chavez says U.S. planning an invasion of Venezuela

[intrepid]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_...zuela_chavez_us (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_us)

[Ownthink]

At this point, I would denounce or rule out nothing regarding US Imperialism.

[KC]

Perhaps by saying this he is defending himself from US imperialism. After he has said this, if anything happens to him or the Venezuelan government, the US will be the first way people look.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well, its good that he's saying these things, it seems to be keeping latin america and venezuela in the public eye. And as ownthink said i certianly wouldnt rule out a U$ invasion, but i think they'd have a very hard time, and the rest of latin america might well reovlt, it could be the spark that fuels a reovlutionary fire.

[fernando]

The US would do some indirect action and then make it seem as if these actions are supported by the masses.

[bolshevik butcher]

They tried that with the coup. And thankfully the people of venezuela weren't fooled.

[Atlas Swallowed]

I remember watching a clip of an anti-Chavez rally on CNN. Later on that day I read the news on the net and their was a pro-Chavez rally that same day. The pro-Chavez rally had like five times as many people but the corporate controlled US media somehow neglected to cover it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:14 AM
The US would do some indirect action and then make it seem as if these actions are supported by the masses.
As someone else said, they tried this already, but I wouldn't put it past them to try another time or something along thoes lines (fund and train a proxy army etc)... persitant assholes!

But I would be very suprised if they had an all-out invasion simply because of Iraq. THe military is streached thin, and while they might want to show force their hands are tied with the iraqi insurgency. On a political note they couldn't afford it either as long as the Iraqi insurgency continues because invading and deposing and elected leader while "bringing democracy to Iraq" would be too obviously hypocritical even by their standards (not that they don't want to do it, just that it would be too transparent).

As arogent as they are, the blowback from such an overt action could include an all-out revolt in many Latin American countries, loosing both in Iraq and Venusuela, and a massive revolt within the US that makes the 60s/70s look like a episode of the O'Riley factor in comparison. I think they know the downside could be massive and it's too much of a risk so they are more likly to try something more under the radar.

[councilcommie]

whilst chavez may ahve been a little over precaucious with that statement, i think it cant really hurt to reinforce the message, so the Bush admin wont get any daft ideas

[Tekun]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+Oct 21 2005, 11:14 PM--> (Gravedigger @ Oct 21 2005, 11:14 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 11:14 AM
The US would do some indirect action and then make it seem as if these actions are supported by the masses.
As someone else said, they tried this already, but I wouldn't put it past them to try another time or something along thoes lines (fund and train a proxy army etc)... persitant assholes!

But I would be very suprised if they had an all-out invasion simply because of Iraq. THe military is streached thin, and while they might want to show force their hands are tied with the iraqi insurgency. On a political note they couldn't afford it either as long as the Iraqi insurgency continues because invading and deposing and elected leader while "bringing democracy to Iraq" would be too obviously hypocritical even by their standards (not that they don't want to do it, just that it would be too transparent).

As arogent as they are, the blowback from such an overt action could include an all-out revolt in many Latin American countries, loosing both in Iraq and Venusuela, and a massive revolt within the US that makes the 60s/70s look like a episode of the O'Riley factor in comparison. I think they know the downside could be massive and it's too much of a risk so they are more likly to try something more under the radar. [/b]
x2