Women and jobless armed by Chavez to resist 'US invasion'

[sasha031]

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is recruiting and training a people's militia to help lead a "war of resistance" against what he claims is the threat of a US invasion. Housewives, students, construction workers and the unemployed are being recruited for the country's Territorial Guard. The first training sessions with firearms have already taken place. "I can assure you right away that also in this battle we will defeat the US empire," Mr Chavez said in a speech last week. A former army officer who turned to politics after his attempt at a coup in 1992 failed, he has raised the spectre of a US invasion so often that Washington's ambassador, William Brownfield, put it on record last year that "the United States has never invaded ... and will never invade Venezuela".

Though Venezuela is a major supplier of oil to the US, relations between the Bush administration and Mr Chavez, a strident critic of Washington-backed free-market policies, remain fraught. As a result, he has become a hero for many left-wing Latin Americans opposed to the US.They point out that Washington has a long history of supporting rebels seeking to overthrow democratically-elected leftist governments in Latin America. More recently, the Bush administration supported business leaders who forced out Haiti's elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article356677.ece

[revree]

1. SIGN ME UP!!!

This is one militia I'd love to belong to.

[sasha031]

4. Me too

how wonderful it must be to have an inspirational leader...
http://www.vheadline.com/graf/Chavez+child.gif

[Slit Skirt]

2. if bush tries to go after them

there will be a true civil war here

[killbotfactory]

49. Nah... The media will be demonizing Chavez months prior

By the time any actual invasion came it would be every Americans proud duty to overthrow the corrupt dictator of caracas! We will be assured, just like Iraq, that it's not about the oil, either.

[radio4progressives]

60. the Corporate Media have been at this for three years now..

they are insane with their rhetoric.

[killbotfactory]

75. It's embarassing, how far they go

I think I could get less biased information from Pravda.

[dogman]

3. Another waste of time and money.

Sometimes extreme is just extreme. He has the biggest weapon at this time, oil.

[Retired AF Dem]

5. I agree

* might attack Iran, Chavez just some kid you like to ignore.

[rockymountaindem]

6. I agree with that

No way is Bush going to invade Venezuela. Saber-rattling goes both ways. Also note that he's doing this for the unemployed, ostensibly to keep their minds off the fact that they don't have jobs and to give them something to do. That's a pretty extremist solution to an unemployment problem, IMHO.

[movonne]

12. Don't kid yourself that bush wouldn't attack him..and to let him

know, it will be no easy job is a good idea..bush will attack any country he feels like..If he attacks Iran we will be in deep shit...they are also prepared for this and will fight back..Iraq will look like child's play compared to Iran.

[rockymountaindem]

15. First of all, I really don't think there's any reason to attack Venezuela

It would disrupt the flow of oil, for one thing. Secondly, arming a peoples' militia is a bad idea. First of all, it covers up the problem of unemployment without solving it, if indeed this is a program for the unemployed (can you think of other leaders who tried the get the unemployed to join the military en masse?). Secondly, it's a waste of resources that would be better applied to other things. Thirdly, if we did invade, whatever militia he's setting up would suffer tremendous casualities due to lack of proper training and equipment. Just look at all the good the Volksturm did Germany and the massive death toll suffered by the Viet Cong.

Long story short, I think this is nothing more than a foolish publicity stunt.

[killbotfactory]

55. Reason for attack: Largest oil reserves in the western hemisphere

Although it would be easier to just covertley fund some kind of military force determined to overthrow the current, like we have been known to do.

[dogman]

18. And Bushco cares?

A weaponized Venezuela will be just like Iraq. A few of ours dad and a whole lot of theirs dead.

[Nabia2004]

26. Not at all, this may help to promote patriotism, unity

and national pride. Think of the social implications.

[dogman]

36. Yes AK-47s solve most social problems.

How proud they will be when more blood soaks their soil.

[rman]

72. The weapons are not to solve a social problem,

but to defend against invasion.

[me b zola]

47. You mean like Saddam's greatest weapon was oil?

Control of natural resources is what "nation building" is all about. I recomend the book: Confessions of an Ecconomic Hitman. When sweet talking and deal making doesn't get the result they want, they revert to other means such as a coup or assassination of a head of state--which by the way bush* has already tried on Chavez.

Chavez is no fool, he knows how these criminals operate.

[dogman]

54. Right, and arming women and homeless will prevent that?

Chavez is doing far more by educating the people and helping the less fortunate in the region. That is the only serious challenge to the US. Raising the stakes and introducing more arms has never benefitted a smaller nation yet. He has not been a fool, but this strikes me as foolish.

[Slit Skirt]

7. we need to recomend this to greatest page

Chavez is going to need a lot of volunteers

[LoZoccolo]

8. He's like South America's own version of Bush*.

Fabricating threats for support.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Manufacturing threats? You mean like in Chile, Cuba, Guatamala,

Honduras, Nicaragua? Not to mention a long list of other countries that peaceloving America invaded, assasinated, murdered, bombed, poisened, and otherwise "spread democracy" in?

How silly of the Venezualen people to pay attention to our history of bloody conquest and colonialism.

[dogman]

10. Yes there aren't enough weapons in the region.

That will lift up the downtrodden.

[rman]

78. The weapons are not to uplift the downtrodden,

they are to prevent more down-treading by the usual suspect.

[LoZoccolo]

Ah yes, inductive reasoning.

#6 in Wikipedia's list of common features of conspiracy theories. You will find great reward in familiarizing yourself with them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Features

So this is just like how Saddam Hussein had WMDs in 1988 and 1998, so he must've had them in 2003? How silly of the American people to pay attention to Saddam's history of illegal weapons.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Saddam attacked us? Must've missed that.

Your trust in the peaceloving intentions of our government is touching.

You avoid the question by ignoring our long and ongoing history of interference in the affairs of other countries in Latin America which would certainly give rise to some well justified suspicion on the part of Hugo Chavez as to our intentions. Especially when we have already tried to sabotage his government.

[LoZoccolo]

20. It doesn't matter.

It's still inductive reasoning.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. By that reasoning, Ted Bundy should have been set free.

After all, the fact that he killed before is "inductive reasoning" and therefore inadmissable.

The fact that America has already interfered in Venezuela's government, continues to interfere in surrounding country's governments, continues to occupy a country that it waged an illegal and immoral war on, is part of a "conspiracy theory" hatched in Caracas based on "inductive reasoning".

Got it.

Just because you got 3rd degree burns by putting your hand in the fire before doesn't mean that it will this time.

[LoZoccolo]

29. No, you got it wrong again.

The court didn't find that he was going to kill someone in the future, but that he killed in the past.

Saddam gassed his own people, so why wouldn't he gas us?

[happydreams]

42. You got that wrong. Nothing has been proven on Saddam

gassing his own people. When allegedly did this Raygun said not one word against him. NOTHING!

[happydreams]

31. Absolutely correct Tierra

:thumbsup:

Not to mention that BushCo itself has had a steady campaign to undermine if not overthrow Chavez.

[JanMichael]

11. Fabricate threats? Um did you miss the coup attempt in 2002?

Or the insane ramblings of Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush?

Toss in a history of military/economic "intervention" from the US and there's not a goddamned thing about what Venezuela is doing that is "fabricated".

[LoZoccolo]

14. No.

Saddam said lots of nasty things about us, that's why we had to attack him, right? He was a threat!

[NNN0LHI]

16. No.

That is not why we had to attack Saddam. The reason was the WMDs he was getting ready to attack us with. Remember the Winnebagos of Death, etc.?

Don

[killbotfactory]

56. It certainly wasn't about the oil

Saddam was an imminent threat.

I can't wait until Chavez becomes upgraded from "destabalizing factor" in the region, to an "imminent threat to the American way of life"

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peace Patriot]

13. Chavez was elected twice, by big majorities, in the most highly monitored

elections on earth. He is not doing anything that the majority of Venezuelans don't agree with. If they think they need a militia to deal with a potential invasion--overt or covert (U.S.-trained death squads)--THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS. And it's not as if the U.S. has a great record in South America! And it's not as if the Bush junta has not openly and actively threatened their DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government, by supporting a coup attempt in 2002, and inviting the coupsters to the White House! Not to mention Bush's bud Pat Robertson PROMOTING assassination of Chavez, and the Bush junta Congress pouring money into the rich oil elite opposition in Venezuela to fund a recall election against Chavez, in violation of Venezuelan law (--a recall that Chavez handily won).

To those above who call Chavez an "extremist," it's simply not true. What's "extremist" is what is happening here, in the U.S of A.

Great article by Ted Rall today, raking the U.S. corporate media and our junta over the coals, for their campaign against Chavez and their utter hypocrisy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20060406/cm_ucru/panderingtothepoor;_ylt=AqP4MTJnYL1o_RK0MXZd1hD9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Link and discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x886744

(Don't be mislead by the OP subject line. Everybody agrees it's confusing. The article itself is an excellent analysis of the real reasons Chavez is being vilified and threatened by US global corporate predators and their junta.)

For reliable information on Venezuela: www.venezuelanalysis.com

Chavez is by no means alone. Leftists have swept Latin American elections over the last few years (and they do have real elections there, unlike here)--in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Ecuador (and soon, Peru), in addition to Venezuela--a peaceful, democratic revolution that now covers nearly the entire continent, and is moving north (Mexico will likely elect the leftist mayor of Mexico City as president this year).

As Evo Morales, the first indigenous Indian elected president in Bolivia (last month), has said: "The time of the people has come."

And, quite remarkably, considering what they've suffered, they don't want to kill anybody; they just want FAIRNESS. THAT is what Chavez is about, and what this continent-wide revolution is about.

It's the most remarkable thing I've seen in my lifetime, since the revolt against segregation and racism in the U.S. in the 1960s.

----------

"The time of the people has come." --Evo Morales

[dogman]

17. Got it.

RW takeover bad, LW takeover good. Death for RW cause bad, death for LW cause good. Chavez attempted coup Good, attempted coup against Chavez bad. And so forth.

[High Plains]

27. I guess you'll just have to disagree with the people of Venezuela

[dogman]

37. Yes , who cares about the minority.

Absolute power and all that.

[rman]

68. If "care" means for the rich few to get richer still -

no-one can reasonably expect that kind of "care".

[dogman]

92. The middle-class and wealthy don't deserve good government?

They shouldn't have any protections under the law? Care means treating your fellow humans the same as you would like to be treated. It does not mean giving them an advantage except to level the playing field, as in affirmative action.

[rman]

104. Did i say the wealthy should "not have any" protection?

No i did not say that.

Are you twisting my words? Very obviously yes.

Debating you is tiresome and pointless. So i will ignore you from now on.

[Solon]

106. LOL, really, that made me laugh...

So you are basically saying that the people who have traditionally ruled the nation should get ALL that power back. Like in Caracas in 2002, when they killed many Chavez supporters the DAY after he was deposed, is that really a good government? Only for them I guess, because that is EXACTLY what the Opposition wants, a totalitarianism regime that will protect assets they didn't legally acquire to begin with. In order for you to understand this, ALL the land that Chavez has confiscated so far, just a clue, was FEDERAL land that had SQUATTERS on it, rich ones a that, they didn't even have TITLES for that land that they claimed. If I decided to claim Yellowstone park for myself and my family, would you expect the US government to just roll over and accept it? The only exception to this are foreign owners who neglected their land. Not one dime, not one acre of legally entitled land, has been taken from the rich or middle class in Venezuela, that's called a lie, try again.

Not to mention that nothing was confiscated from the foreign oil companies that used to do business in Venezuela, they LEASED the land from the STATE OWNED OIL COMPANY, and were under an agreement to run the fields properly, and they get to keep a cut of the profits. Simple arrangement, so the Landlord, that would be the Venezuelan government, told the tenants, that would be the Oil Companies, that some of the rules were going to change and that they would get less of a cut, they basically cried like babies, packed up their belongings and went crying back to Momma. No sympathy there. They lost some potential profit, that is NOT confiscation, not even a bad thing, from my point of view.

By the way, think about what you just said, you want the 20% of the ELITE in that nation to be back in power so they can screw the remaining 80%, how is that to be accomplished again outside of a coup? As far as I have heard, none of them, not even the guys who instigated the fucking coup, are in jail, not even indicted yet, of course, blowing up the lead prosecutor in his car does have that effect, doesn't it? Really, what is your complaint, how is the Opposition oppressed? They march on the streets, and unlike them, Chavez and the current government doesn't kill protestors, so really, what is the complaint?

[dogman]

107. Did you even read what I wrote?

How is providing good government and legal protection on an equal basis, restoring power to the elite? You are reading much more than I wrote. I would like to see our government receive royalties on any natural resource taken from Federal lands. Those do belong to the people. You write "Not one dime, not one acre of legally entitled land, has been taken from the rich or middle class in Venezuela, that's called a lie, try again." DO you have proof of that or is your word the final authoritative source alone? Or is this, like other claims you make, "As far as I have heard"? This all still comes back to the OP. Is there a reason for Chavez to arm women and jobless to fight US aggression? I think that is a stupid move or it's hype.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogman]

38. Got yer repug here pal.

As posted elsewhere from Wikipedia.
Snip>After the mid-2000 elections, Chávez backed passage of the "Enabling Act", which allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. In November 2001, Chávez used it to enact 49 decrees, including the "Hydrocarbons Law" (more government control over the oil sector) and the "Land Law" (land reform and redistribution).<snip

Strange Democracy especially considering how the National Assembly came to be.

Snip>In August 1999, the Constitutional Assembly's "Judicial Emergency Committee" declared a "legislative emergency" whereby a seven-member committee conducted the National Assembly's functions; meanwhile, the National Assembly was prohibited from holding meetings.<26> The Constitutional Assembly drafted the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, which included an increase in the presidential term from five to six years, a new presidential two-term limit, and a new provision for presidential recall elections, expanded presidential powers (including the power to dissolve the National Assembly), conversion of the bicameral National Assembly into a weakened unicameral legislature, merit-based appointments of judges, and creation of the Public Defender, an office authorized to regulate the activities of the presidency and the National Assembly.<snip

[happydreams]

45. "Enabling Act".....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So what has Chavez done with his newfound dictatorial powers? Restoring land to the people and forceing the oil companies to pay taxes and stay the fuck out of Venezuelan government affairs. The US could use its own "Hydrocarbons Law" (read: nationalize the oil industry and get serious about renewable alternatives). Remember, this is a country that has the US breathing down its throat when not trying to overthrow its democratically elected leader.

Judge the situation by the results, not the hyperbole dogman.

[dogman]

50. Yeah, it's just one year of dictatorship.

While I agree that a Country's resources should belong to the people of the Country there is such a thing as international law. Many of us would like to see our Country abide by international law and hate seeing Bushco with almost 8 years of basically unchallenged authority. To find these things acceptable just because a regime is seen as leftist is really hypocritical, not hyperbole.

[happydreams]

57. dogman it is so glaringly obvious that this was a temporary

arrangement done out of neccessity. Why do you harp on a non-issue?

Could you do me a favor and point me at a few of your anti-Bush posts?

[dogman]

63. Easy, buy a star and go to search archives.

Type dogman keyword Bushco.
In case you don't feel this forum is worth it, here's a sample.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1979144#1979158
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2258550#2259008

[Imperialism Inc.]

85. There was no dictatorship.

Not one year. Not one month. Not one day.

Get your facts straight please.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1478
(snip)
While the main tool for the implementation of this program is, in a sense, the constitution, its details still needed to be filled in. One of the legislature’s first orders of business thus was to pass an “enabling” law, which allowed the president to pass certain laws, on predetermined issues, by decree. This is something that earlier Venezuelan presidents, such as Carlos Andrés Perez, had also been allowed to do.

The enabling law was set to expire in November 2001 and, just before its expiration, Chávez presented the 49 laws and passed them by decree. These laws allowed the president to restructure the oil industry, forced banks to dedicate a portion of their loans to micro-credits and agriculture, made large fishing companies fish further from the shore, so small scale fishers could fish closer, and threatened large landowners with land redistribution, among many other things.
(snip)

[bobbieinok]

46. Wikipedia is written by people on the internet...not necessarily the best

source of info

[dogman]

48. I'm well aware of that

which is why I made the source clear, but I believe the snippets I used are historical fact. You are free to prove otherwise.

[killbotfactory]

53. They just established a new constitution

One of the most progressive of any nation. If they felt it was appropriate for Chavez to rule by decree for a year, it's up to them. Too bad most dictators don't like losing power, so Chavez still rules by decree to this day... oh wait, no... no he doesn't. That power stopped after one year when it was supposed to.

[dogman]

61. When you appoint your legislature you can do what you want.

When someone redistributes the wealth of others, they can find a lot of agreement. But this thread was more about the arming of segments of the population to fight Bushco. I still believe that that is a waste of time and money. Chavez has done better things and I think this is an unwise move unless there is a different reason that he is concealing. If he had said he were designing a military with everyone sharing the burden, more like Switzerland, I wouldn't be commenting.

[killbotfactory]

62. What wealth of others? They are profiting off of natural resources

Natural resources belong to the nation. I doubt it costs much to arm and train volunteers. The fact is, other than the threat of cutting off the oil spigot to the US, the only other prevention they have from keeping us trying to screw with them is a large armed populace. They don't have nukes or WMD's to keep us at bay, in case Bush got the great idea to go try and repeat the Panama invasion on them, and a large armed populace would keep them from trying another 2002-type coup attempt. Or, as Larry Birns says in the article:"This militia is there to protect the revolution. There is no prospect of the US invading Venezuela, but there is every prospect of it ceaselessly looking for factions within the Venezuelan military and hoping to induce ... elements to rise up."

[dogman]

64. Larry Birns says that, but Chavez did not say it.

Snip>"I can assure you right away that also in this battle we will defeat the US empire," Mr Chavez said<snip
You are correct they couldn't stop it at present and neither will an army of "women and homeless". It could leave them with a lot of dead people though.

[killbotfactory]

65. You don't win wars with body counts

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

If the population largely supports the government we are trying to violently overthrow, they will fight us no matter what the odds.

[dogman]

66. Easy to say when it's not your body.

I never mentioned winning either. It only worked for Ho because we were not there to win anything. We were there to feed the MIC. But how many Venezuelans will end up killing each other?

[killbotfactory]

69. Chavez has an 80% approval rating...

I'd assume support for their constituion is higher.

I doubt there would be many Venezuelans killing each other, when nations come under threat of outside forces, they tend to group together despite their differences. It's what happened here after 9/11, and it's what is happened in Iran after we invaded two of their neighbors and called them evil.

[dogman]

77. A lot of assumption.

Things will run their course. With the national treasury and the powers of redistribution he can buy a lot of good will and support right now. There is still the potential for instability even without the US. That region of the world has experienced these things for some time. Look at Columbia and Nicaragua. The US does not have to have a presence on the ground to take advantage of the instability. Unless Chavez is like Castro, he will not live forever. Chavez has also seized assets of other nations. The US is not the only factor, it is just convenient now because he has the perfect foil in Bushco. Hopefully that will not last forever either.

[Imperialism Inc.]

84. Stop spreading lies and innuendo, please.

Enabling sound like the legislature was suspended for a year. It was not.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1478
(snip)
While the main tool for the implementation of this program is, in a sense, the constitution, its details still needed to be filled in. One of the legislature’s first orders of business thus was to pass an “enabling” law, which allowed the president to pass certain laws, on predetermined issues, by decree. This is something that earlier Venezuelan presidents, such as Carlos Andrés Perez, had also been allowed to do.

The enabling law was set to expire in November 2001 and, just before its expiration, Chávez presented the 49 laws and passed them by decree. These laws allowed the president to restructure the oil industry, forced banks to dedicate a portion of their loans to micro-credits and agriculture, made large fishing companies fish further from the shore, so small scale fishers could fish closer, and threatened large landowners with land redistribution, among many other things.
(snip)

[dogman]

86. Your link does not say that it was not a year.

It does not mention when the enabling law was passed. Wikipedia says it was passed after the mid-year elections of 2000. Fall of 2000 to Fall of 2001 looks like a year to me. Your bold type indicates he was no different than the regime he had replaced in this regard.

[Imperialism Inc.]

93. Oh come on now.

You have been hysterically crying "dictator, dictator" on this thread like some crazed rightie. What the link shows is 1) the decrees were to be on certain subject matter, pre-determined by the legislature, not some general rule by decree (i.e. the legislature was still there and passing laws, not abolished), 2) that the legislature giving the sitting president leeway to pass laws to establish a broad program is not unique or unusual in Venezuela.

You mis-characterized what happened and now won't admit you were wrong?

Whatever... Guess I'll just get out my grains of salt when reading your opinion on Venezuela.

[dogman]

97. Are you seeing double?

I wrote "one year of dictatorship" not "dictator, dictator". I am not crazed by facts. Giving the Administration powers to legislate sounds more like Bushco than a progressive. I could care less if you put me on ignore or not. I am not seeking to convert you or anyone, I am pointing out that IMO this is a grave miscalculation on the part of Chavez that will bring his people more harm than good.

[High Plains]

21. A people's militia would make another coup attempt impossible

I suspect it's more about that than fending off a direct US military invasion. That's the American style, anyway, let the local guys with guns (the military) do our dirty work.

And it's not a jobs program. These guys will be more like trained reservists.

[killbotfactory]

51. Also in case we try to fund some kind of Contra force from Columbia

A direct american invasion is unlikely, but with Bush in charge, who the fuck knows.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. This is another reason not to trust Chavez.

I will give him his due, and say that *to date* he has done more harm than good, but this does not look like the action of a man who's willing to allow himself to be voted out of power.

The justification "to resist US invasion" is clearly a blatant lie - a) Chavez appears to be no fool, and must know that there's no possibility of a US invasion of Venezuela, and b) if there were, a citizens' militia wouldn't help stop one - they could make an occupation very messy, but they couldn't repel it.

This must therefor be motivated by domestic concerns, and I don't think that arming a "citizens' militia" for domestic reasons is the action of a man committed to democracy. It may be that he's simply doing it because he thinks it will make him popular, or that he's doing it because he's worried about coups, but I'm afraid I think it's more likely that in ten or twenty years' time this militia will be fullfilling a role similar to Robert Mugabe's "war veterans" in Zimbabwe.

I would very strongly caution Mr Chavez's cheerleaders among the first-world left not to assume that because he's a left-winger he's a liberal, or a nice person.

I may be doing him an injustice, but it's a bad sign. Only time will tell, but I'm not optimistic.

[Nabia2004]

25. So what was your first or the "other" reasons for not trusting him?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Only hunches.

:-The style of his rhetoric.

:-The fact that he's tried to present himself as being on the side of the people, against the system, which sounds laudable but is not infrequently followed by attempting to put aside the (democratic) system all together.

:-His closeness to and apparent admiration of Fidel Castro and his government.

:-The style of his contempt for his opponents (not simply the existence of such contempt - Republicans and Democrats hate one another, but I get the impression that Chavez views his opponents as in some sense "not real people", which is a bad sign, I think).

:-The little I know about the political culture of Venezuela.

:-His apparent conviction of his own rightness, and lack of self-doubt - by no means unusual, but a bad sign nonetheless.


Even taken together, that's obviously not in any way conclusive, but it's grounds for pessimism, I think.

As I've said, I think that if he were to resign tomorrow, his record would be undoubtedly positive, but for the above reasons and as a matter of "gut feeling" if that counts for anything (which it probably shouldn't) I worry that he'll be willing to go a very long way to hang on to power.

[rman]

76. You could remove your doubt by looking into

the history of Latin America and US intervention there, and by looking into what Chavez is actually doing for the people of Venezuela.

There's no need to limit yourself to hunches and impressions.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

70. There's a long history of US intervention in Latin America,

both militarily and covert.
So there's every reason for Venezuela to prepare to resist US invasion.

[killbotfactory]

74. For some history, you can start here

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Or here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/index.htm

[TexasLawyer]

24. Iran connection

If the US bombs Iran then you'd better believe that the US is going to be all over Venezuela. BushCo will be needing that oil.

[converted_democrat]

34. I just said those very words 15 mins. ago to a friend of mine on the

phone.. I went even a little farther than that.. I said that they would do the air strikes in Iran to cut down on man power,and then they'd send our troops to Venezuela, along with the mercenary firms to secure their oil..

on edit- I have no idea why I think this, I just do.. I go over scenerios all time with her because we're both into politics, and we're always wondering what * will try to pull next..

[happydreams]

28. Bush will probably bomb the shit out of Venezuela like he plans

to do to Iran. I call it de-industrialization. Chavez should get partnerships for his industrial infrastructure with major nations like China. This would up the ante if the US starts blowing up Chinese/Venezuelan property.

[cynatnite]

30. I like Chavez, but...

Isn't this fear mongering on his part?

I really don't believe an invasion of Venezuela is likely even though some military plan may be floating around. The military has a tendency to make plans for the unlikeliest scenarios.

It just seems like Chavez goes overboard at times with his rhetoric.

[JohnyCanuck]

39. Given the US propensity to think of South/Central America as

their own back yard and the history of the US government meddling in the region to support regimes it favours and overthrow the ones it doesn't, and considering that there has been already one unsuccessful coup attempt against him that was clearly supported by the US, Chavez would be a fool not to proceed on the basis that behind the scenes the US is actively planning on how they can take him out. Military action by the US against Venezuela is certainly one of the options that he would have to consider.

If the US is successful in some type of military operation against Iran, it could further embolden the neocons to try out a Shock & Awe demo on Venezuela to get rid of that pesky burr under the saddle, Chavez once and for all. Not too mention, when they go after Chavez they will shut off Cuba's access to oil, so they will probably figure going after Chavez will be an automatic 2 fer 1 deal as they will get rid of Castro at the same time.

If the attack against Iran does not go forward or meets with failure or poor results, that also could be a motivation to attack Venezuela to attempt to make up for a loss of face in the Middle East. It is said one of the reasons Reagan was so eager to go invade Grenada is because the marines had to withdraw from Lebanon after the marine corps barracks was bombed in Beirut, and he felt the need to kick some commie ass to demonstrate that in spite of being chased out of Lebanon, you still can't mess with Uncle Sam.

Ostensibly, Reagan said he acted to protect 500 Americans, including students at the St. Georges medical school who were under curfew because of the political upheaval. At the same time, U.S. officials explained that Reagan was opposed to the new ties between the governments in Grenada and Cuba, the Soviet Union and China.

Almost 800 Cuban construction workers were building a landing strip which could accommodate Soviet military cargo planes as well as commercial jetliners. According to Reagan, it was nothing less than the vanguard of a major military bastion that would export terrorism and undermine democracy.

"We got there just in time," Reagan said later.

But the American invasion of Grenada stunned and angered one of Reagan’s closest anti-communist allies, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Grenada was linked to the United Kingdom as a member of the Commonwealth, the residue of the British Empire that stretched around the globe.

The Commonwealth status meant Whitehall was tracking events in St. Georges carefully, including the murder of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and members of his Marxist-Leninist government by army leaders. In the week before the American invasion, Washington had informed London that there was no need for outside intervention as events were likely to play out without further bloodshed.

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2002/Sloyan/Sloyan.html

[cynatnite]

40. It's a very good case...

I'm not fully convinced, but you showed it is something that shouldn't be ruled out. While I do think Chavez is escalating the rhetoric, he does have history to look back on as well.

Looking at what bush has done since in office I don't blame any world leader for being wary.

[Imperialism Inc.]

82. I think he is going overboard myself.

I'm a long time supporter of Chavez but his rhetoric does reek a bit of fear mongering lately. And, yes, I am fully aware of the US role in the previous coup attempt. I understand the idea behind the citizen militias but I don't much like that approach either. Such things have too much of a tendency to become tools of repression or cause people to take the law in to their own hands. Don't get me wrong, I'm not among those buying in the Chavez = dictator non-sense, I just think this is good intentions gone bad. I'm also no a big fan of more weaponry in the world in general.

[Balbus]

43. The U.S. is Chavez's bogeyman to help keep him power.

He's just another dictatorial ass-hat in a 3rd world country.

[killbotfactory]

52. Maybe we shouldn't have supported a coup against him, then...

Or illegally support the opposition...

We don't want anymore dictators winning free and fair, internationally monitored elections.

[radio4progressives]

59. drinking a bit too much right wing kool aid are ya? eom

[Pavulon]

44. We are his bogeymen

be afraid of the evil us...Here is a piece of shit rifle, it will solve your problems.

Think of this here. Lets give those on welfare m-16's to defend against the evil iranians.

[rman]

71. Yeah right, like Iran is going to invade the US.

For the US to invade a Latin American country however, would be a continuation of a well established pattern.

[radio4progressives]

58. Let's not forget that the U.S. has already attempt 2 Coups on Chavez

one that was almost successful, lasting for about 48 hours. the United States at the time, vis a vis CNN took complete control of the Media during the Coup in April 2002. (omfg, we're coming up on the anniversay this weekend)

So when the CIA took over the Media and claimed that the Chavez Government was dissolved it got pretty fucking choatic and things happened - but our govenement ultimately failed. That's why Chavez started up Tel Sur an independent television media source - (I didn't know CNN was their main media source there) in the event that the United States does this again.

I understand there are Naval ships along the coast of Venezuela somewhere trying to provoke an attack by Chavez..

The United States completely disregards the laws of the high seas and soverignity.

It just occurred to me that a number of undocumented workers coming through Mexico might consider going to Venezuela instead. I think it will be better pay, and certainly far less punitive than the legislation that may come up in a couple of weeks promises to be if the xenophobes and the racists get their way.

[jukes]

67. trying to polish

my wretched border-spanish now, in order to facilitate emegration.

[rman]

73. Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread

Original by JohnnyCougar
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=311462&mesg_id=311538

Holy balls. I haven't been on here much lately, but I am shocked at the right-wing extremist propaganda floating around here about Hugo Chavez. DU is usually my safe-haven from this sort of propaganda, but to see Chavez baselessly trashed on here by so many has made me feel compelled to post this. I will try and identify the top falsehoods repeated about Chavez, and give some appropriate context to them that lay these "tyrant" and "oppressor" claims to rest. And the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are being cited against Chavez irritates me on two levels. Firstly, these organizations put out reports on every country, and are almost wholly negative. Amnesty International's profile on France is about as long as the one about Venezuela. But I highly doubt France is considered a tyranny by anyone. Secondly, the reports ignore the context of the situation happening in Venezuela.

First of all, there are a few articles I suggest people read to get an understanding of Chavez's peaceful revolution in what once was a corrupt and oppressive state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/01/feature3.shtml

Secondly, if you read these articles (which I really, really recommend you read, because they are highly informative, well written and interesting) you will realize how desperate of a state Venezuela was in before Chavez took power. 80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Chavez was the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992 against the then scumbag of a president. But the coup failed, and Chavez took full responsibility, admitted his failure, and served his time in jail. The president whom he attempted to overthrow was impeached a year later.

Chavez gained a lot of supporters attempting that coup, and his base continued to believe in him. In 1998, Hugo ran for President and won. The poverty-stricken, starving, illiterate "brown skinned" Venezuelans supported Chavez in a landslide victory. Since then, Hugo has been trying to clean up a government that had run for decades on massive corruption. The middle and upper class in Venezuela hated him because he was "brown" and because of his fight against the kleptocracy they had grown rich with. The Venezuelan court was highly corrupt. The parliament was worse. The plutocracy used car bombs, coups and violent protests to try and undermine Chavez's democratically elected government. The right-wing television stations would run anti-Chavez propaganda uninterrupted for days at a time, using racist cartoons and outright lies to brainwash the middle class and the upper class into thinking Chavez was a tyrant. Right-wing publications in the US picked up on this propaganda and of course reprinted it here. Obviously, it still circulates.

Chavez has taken control of the Citgo oil company and used parts of its profits to start schools and free healthcare clinics for Venezuela's massive poor. This totally angered the right wing. But since Chavez has become president, Venezuela's poor are much healthier, millions of people can now read, and he is attempting to diversify Venezuela's economy. The people there love him. He is the first leader that actually cared about him in forever.

Here are some of the most prominent right-wing attacks on Hugo Chavez debunked.

Chavez is attempting to censor political speech and take control of the Venezuelan media.

After the corrupt right-wing media in Venezuela inspired a coup, kidnapping and later a ridiculous attempt to recall Chavez, as well as violent protests, Chavez made an anti-slander law to curb the false propaganda the private media was spreading. While no one, to my knowledge has been arrested for violating this law, it has worked to curb some of the anti-Chavez propaganda and racist remarks made in the private Venezuelan media. When asked in October if Chavez would actually arrest anybody with this law, he responded: "I am not going to accuse anyone because they insult me, I don’t care if they call me names, I don’t care what they say about me. Generally I do as Don Qixote said, if the dogs are barking it’s because we are working." Furthermore, there are many opposition media outlets in Venezuela, and only one state-owned outlet. Chavez could shut the opposition channels down, but he doesn't. He just limits the racist, riot-causing propaganda they usually encourage.

Chavez is packing the Venezuelan courts with cronies

This is true. But that's fine with me. The former judges were highly corrupt, and some were organizers of the coup. The Venezuelan courts were known for their widespread corruption before Chavez. These courts let off people that kidnapped Chavez at gunpoint during the coup attempt.

Chavez is hurting the economy

According to a press release in mid-2005, Venezuela has the fastest-growing economy in Latin America, with growth rates in the first two quarters of 7.5% and 11.1%, respectively. It had a 17.8% growth rate in 2004. The non-oil sectors grew at a faster pace than the oil sector, rising 8.7% and 12.1% in the first two quarters of 2005. Venezuela's economy is growing at the second-fastest rate in the world, topped only by China. Furthermore, Chavez's programs are wiping out illiteracy and providing healthcare to the poor for the first time ever. He has also been the first President to really enforce Venezuela's tax laws. The rich were getting away with cheating on their taxes time and time again. He has considerably raised the minimum wage. So basically, Hugo is allowing private enterprise to flourish (despite requiring them to follow tax laws) and still using money to support the poor. What he has already done has been nothing but a victory for human rights in Venezuela. Millions upon millions of people now have hope and health that would have never had it otherwise. But despite this, false right-wing anti-Chavez propaganda continues to circulate around the echo chamber...even on DU.

What Chavez has done is inspire a popular revolution with little to no violence at all, completely overthrowing a horrendously corrupt government in Venezuela and liberating masses of nearly starving poor. Instead of leading by force like he did in 1992, this time the revolution worked.

But I can say one more thing for sure: If I were next to Hugo Chavez, I would hug him, too!

If you know of more false propaganda being spread about Chavez, please debunk it below! I probably missed some things.

[radio4progressives]

79. Excellent post rman!

[adwon]

80. Nice stunt

Arming people who are essentially noncombatants against invasion is either a last-ditch move or a stunt. Seeing as any credible threat of invasion in the near future is negligible, that reduces this to a stunt. It's great public relations, but is of little real value. It seems like a move to forestall criticism from his domestic critics by painting a picture of the country under seige. While that picture may be legitimate at some point in the future, it is clearly not now.

Creating paramilitary organizations is usually a bad idea. I hope they don't find that out the hard way.

[rman]

81. You to are ignoring the long history of US intervention

in Latin America.

"threat of invasion in the near future is negligible"

"near future"? Sure, it won't be tomorrow. It may not be during the current Administration.

"negligible"? Two words: "history" and "oil".

Certain, no - probable, yes.

[dogman]

83. And you are ignoring reality.

Iraq had what was rated as the fourth largest army in the world. This people's militia would be cannon fodder. Chavez should stick to education and health-care. Other than defense against regional neighbors and insurgencies he is wasting time and money. If he is looking for propaganda, lives of the poor and AK-47s might be considered cheap. According to his admirers, that could not be his outlook. This comes back to the basic question. Why?

[Imperialism Inc.]

87. ..

Analysts believe the real motivation behind the militia is to protect against a possible uprising by elements of the Venezuelan armed forces - sections of which supported the 2002 coup. "The only conventional army likely to threaten Chavez is Venezuela's own," Sam Logan, a long-term Latin America observer, wrote in a recent analysis for the International Relations and Security Network.

Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, said: "This militia is there to protect the revolution. There is no prospect of the US invading Venezuela, but there is every prospect of it ceaselessly looking for factions within the Venezuelan military and hoping to induce ... elements to rise up."


from... the original article.

[dogman]

88. Exactly, Chavez is using hype and propaganda.

I don't care if it's Bushco or Chavez, it's bullshit.

[rman]

89. Iraq's army was in shambles after GW1 and the sanctions

and it was equipped with weapons from the WW2 era. Also we can see in Iraq how much damage an ad-hoc "people's militia" can do.

Moreover, how effective the Venezuelan people's army would be in case of US invasion doesn't change anything about the long history of US intervention in Latin America, and doesn't change anything about the likelihood of invasion. In fact, the weaker that army, the more likely a US invasion is.

[dogman]

91. And what made Iraq's army in shambles in GW1?

And AK-47s are different in Venezuela than in Iraq? And who has suffered the most from Iraq's people's militia? You can defend this move all day without changing the fact that this is hyperbole on the part of Chavez. Swagger from the left is as obnoxious as swagger from the right. Chavez is quitting his game, helping the poor, and playing the imperialist's game, arm's buildup. It's a bad move that will do more harm than good. It's the Bushco plan, make people afraid to consolidate power over them.

[rman]

96. still ignoring history

[dogman]

98. ?

[adwon]

105. Actually, I'm not

This isn't arming people to act as guerillas, it's arming them to fight as soldiers. In other words, in a potential conflict, it's gearing them for slaughter. This isn't far removed from the Volkssturm, which sent old men and boys out to die in a futile attempt to hold back the Red Army.

The idea that a conflict is necessarily inevitable seems silly to me. The military capability simply isn't there. More subtle means of policy could be used, but those would tend not to implicate some ragtag paramilitary group.

Additionally, it's not the history of intervention in Latin America, but the history of intervention in Central American and the Caribbean. Panama is the furthest south any force has gone without invitation.

[rman]

90. The Op-Ed Assassination of Hugo Chávez

(originally posted by another DU-er)

This article is a few weeks old, but it's a great read. I encourage DUers to read it, because people on both sides of the spectrum have been vastly misinformed about Hugo Chavez. Even our own Democratic party is somewhat guilty on this one.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1670
Separation of powers

In addition to ignoring the Venezuelan government's popular mandate to carry out its policies, columnists ignore the Venezuelan National Assembly's role in formulating major political legislation, such as the recent expansion of the Supreme Court and the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. U.S. op-ed pages erroneously portray Chávez as the author of all such legislation. For example, Oppenheimer (Miami Herald, 6/5/05) contended that Chávez "single-handedly packed his country's Supreme Court with loyalists."

In reality, the expansion of Venezuela's five-chamber Supreme Court was first debated and then approved by the National Assembly. Pro-government legislators argued that the existing number of judges could not adequately handle their caseloads (Venezuelanalysis.com, 5/27/04). Venezuelan legal expert Carlos Escarrá had pointed out that the court's constitutional and political chambers were backlogged with thousands of cases (Venezuelanalysis.com, 5/17/04).

In contrast to the U.S. system, in which the president makes judicial appointments and the Senate votes on whether to confirm them, Venezuela's National Assembly selects Supreme Court magistrates. In the process of expanding the court, the Assembly selected 17 new justices from a list of 157 candidates pre-selected by a committee made up of representatives of the offices of the human rights ombudsman, the attorney general and the comptroller general (Radio Nacional de Venezuela, 12/13/04). Only in propaganda can this process be described as Chávez having "single-handedly packed" Venezuela's court.

Columnists who attack the "stacking" of Venezuela's Supreme Court also neglect to explain the political context within which the National Assembly voted to increase the number of magistrates. Among U.S. op-ed writers, only the progressive U.S. economist Mark Weisbrot (Miami Herald, 12/20/04) pointed out that Venezuela's Supreme Court had refused to prosecute military officers who temporarily overthrew the elected government in April 2002.

In light of the court's failure to defend the country's democratic institutions against violent attempts to subvert them, Weisbrot argued that it was not unreasonable for the National Assembly to expand the Court (Christian Science Monitor, 8/11/04). "If you had a Supreme Court in the U.S. that ruled that the people who participated in a military coup could not be prosecuted, Congress would impeach those justices," Weisbrot contends.

U.S. commentaries are also inaccurate in asserting that Venezuela's media law was simply "pushed through" the National Assembly by Chávez. Venezuelan legislators not only deliberated about the law, but also held in-depth studies of other countries' communication laws in drafting it. Among the communication laws from which legislators drew inspiration were those of England, France, Switzerland, Spain, Argentina, Mexico and the United States.

When the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress passes a piece of legislation and George W. Bush signs it into law, one scarcely finds U.S. commentaries asserting that the president "pushed" the legislation through a "compliant" congress. However, when Venezuela's democratically elected National Assembly undertakes a similarly complex process of devising legislation that Chávez subsequently signs into law, U.S. commentaries portray the country's legislative process as if it were stage-managed by Chávez.

[dogman]

94. Ahh, the "Bushco does it" defense.

So as long as the writer agrees with you it's a great read? He works for FAIR which is hardly what it's name implies. I've seen their hatchet job when they don't like the subject they write about. But bottom line what has this to do with the OP? It points back to the fact that Chavez is different than Bushco primarily in perspective. One has the rich as his base and one has the poor. How about the others?

[rman]

95. So, you don't like FAIR? quite telling that is

[dogman]

99. It tells I haven't drank the kool-aid, right?

Yes, I don't need out of context quote spun into innuendo and lies. I don't need facts challenged by opinion instead of provable facts. Quite telling that I expect FAIR to be fair. Damn, I don't believe everything in the bible either.

[rman]

101. Kool-aid drinkers typically dislike FAIR

Because it exposes the RW lies for what they are.

[dogman]

102. I don't care for lies of any stripe.

Extremes are extremes and lies are lies. FAIR is not always fair. I've read enough to know that for myself.

[rman]

103. Reality is extreme

Pointing it out may be extreme, but it's not lying.

Extreme is the reality of US intervention all over the world, in pursuit of the self-interests of its rulers. You have managed to avoid responding to my referring to this history of extreme reality for several posts now. This way you and i could keep running in circles for all eternity. I know a wild goose chase when i see one. Bye bye.

[rinsd]

100. self delete looked at wrong article