her Hitlery.

Watch TheMercenary insist that 'good and evil' always exist. No wonder TheMercenary so strongly assoicates with George Jr, Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh logic.

TheMercenary has intentionally misrepresented what piercehawkeye45 posted so as to avoid admitting reality - a world of perspectives.

Why would we attack them. Mr Chavez will be overthrown soon enough.

Why did we attack Saddam? He also was on the verge of collapse. However logic does not prevail when reasons are justified by emotion and the 'them evil; we good' mentality. Reason that a majority of Americans supported "Mission Accomplished"? Exact same reasoning created Nam.

What will stop us from making the same mistake with Chavez? Well it took 30 years for Americans to completely forget those lessons from Nam. It may take another decade for 'big dic' reasoning to have credibility again.

Meanwhile Chavez is only a threat because the current American government is so dumb as to make Chavez look credible. Notice the number of once strong American friends that are now even talking to Castro.

"Nam" was purely economic, Textron Industries is or was owned by Lady Bird. I got this from my Aunt Marie Johnson.

But Ike started it.

Don't you dare doubt the word of Aunt Marie Johnson.

Sorry Aunt Marie, I lost my head.

Pssssssssssssst... tw, this ain't about me.

Now back to the subject at hand. Chavez will take his country to the toilet.

Venezuela has never shown any intention of aggression to any country as opposed to Iran.

America has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons. Israel has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons. Russia has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons.

I find it ironic that the countries with the most nuclear weapons are the most aggressive countries in the world and they will limit countries to nuclear weapons because they say they are too aggressive.


And how is Chavez running his country into the ground. Even the fucking Economist will admit that he is doing well. They just don’t think it will last because of inflation and lowering oil prices. Time will tell…

Then why do you spin propaganda to promote an extremist political agenda? Remove you - and all that 'black and white' / ‘good verses evil’ reasoning disappears.

Chavez is irrelevant. Chavez will buy fighter planes. Chavez will buy submarines. Chavez will hunker down for the coming American attack. Chavez will say anything to get extremists upset. That emotion simply makes Chavez popular. Political agendas promoted by TheMercenary only play into Chavez's game of promoting Chavez.

Be a responsible nation; ignore Chavez, and Chavez will eventually self destruct. It is a well proven concept is called 'containment' that extremists just don't understand. We all remember 'containment'. That is what smart presidents did before George Jr. Extremists with a political agenda oppose 'containment'. TheMercenary is justifying 'pre-emption'. We all know what pre-emption created: "Mission Accomplished". TheMercenary, using hype and fear, is promoting Chavez as the next Saddam.

TheMercenary: it’s not about Chavez. He is irrelevant. It's about wacko extremist political agendas, hyped in fear, that promotes Chavez just like he were Saddam. It’s about your political agenda, hyped by fear, that promotes pre-emption and the 'Pearl Harboring' of sovreign nations.

It is unconscionable to leave Chavez alone when all the misery his government can engender can come to a screeching halt once Chavez suddenly dies.

And tw, since your advice on these matters is invariably to leave totalitarians and totalitarianism alone, we all know you for a fascistocommunistic antidemocratic anti-human. Here are where your sympathies lie. You never had any political acumen, and you've entirely too much sympathy for nondemocracies and their continuing oppressions. You are disgusting, not amusing, and you are disgusting by your own conscious choice. Not a smart decision, boyo, but a measure designed to foster contempt of tw. Nice if you enjoy a heavy burden of contempt.

Have you, tw, traced 85% of Venezuela's problems, present and incipient, to Chavez's top management? If not, why not?

If Chavez abruptly leaves power, do 85% of Venezuela's problems depart with him?

Sung to "Matilda:"

Hugo Chavez -- Hugo Chavez --
Hugo Chavez, he takes your money
And runs Venezuela!

Pierce, he'll run it into the ground because he's insisting on managing through the public sector that which runs far better in the private. Bureaucrats lack the needed motivation: their income and prosperity do not depend on how well economically the business they are managing is doing. When this is done systemwide, stagnation is the invariable result, and collapse is usually only staved off by abandoning the use of government bureaucrats to run the industry.

Who was it said "If the government were in charge of sand, there would be a shortage?" That which is not a free market does not efficiently provide goods or services.

Chavez will not notice nor react swiftly enough to downturns in oil prices or inflation, and these will be his Waterloo, and that of his largesse. This was all avoidable -- but to really avoid it, you have to avoid letting socialists into power in the first place.

Damn, I wish you'd grow a patch of common sense. Or is it that you're happy convincing me you're rather stupid? :headshake

Overly much of the planet is run by oligarchies, not democracies. This is not a satisfactory situation, and I've set forth why elsewhere. Socialist oligarchies are among the very worst, and I've seen this. What, dear laddie, have you seen? Your postings say not very much. There's no shame in being guided by somebody of more experience than yourself, you know.

Messing up oligarchies and disposing of socialists is how the world gets better, Pierce.

Arrogant is a term used by the weak of will or weakly motivated to disparage initiative and motivation of which they disapprove, most generally for reasons of infinitesimal worth, long before jettisoned as worthless by the one they're yelling at.

:bs:

All right, I'm throwing the BS flag. No one who has read your posts can mistake your political stance: it is hostile to democracies and friendly to authoritarian less-than-democracies. You have never to my knowledge been caught supporting a democracy in these forums. I have with reason called you a fascist sympathizer before; that assessment still stands.

People who own property in Venezuela are no longer secure in the belief that they control their assets. It is fundemental for stability that people believe that what they earn is their own. If ownership is in doubt a subset of people will stop earning and start taking both individually and in grand scale by fiat. btw-The Economist is not the right wing sheet you seem to believe it is.

Well said.

It still does not warrant any American military action. People must be free to make horrible mistakes in the market for governance. If we protect them from themselves, we earn their resentment and they fail to earn knowlege of communisms inability to allocate resources.

The worst for whom? Different political philosophies affect people differently.

I understand how social oligarchies can be very bad but what else do they have to work with? Right-winged oligarchies do not work for second and third world countries. It is a lose-lose situation for them. Either be exploited by western oil companies or be exploited by your own country. Capitalism did not work for them so now they have to try something new.

Oh, so how am I weak of will. I used to be an elitist but got over that phase, I now don't expect other people to conform to my way of living because I know that there is no one right way to live and other people have other preferences than me.

All you know is that I am an anti-capitalist. There are more than two types of socio-economic theories you know...

Urbane Guerrilla, who claims to be libertarian, instead advocates pre-emption. We must save Venezuela from itself. They voted for Chavez. Now we must invade them. We must burn the village to save it. That is not libertarian thinking. That is savage totalitarianism.

Urbane Guerrilla advocates totalitarianism. "We must use pre-emption to save them from themselves." That is the mindset of an extremist who must impose his will on all others. Again, only Urbane Guerrilla knows what is better. *Pre-emption*. No wonder UG could not comprehend Thomas Barnett's "Blueprint For Action: A Future Worth Creating." UG's conundrum is demonstrated by the words arrogant, Libertarian, democracy, and totalitarianism.

Urbane Guerrilla's mindset preaches democracy while advocating totalitarianism. No wonder America cannot impose democracy in Iraq. We did pre-emption doing exactly what Urbane Guerrilla and TheMercenary now advocate for Venezuela. Do they evern learn from the lessons of history? BS is right. Arrogant is when Urbane Guerrilla knows what is right for everyone else and imposes 'his wisdom' on them. The arrogant also claim to be Libertarian?

Claims to be Libertarian, preaches democracy, but advocates military totalitarian actions. UG is the ultimate example of arrogant.

Chavez is doing what every despot had done.
Not enough food? Never mind that, we have to mobilize to defend our country against Yankee Imperialism.
No jobs? Never mind that,......
No this, no that, no other thing? Never mind that,.......

Create a common enemy and a perceived threat, make the people think they are not just doing without, they are sacrificing for the cause... the common cause.

Unfortunately this is easy to do in South America because of the many forays down there by the US government in the past.

Poverty and unemployment levels in Venezuela are extremely hard to base since they are very dependant on oil since Venezuela is an oil-based economy.

All numbers relating to poverty and unemployment levels in Venezuela follow this pattern. Other oil based countries such as Argentina tend to follow the same patterns as well.

Another reason for the sudden increase in poverty in 2002 was the coup and oil strike. Besides that sudden increase, the poverty levels have steadily dropped throughout his whole time in office.

The only real concern with the stats of poverty levels are claims that the INE changed its method of measurement but there is no evidence to support that and you can search that for yourself.


Sources:
Three papers on Venezuela’s economy:
Anti-Chavez:
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?con...s/200510200708

Pro-Chavez:
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005/10/...cceeds_27.html

Argentina's Economy: (scholarly source)
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/lac/lacinfoclient.nsf/d29684951174975c85256735007fef12/3d29a0ed02294a8b85256db10058dbdd/$FILE/ArgentinaPABP1.pdf

The above link doesn't show up so go here and click the fifth link down. It should say "Argentina’s crisis and its impact on household welfare".

Tw remains determined to support totalitarianism.

By tw's brand of logical thinking, he now supports me unreservedly.

I'd say he's still short on that political acumen thing.

85% of problems come from the top.

He really supports totalitarianism....

Common enemy not so common after all: Venezuelan soccer fans like the US more than Mexican soccer fans

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...er-Protest.php

Understatement. Actually he is an anti-American apologist of Hamas, bombers and executioneers of US Soldiers in Iraq, and a supporter of the terrorists who hit us on 9/11. He specializes in the ad hominem attack. His halmark is the ad personam and the Ad hominem tu quoque. Ignore him and count his attacks in a single paragraph and you will see what I mean.

While I need no instruction in tw's contemptible ways, others may need this tidy summing-up.

Funny that someone so profoundly anti-American somehow never moves out, not even to Canada. Add hypocrisy and noncommitment to his list of sins.

Pierce, in my experience they who shout "Arrogance!" are using it as a codeword for a whine of "I don' wanna dooooo that." Pfah!

Frankly, I think at the least a touch of "elitism" is about the only functional way to think of anything: value judgements are essential to good living -- if you actually want to know you're living better. Howling about "elitism" as some kind of pejorative is another way the weak, the specious, and the immoral, trying to drag the inexperienced ones down to their level.

And beware of being an anti-capitalist. Being that way means being opposed to each and every thing that makes life worth living. You may, however, be safely opposed to poor ethics and greed, etcetera. The liars-about-capitalism try and tell you that only through bad ethics can you realize great wealth in capitalism. They're wrong; you do even better with capitalism conducted ethically. A failure of, or lack of ethics means your gains will be taken from you along with your liberty: prison time.

That can be a reason but that is not the way I am using it. I have learned that it is pointless to look down on people that disagree or live a different lifestyle than me because it is their choice and they are probably looking down on me as well so we go nowhere but down. Acceptance and understanding is not a virtue of the weak UG (there are obvious exception to that).

Of course everyone has a touch of elitism, but when it gets out of control it will get you nowhere. Also, it can be seen as insecurity (I know it was for me). The people that are most secure about themselves are usually the ones that are the most accepting. Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Under self-actualization, the highest point you can get, it says acceptance of self, others, and nature. That is not fact but I have not heard much critics about it from people that study psychology.

I don't think you understand why I am an anti-capitalist. It is not that I want to be rebellious or I want to be part of something different, just that I believe the current system has many flaws and we should move on to an improved social-economic system. I do not embrace socialism or Communism because I think the economy should mostly be run by the people even though I will support them because I agree with the social and community aspects of it.

I just want to get rid of the capital bullshit. Making money does not make people happy and only causes greed that will take over people. A community based economic system can fix that by helping the community and hopefully bringing it closer together. It is much more efficient to focus on all the needs (I am not talking about basic needs, but all non-superfluous items) of people and not flooding them with unneeded consumerism.

Humans have evolved to be very social creatures that are focused around a community. We get our basic morals from society, we are happiest when we are close to others, we are altruistic, and there are many other reasons why humans work best with a community focus.

I do not have a specific community based social-economic theory that is ran by the people but frankly, if society would change its focus from individual gain to community gain, I would be more than happy.

I think I know what you are talking about but can you explain further. I may be wrong, but I think you are a supporter of small business which I strongly agree with.

Capitalism can be seen as a community based system but that is about as realistic as saying Communism is equality.

This needs a whole new thread and so I have started one