venezuela

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Do u think that the USA will invade Venezuela if the situation worsens?
Or are their hands full in Iraq? I read that a few weeks ago there was a rally in Venezuela demonstrating against Chavez, is this true. If so will the Us use these, as they used the cuban exiles in the bay of pigs atempt?

[Sadena Meti]

The US doesn't want to invade Venezuela, they want to break it up. Seperate the oil rich region from the rest. They tried a coup and that failed. So now they will covertly help that region break away, then that region (or rather the US puppets) will ask for military help, so the US will send in troops to "defend them."

End result, US occupation of the oil fields.

It probably won't happen until 2013-ish. Unless Bush/Cheney stage a terrorist attack against the US in early 2008, and thus put another facist in the Whitehouse in November 2008.

[Whitten]

The US's "To invade:" list is rather full at the moment.

[kingbee]

It probably won't happen until 2013-ish. Unless Bush/Cheney stage a terrorist attack against the US in early 2008, and thus put another facist in the Whitehouse in November 2008.

So that won't be happening then...

[kaaos_af]

The yanks could waste Venezuela in a flash if they wanted to (if Chavez had been smart about defence, he wouldn't have wasted all that money on Russian airplanes, but would've watched Hezbollah in action against the IDF with interest and bought ten thousand RPGs), it's just the occupation bit that the US always fucks up on. If the US went to war with Venezuela, it'd have to fight the whole damn continent- everyone from Uraguayans to Mexicans would be in revolt.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:28 pm
it's just the occupation bit that the US always fucks up on
Which is why Chavez purchased 100,000 AK-103s, and is in the process of establishing local munitions factories and encouraging citizen defense militias. He knows what he's doing. Most people seem to forget that he was a colonel, and that much of his military experience was in the field of counter insurgency (ironic isn't it).

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 01:53 pm
Do u think that the USA will invade Venezuela if the situation worsens?
Or are their hands full in Iraq? I read that a few weeks ago there was a rally in Venezuela demonstrating against Chavez, is this true. If so will the Us use these, as they used the cuban exiles in the bay of pigs atempt?
Yea but there are demonstrations against (and for) Chavez all the time - nothing new here. It is worth remembering that the often well-financed, well-advertised right wing opposition to Chavez rallies are almost always much fewer in number than the pro Chavez rallies despite all the inherent advantages the oppposition has.

The trend in US policy in Latin America, in recent years at least, has been to covertly support opposition movements and reactionary forces (financing them, arming them, giving them logistics, political support, etc) not direct invasion. It is not outside the realm of possibility, just unlikely at this point and time. The ruling classes in America have enough on their plate with Iraq and Afghanistan and a war with Venezuela might and probably would further escalate what is an already tense situation in Latin America where several countries have a large and growing revolutionary movement which if further provoked, threatens to become more radicalized, more class-conscious and more widespread.

Thus it's really not something that's in the US ruling class' best interests so I doubt they will seriously pursue it. On the other hand, what they will seriously pursue and have pursued already, is the process of trying to remove Chavez by covertly supporting reactionary segments of the military, the corrupt political parties, and the wealthy elite who have and will always hate Chavez. By saying that an outright invasion is unlikely does not diminish the threat to Chavez and more importantly, to the worker-oriented movements in Venezuela at all.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 01:53 pm
I read that a few weeks ago there was a rally in Venezuela demonstrating against Chavez, is this true.
Of course. The capitalists and middle-classes which are completely tied to imperialist capitalism. Chavez, although not a socialist, is a challenge to this, and of course it scares/pisses them off so they protest and march against him all the time. It doesn't invalidate his presidency one bit. You should watch the movie The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_%28documentar y%29). Chavez has already been deposed once, for a few days, in an army-led coup (although part of the armed forces defected and defended Chavez) supported by the business union in Venezuela. When that happened millions (yes, millions) of Chavez supporters rose up in the city in support of Chavez and his power was restored. Similarly, there was a recall election against him, which he won very handedly. I dont think Chavez is a socialist, however he is fighting against imperialist economics and making Venezuela self-sufficient, which is something we should all support and of course as long as hes a challenge to the businessowners and exploiters, he will be opposed, it shouldnt stop us though.

[kaaos_af]

Apart from the right-wing militarist crap, this article sums up how I think Venezuela would best go about defending itself.

http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezu...da_of_evil.html (http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezuela_enchilada_of_evil.html)

[uber-liberal]

The trend in US policy in Latin America, in recent years at least, has been to covertly support opposition movements and reactionary forces (financing them, arming them, giving them logistics, political support, etc) not direct invasion.

I think that's been their policy on Latin America since the Spanish-American War, hasn't it?

Right now, with Iraq, Afghanistan, the threats from North Korea, Iran, destablization in the Holy land and a political paradigm moving gradually to the left stateside (not to mention even the English have joined the French in spitting on American tourists), I'm frankly surprised President Bush has the wherewithall to even remember Chavez's name.
The White House right now is on a party recovery mission, I think. If the Republi-can'ts loose just one house of Congress, that the next two years will be a living hell for the administration.
Not that the Democrats are that much better, but at least they're a LITTLE , tiny-bit better.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 07:39 am
Not that the Democrats are that much better, but at least they're a LITTLE , tiny-bit better.
My way of putting it is "they are less worse."

[Guerrilla22]

I don't know with what troops the US would use for an invasion of Venezuela, there's currently a massive shortage of avaible us military personel, they don't even have sufficient numbers available for Iraq.

[Sadena Meti]

Don't worry, with globalisation destroying US jobs, they'll soon been plenty of unemployed people lining up for the "growth industry," soldiering.

[Tekun]

Considering what the imperialists have on their hands (Iran, Iraq, NK, and Afghanistan) a siege on Venezuela would be incredibly unpopular and would create a serious resistance

Its not completely out of the picture, but I highly doubt that any action would be taken against any Latin America country radical or not as of right now, unless of course something unexpected and of great magnitude took place

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Not that the Democrats are that much better, but at least they're a LITTLE, tiny-bit better.

You realize that the invasions of Korea and Viet Nam were waged under Democratic presidents?

[ComradeR]

The US isnt above using local pupets to fight their wars for them, just look at columbia.

[chebol]

BreadBros wrote:

I dont think Chavez is a socialist,

That's odd, coz he now thinks that he is. Now, the venezuelan revolution isn't socialist yet, but that doesn't mean Chavez can't be.

In fact, I'd suggest that although he's late to the game he's more of a socialist than we are (in the sense that he's both building a revolution and actively building a socialist current within it).

Granted, he is not a marxist, but he has moved significantly to the left in the past couple of years, both in rhetoric and action.

When a leader of arguably the most important radical and exciting new social revolution taking place in the world today stands up and says, "we have to destroy capitalism and build socialism", it's worth paying a bit of attention.