Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

War in South America??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:09 PM
Original message
War in South America??
Help me understand what may be going to happen between Venezuela, Ecuador and Columbia.

I know we have been a great big pain to Chavez (including trying to engineer a coup in 2002).

still why would he want to start a war??

what would be his objectives??

What would/could be the unintended consequences of such a conflict??
A. Could/would it draw in other combatants??

I am simply not up to speed on that part of the world.

Help me to get an understanding.

Am not looking for flames, I really want to understand what could happen and how it could affect the US (not to mention how it may or may not impact the election, and primaries).

Thank You.

:dilemma:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Colombian agents crossed the border into Ecuador
and assassinated a FARC leader. Troops are now massed along the border in both Venezuela and Ecuador. They haven't crossed the border, they're being kept there as a precaution. So far.

Right now, it looks like a prudent thing to do. As long as Colombia doesn't do anything else stupid, it will likely not escalate.

Ecuador and Venezuela have both recalled their diplomats from Colombia, as I understand it. It's a crisis, but not a shooting one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What are the odds that this just remains a crisis
and that some one does not do something stupid like crossing a border with armed forces??

I agree it is probably prudent for all involved as it sits now, but I (as a history buff) know how being prudent (in theory) lead to disaster in 1914.



:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. With the bush bunch behind colombia...I think colombia will do
the stupid thing...they are just a aching for a fight with Chavaz...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. NUTS!
If you are correct than that is just what we do not need.

I hope you are wrong, but it would not surprise me in the least if you are not.:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. And then . . .
. . . the US backs Columbia against the evil socialist dictator who attacked one of our freedom fighting friends. All hell breaks out. People forget about Iraq, use destroys Venezuela and we get "our god given" oil back from them.

:tinfoilhat: or reality. Hope it's just tin foil hat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Since they're led by right wingers, they might
but the war will be on at least 2 fronts. It won't be a prudent thing for them to do.

Left wing governments are now better equipped to offer aid now. Colombia is becoming increasingly isolated in the region. With the US bogged down in two unwinnable wars on the other side of the planet, the help from this quarter will be severely limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ringtailtooter Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. More 411 on S. AM.
Yahoo has a good story about the conflict.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080304/wl_afp/venezuelacolombiaecuadorrebels;_ylt=AliMgWDmrmzwcf72oqxNiMis0NUE


What's interesting is that Chavez gave money to FARC, America gave money to Colombia and Castro is accusing America of providing missiles and satellite guidance. Is BushCo. setting this up as another election diversion or an excuse to go after Chavez?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. What will we use??
I was under the impression that our forces are drawn way to thin to engage in another conflict.

we might be able to send a carrier group or 2 down there, but ground and tank forces??

Want to stay out of this!!

It looks like we had a hand in causing it to begin with.

We should not get involved.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. They're setting up an excuse to go after Chavez/get Venezuela's oil
That was my first thought. I wish BushCo would stop being so transparent and just disappear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nutshell: BushCo has ignored Latin America because
Edited on Tue Mar-04-08 02:31 PM by sfexpat2000
they are obsessed with the Middle East. (Clinton did, too, actually)

During that time, democracy flowered and grew in Latin America.

American corporate interests hate that because it cuts into their profits.

Okay. So, BushCo basically bought the Colombian governmment, and they are using Colombia to strike back at left leaning government in South America: Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina.

Chavez got involved with this because those four countries support each other against BushCo.

I expect everyone to stand down and that no hostilities will break out. But, BushCo and Colombia probably have just sentenced the hostages that FARC is holding to captivity because now FARC has no reason to trust the negotiating process.

And, btw, it helps BushCo and the Colombian government for those hostages to remain hostages. They have no interest in having them released.

And, btw 2, Colombian paramilitaries have in the past been planted inside Venezuela to try to off Chavez because he is obviously a leader against BushCo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Didn't see that coming!
Must be Plan B since the attack on Iran was stymied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. John Perkins (economic hitman) has said we'd be in Venezuela
if we weren't in Iraq.

I've been sincerely worried about Chavez's ability to stay alive on this planet for quite a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Would the people of Venezuela
greet us any better than the people of Iraq (at least in Iraq's case we had solid proof that Saddam was a bit of a butcher)??

I am unaware of Chavez killing people in Venezuela just for his jollies (though I do understand he can be some what heavy handed with his police).

Still no reason to get drawn into or surreptitiously provoke a war.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. The corporati always toss up social issues as their excuses.
If Saddam was a butcher, he was our butcher. We had no problem with him until it became convenient.

Chavez has always been inconvenient for the corporati. They'll kill him as soon as they can.

It has nothing to do with the cr@p they say but with the bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. Realize this is not the first time we have these kinds of fireworks in South America
yes, there have been wars in the Southern Cone that have had PRECIOUS LITTLE to do with the US....

In fact, Ecuador and Colombia have gone to war in the past, with no US prodding... so yes, there is plenty of reason to believe that this is another flare up in their at times all but peaceful relationship.

There has been quite a bit of he said, she said over those borders for decades, and the Colombians crossing the border is a very provocative action

AT THE SAME TIME, if the Colombians are correct, and they found links between the Ecuadorian government and the FARC... that is also a very provocative action, even possibly justification for war. After all the FARC is all but nice to the central Colombian government and regardless of what some round these parts may say, they are a terrorist organization. They started with other goals, noble even, but today, they are not quite what some think they are.

As to Venezuela... given that Chavez is NOT as popular with the people as some folks round these parts believe he is... (yes, he got rebuffed at the polls, badly) war is a great way to get people behind him.

Examples of this abound, the most recent George Bush, whose popularity was in the dumps on September 10th, and then came the war on terror. Another example, the iron lady, Maggie Thatcher, who would have gotten booted out if the Falklands never happened. For those unaware of this, she would have lost.

Now it helps that we have kept our eye OFF our back yard, but truly... to see the US Bogeyman behind every flare up is just plain stupid. No, we are not that important and as an Empire in Decline, even less

Though expect Brazil, the local powerhouse, to help defuse it. The last thing they need is a major war (involving Ecuador, and Venezuela on one side) and Colombia on the other, IN THEIR BACKYARD.

Oh and what other countries could get involved? Chile has offered to mediate, and Argentina is warily looking at this

Consequences? Well, we could even see military coups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I kind of wondered where
Brazil might fit in.

I think Argentina may be inclined to back Chavez to a degree since as I understand it they have been chumey the last few years.

Still this is what I was wondering.

Leaving the US out of the equation what would the other nations in SA feel compelled to do.

How far could this thing be pushed, in other words: would Chavez back up his words with serious actions such as bombing Bogata, or launching a major military attack into Columbia??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I take him at his word
he has moved troops to the border and if his border is breached, you will see actual shooting war

Posturing is at times better than actual war. This is also the lesson from many a conflicts in and out of the Southern cone

You get the benefit of nationalism on steroids (any nation at war will do that), but without the consequences of actually launching offensive operations... and the cost of it. And yes Chavez will accuse Bush of being behind it, and he might have a point, but given Southern American History... all this could be smoke.

As to Argentina... I am betting they are staying on the sidelines. The last thing the civilian government wants is a revitalized military...

But Chile and Brazil... they will do ALL THEY CAN to defuse this...

If we are involved they cannot afford it and if we are not involved, they cannot afford it either.

Oh and given the history of wars in the southern cone... I am almost betting it will stay at the border ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thank you so much
it appears that there may be some rich history for me to read concerning that area.

Think I will visit my library or do some searching on the web.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yes it is, and looking for useful links on the web and cannot find them
Edited on Tue Mar-04-08 03:18 PM by nadinbrzezinski
will try Spanish mext

Ok here are some wars in both CA and SA

CA, Guerra del Futbol, between Honduras and el Salvador, 1970

La Guerra del Cenepa, Cordillera del Condor, Peru and Ecuador 1995

La guerra del Chaco Boreal, between Bilivia and Paraguay, 1932-5

And I am sure I am forgetting plenty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ringtailtooter Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. And the rest of the story
Here's the real deal. BushCo is putting pressure on Dems in congress to pass free trade agreement with Colombia that they are stalling as per press release.

"Bush said one of the chief ways that Washington can help Uribe (Colombian Pres.) is for Congress to approve a free-trade deal with Colombia. Though signed by the two countries in 2006, Capitol Hill's Democratic leaders have refused to pass the agreement, citing human rights violations in Colombia and its standing as the deadliest country in the world for organized labor."

Yahoo AP update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_south_america;_ylt=ApXz0.xc.9vK9POgd1PoJX.yFz4D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Commonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
18. Here's something irrelevant...
... that you probably didn't know about.
I just learned about this recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
20. Venezuela is not trying to start a war. Donald Rumsfeld is...
Yeah, you heard right. The "retired" architect of the slaughter of 1.2 people in Iraq, to get their oil.

To understand this situation in South America, you have to start here...

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

You notice he says "tyrants"--plural. He has more targets in mind than Venezuela. He wants to clean out the nest of democratic, social justice-minded, ALLIED, leftist governments sitting on all that oil in the Andes region. Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. Venezuela and Ecuador are members of OPEC, and have lots and lots of oil. Bolivia has some oil, and lots of gas (and a Rumsfeld-expoitable, rightwing separatist movement, to split the gas/oil rich provinces off from the central government of Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia--a mostly indigenous country--and a strong Chavez ally). And there was a big oil find in Argentina recently--another strong Chavez ally (who today is signing food for oil trade agreements with Venezuela--despite every effort of the Bush Junta to break up their alliance).

Okay, got the picture? South American countries with leftist governments are allying with each other, with common goals of regional self-determination and social justice. These include also Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Nicaragua (and likely Paraguay this year--a very popular leftist is running). Four of them--the above mentioned--HAVE LOTS OF OIL. The Bushites have almost no friends left in South America. Their one big friend, Colombia, is run by fascist thugs whose security forces and closely allied rightwing paramilitary death squads have been killing thousands of union organizers, political leftists, small peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists. The Bushites have larded billions of our tax dollars upon these fascists, in military aid, for the phony, corrupt, murderous "war on drugs" (which all four Bolivarian democracies--listed above--have rejected) and recently added the excuse (in billion dollar aid packages for Colombia) of fighting leftists guerrillas, in Colombia's 40+ year civil war, whom the Bushites have deemed "terrorists." The leftist democracies of South America--particularly the Bolivarians--reject this policy as well. This puts our war profiteers at risk, as well as Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and other global corporate predators.

The LEFTIST DEMOCRACIES of Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and FRANCE have been trying to broker a peace in the 40+ year Colombian civil war. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela--and now, we have learned, Rafael Correa of Ecuador--have put their personal reputations on the line, to negotiate the release of hostages held by the leftist guerrillas in Colombia, as a first step in brokering a peace in that civil war. They were succeeding. Six hostages have been released this year--mostly Chavez's doing. Correa was negotiating yet another hostage release (of 12 hostages, including French citizen Ingrid Betancourt).

Bush Cartel client state, Colombia, just sent bombers and soldiers into ECUADOR, and slaughtered a group of Colombian guerrillas who were hiding out in the jungle, in their sleep. They lied to Rafael Correa that they were in hot pursuit. They were not. And these weren't just any guerrillas. This group included Venezuela's, Ecuador's and FRANCE's CHIEF HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR, Raul Reyes, who was trying to negotiate, a) release of more of their hostages, and b) a peaceful settlement of this long civil war. He was the contact person and the moral force behind FARC's efforts toward peace.

In other words, Bush Cartel client state, Colombia, just destroyed all hopes for peace in Colombia's civil war!

As always, the Bushite use of the word "terrorist" excludes themselves, and their puppet states. Colombia is a terrorist state. Colombia is so bad that even this wimp-ass U.S. Congress balked at the Bushite "free trade" deal with Colombia, because of the short life span of union leaders in Colombia. This is WHY there is a FARC--armed leftist guerrillas--in Colombia. They don't have the option of peaceful political activity. They get chainsawed and their body parts thrown into mass graves, when they try to participate in the political process, or organize unions and communities to advocate for the interests of the workers and the poor. They are NOT "terrorists." And--according to every human rights group on earth--they are NOT responsible for most of the carnage in Colombia. Colombia's GOVERNMENT is responsible for 95% of the murders of union leaders in Colombia. But it's a CIVIL WAR. FARC has killed some people, and has kidnapped people. But, interestingly, the kidnapped people--according to the recently released hostages--are begging for Colombia to stop the killing, and to negotiate a political settlement of this war.

And Donald Rumsfeld is puppetmastering this situation, to start OIL WAR II: SOUTH AMERICA. He and the Bush Junta--who are subsidizing all this killing with our tax dollars--just pulled Alvaro Uribe's puppet strings, and got him to destroy the positive steps toward peace, by murdering Raul Reyes, and about 16 others, in the massacre in Ecuador, near the Colombian border.

Does this help? I will cite chapter and verse, if you need it. I've been following this situation closely now for several years--as have others here at DU. We know what we are talking about.

Here is what the recently released hostages were saying just a couple of days ago, about their hopes for peace...

-----

Chavez, freed FARC hostages call for political solution to Colombian conflict
February 29th 2008, by Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com
Luis Eladio Pérez and Gloria Polanco speaking at the press conference in Caracas (Reuters)

Caracas, March 1, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called for international mediation group to negotiate a humanitarian accord in neighboring Colombia, after a successful Venezuelan led humanitarian mission secured the release of four former legislators held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), on Wednesday.

During a telephone call to state owned VTV Thursday, Chavez indicated that France, Ecuador, Brazil and Argentina as well as the Organization of American States support such a move. It is "essential" that Venezuela is part of any international mediation group, because "the FARC have demonstrated that they don't believe in anyone else," he added.

In a communiqué, released minutes after the hostage handover the FARC said this would be the last unilateral hostage release. The FARC reiterated their longstanding call for a military free zone as a precondition for any further negotiations for a humanitarian exchange of 40 remaining high profile hostages for 500 imprisoned guerrillas. However, the Colombian government immediately rejected this proposal.

Chavez said the desire for peace by the majority of Colombians and that the pressure of world opinion would force Uribe to change his position.

"President Uribe is going to have to change his position. Everybody is in agreement except for Uribe, " he declared.

Speaking at a press conference in Caracas on Thursday night, the former Colombian legislators, Luis Eladio Pérez, Jorge Gechem, Orlando Beltrán and Gloria Polanco, also spoke out in favor of a military free zone to facilitate a humanitarian exchange.

"I publicly challenge President Alvaro Uribe to demonstrate the success of his policy of democratic security and clear the military from the municipalities of Pradera and Florida and after 45 days the Armed Forces can recuperate this territory," Perez said after his liberation. "The solution is political, Mr. President Uribe," he repeated twice during the press conference.

"If you persist in the foolishness of insisting on a military rescue you are going to receive, Mr President Uribe, 40 or 50 corpses. It is absurd to think of a military rescue with the conditions that we had in captivity. There would be a massacre," Pérez stressed.


He revealed that the four recently liberated ex legislators have a proposal to present "to President Uribe, the President (of France Nicholas) Sarkozy and, of course, to President (of Venezuela, Hugo) Chavez." This proposal would only be made public after the three heads of state had been informed, he said.

Pérez who classified the FARC as a "political military group who use terrorist practices" also referred to former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, captured by the guerrillas in 2001, who he said is in a "very bad state of health."

In a message released in 2003 demonstrating Betancourt's proof of life, the former presidential candidate indicated that she was opposed any form of military rescue, as she feared a repeat of the tragedy that occurred in May that year when ex governor of Antioquia, Gilberto Echeverri, and the del ex Defense Minister, Guillermo Gaviria, died during a botched military rescue ordered by Uribe.

Betancourt maintains this position Perez said, however she is also conscious "of the high risk and lack of commitment of the President of the Republic."

In contrast Betancourt calls for a political solution to the conflict based on the Geneva Convention and believes that "fundamentally President Uribe has to recognize the political status of the FARC guerrillas," Perez said.

Pérez also affirmed that after an attempted escape, Betancourt, "remained chained up during the night," and her captors, "humiliated her, obliged her to walk barefoot, tied her to trees and rationed her food."

Ex congressman Orlando Beltrán condemned "all terrorist acts, wherever they come from. I condemn the terrorism of the FARC, of the paramilitaries and the terrorism of the State." He pointed out that Colombia "is the only country in the world that has disappeared an entire political movement, more than six thousand leaders of Unión Patriótica were disappeared, to speak only of this case."

Under a previous peace accord in the 1980's the FARC demobilized and formed Unión Patriótica, however after they laid down their arms thousands of former guerrillas were hunted down by paramilitaries, backed by the Colombian state, and massacred, forcing them back into the armed struggle.


Beltrán added that the Colombian State "has to assume responsibility and understand that they must create the conditions to achieve a humanitarian accord. I don't understand why, when make these handovers in a unilateral manner, they say they are not going to clear the military from a centimeter of the national territory."

Gloria Polanco asserted, "It is necessary to reach the heart of President Uribe, to speak to him, to explain, because he has to understand that if he does not clear the military from Pradera and Florida, which is what the FARC ask, our comrades will die in captivity."

"I am asking for a humanitarian accord, because they have to place value on life, not on a piece of land, not on a piece of territory," she said.

All four ex-legislators confirmed that they would participate in an international day of action organized by human rights organizations on March 6 in protest against paramilitary violence in Colombia. Uribe has condemned the protest scheduled to take place in some 150 cities around the world, claiming it is organized by the FARC.


(emphasis added)
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3213
(Note: Venezuela Analysis is a Fair Use web site.)

----------------

Rumsfeld & co. have just destroyed all of this. They don't care a crap about the hostages--or peace. This is a Rumsfeld specialty--creating chaos, and thus, global corporate predator opportunity. He is working closely with Exxon Mobile, which just took legal action to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets--in a dispute over Venezuela's 60% share in its own oil (a deal that Norway's Statoil, France's Total, British BP and even Chevron agreed to). The goal is destabilization of Venezuela, and the Andes region, preparatory to other plans, including (as Rumsfeld says) "swift" U.S. action (i.e., military intervention), in support of "friends and allies in South America" (fascist thugs planning coups against the Andes democracies, and, of course, the Bushites' close fascist buds in Colombia).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Thank you
some how I kind of figured our hands were not completly clean in this one.

I guess we have to hope the a conflict does not break out prior to next Jan 20.

BTW: Does anyone think a new US president (not Mccain) would help improve the situation??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Clinton uses the same language as Rumsfeld...
"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Hillary Clinton echoes Rumsfeld here:

"If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions, until we have assessed through lower level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators. --Hillary Clinton (at GW University, 2/25/08)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=6196

Obama's statements about Chavez (read: Oil War II) have been more ambiguous and circumspect, but not particularly comforting. Neither Clinton nor Obama seem to understand that Chavez is NOT a "tyrant," has run a scrupulously lawful, elected government for ten years, and has a 70% approval rating. What do the Venezuelans know that our political establishment is deliberately hiding from us? That Venezuela has transparent elections, and we do not? That the poor majority deserves REAL representation of their interests in government?

This Clinton statement--calling Chavez a "dictator"--is either stupid and ignorant beyond belief, or she's on board for Oil War II. And I don't really know which--but I think it's the latter.

Clinton's husband's "free trade" policies--which she has repeatedly endorsed--are WHY South American economies have been so damaged, and why there is a huge leftist revolt against "neo-liberalism."

What happens with World Bank/IMF loans combined with "free trade," is decimation of the working class (not to mention the poor) and all social programs, and positive development. The corrupt rich ruling classes who make these deals--heavily indebting the country, then opening it up to carte blanche privatization and exploitation, as the price of loan repayment--is that the rich steal the loan money, and then the poor have nothing. No social programs, no help, no protections. Further, the dumping of "first world" ag products destroys small local farmers. This is why you see millions of poor indigenous and peasants living in urban shantytowns. They've been driven off their small plots, where they could at least feed their families and local communities. (This is very evident in Bolivia--also Mexico--and true throughout Central and South America.)

Argentina went belly-up under these U.S. policies. Enter the Bank of the South. Hugo Chavez and his far-thinking government conceived the notion of a regional bank that would promote social justice and needed development. It is now a reality. And it is driving the World Bank ("first world" loan sharks) out of the region. The Bushites probably hate Chavez more for this than for anything else. The World Bank's "portfolia" (of theft from the poor) in South America went from 80% to 1% over the last five years. Venezuela loaned Argentina money, on easy terms, to help it pay off the debt. Argentina is now well on its way to recovery, and has become a healthy trading partner for Venezuela, Brazil and others. Ecuador has also paid off its debt. These leaders have pledged never to get into World Bank debt again. And now they don't have to, if they need loans. They have their own regional bank, which understands what is really needed to bootstrap the poor and create prosperity in which everyone can share. And they are all rejecting two other highly exploitative and anti-progressive projects: U.S.-dominated "free trade" deals and the corrupt, murderous U.S. "war on drugs."

Of the two Democratic candidates, I think we can expect more of the same from Hillary Clinton. And she seems on board for Oil War II, as punishment for South America's rebellion, to grab the Andes oil fields, and to keep the war profiteer "war on drugs" boondoggle on track. She will likely shill for corporate predators in any "free trade" deals that are negotiated--although I think that sorry chapter in economic history is over in South America. I'm not sure about Obama--but he seems less likely to go along with these global corporate predator policies. McCain is, of course, an outright Bushite and warmonger. However, about Hillary, I would say that it's going to be more difficult for any Democrat to make war on South America. She may have that hand grenade tossed in her lap by the Bushites--with the pin already pulled. In fact, it could be THE issue in November, and, if she is the nominee, she may have to dance on that one, like she has on her Iraq War vote. And they could conceivably "swift-boat" Obama on this issue--the guy who doesn't wear a U.S. flag lapel pin (made in China).

If Obama were to be elected, I think he would be more likely to seek diplomatic solutions to problems, and might restore some credibility to our reputation in South America (which is absolutely in the mud). But I would not expect him to be anything but a spokesmen for our corporate rulers, if a softer-spoken one. Real democratic revolution is just not in the cards, here, as yet. IF Obama is more than he appears to be--a potential FDR, say--then the corporate rulers surely know this and will Diebold him. He will never be elected by this corporate-run election theft industry, with their "trade secret" code voting machines. But I don't expect him to be an FDR. I expect a rather lame Democratic presidency (if he wins), hamstrung on every side by the corporate predators and corporate media and war profiteers who run things--with an increasingly volatile, activist, unhappy, revolutionary-minded U.S. population. And who knows what will happen then? We're talking 2010-2020-ish. We could get our country back, if the people want it, or we could find ourselves in Germany circa 1930, with a failed, fractured center-left government, and Hitler II waiting to be Diebolded into power.

I think the South Americans are going to go their own way. I don't think anything can stop them. They have achieved democracy, and are working hard on social justice, while we have languished under murderous, unbelievably greedy, fascist rulers, who have basically ruined our country for decades to come, if not for the rest of the century. Such irony! The NeoCons called it the "Project for a New American Century." What they didn't know is that this century is going to belong to South America, not the North.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. One more item on Hillary Clinton, as to South American policy...
She hired Mark Penn as her pollster and campaign guru. Penn & Schoen was the Washington DC-based P.R. firm that created a FALSE poll, saying Hugo Chavez had lost an election, which was to be used in a rightwing coup plot. They were working closely with the minority rightwing opposition in Venezuela, probably paid by the Bushites through USAID-NED and other budgets (our tax money!). So I consider them to be scumbags. Anyone who would hire Mark Penn is BAD on South America--very bad--whatever they may say. And Clinton's echo of Rumsfeld--that Chavez is a "tyrant"--is yet another indicator of what she would do as President. She has done the wrong thing--hired Mark Penn. She has said the wrong that--telling the baldfaced Bushite lie that Chavez is a "tyrant." And I don't see much reason to believe that she would be any better than Bush on this matter--that is, a funder and supporter of fascist murderers, thieves and coupsters in South America, on behalf of Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum, the World Bank, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychmommy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. why is rummie still relevant.
he is part of our national shame and should be shunned and ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Perfectly put.
It's (the new) Pravda, sure, but here's an interview of Raul Reyes from 2005: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/03-03-2008/104347-raulreyesass-0

Pravda comments:

...Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, confirmed that he had been informed of the intentions of the Colombian military forces. However he was fed lies by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who wrongly stated that the FARC group was chased across the border. What happened was a full scale invasion of Ecuador by Columbia, which has set the continent on fire.

Raul Reyes was a great figure in FARC, who led the peace negotiations with President Andrés Pestrana between 1998 and 2002. It was always to search for a political and negotiated solution, as it is possible to confirm from the interview that we include below.

Raul Reyes was one of the first international figures to embrace the project of PRAVDA.Ru in Portuguese, exactly when we were still little known, in the launching of the project in 2002. He died knowing that he was right, because he fought for a social and political cause, that sought peace and a negotiated solution to the conflict but knowing also that he would not discard the efforts made throughout long decades, to build a progressive society in Colombia.

Raul Reyes and his companions died like a hero. The struggle continues, the cause continues, his dreams and projects continue and his loss will only be physical and never in vain.

by Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamblingRose Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. I just spoke with a friend from Colombia that lives here and she is blaming this on Chavez
She is very concerned that a democrat is going to win in November, though I'm not sure what that will mean for Colombia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Democrats are not as good for the war on drugs as Republicans
And many in the security services in Colombia have made it like bandits over the last eight years... that is a general rule.

(After all the Clinton years were also very good for them)

Though it MAY mean we pull out the advisors we placed on the ground after Sept 11.

As to chavez (and no he ain't my favorite person) is your friend rather conservative? If she is... it explains why she does not like Chavez. Most of the Criollo (descendants of the Spaniard Elite) do NOT like Chavez or Evo Morales
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
30. Let's disrupt another major oil producing region of the world
and watch oil prices soar to $150/barrel.

This has Bush/Cheney and their oil company-friendly mitts all over it.

And you know what? They'll say it's threatening the supply of oil, but we'll never see a gas station in the U.S. close because their supplier is out of product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
31. Dont worry, soccer is not involved!
just a fat guy in red jacking up the price of his product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
32. And This Is News Now???
There's been a civil war within Colombia for nearly 30 years with narco-terrorists and other nationalists groups (mostly indigenous wanting autonomy). The U.S. has long funded the ranchers and other big multinational interests in the country that have propped up the Bogota government...and, as usual, the U.S. uses its "war on drugs" like its "war on terror"...not differentiating those with a legitimate grievance against the government as opposed to cocaine traffickers.

There have been several cross border incursions over the years...DEA and Colombia troops going after a target in Equador and Peru...I'm not sure about Venezuela (that's the other side of the country from the "real action). It's kinda hard to grow cocaine along that border that is swamp and jungle. But there sure is oil there.

I saw a few minutes of his assholiness using this "incident" to both push his Colombia Free Trade charade and then take a shot at Chavez alluding to him as "unelected"...look whose talking! It's typical boooosh exploitation and pandering...and I expect the corporate media to blame Chavez for everything...and I'm no Chavez fan. Boooosh still burns he couldn't get rid of him and the two have turned relations between the two countries and the region into a personal pissing match.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC