Chavez calls for anti-US alliance - Political Forum

J.Locke777 · 01-28-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Chavez calls for anti-US alliance
By James Ingham
BBC News, Caracas
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has called on other Latin American and Caribbean countries to form a military alliance against the United States.

The vehemently anti-US leader says Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and Dominica should create one united force.
Mr Chavez, a long time critic of what he sees as US imperialism, made the comments after a summit of its leaders.
Despite constant US denials, Mr Chavez is convinced it poses a serious threat to South and Central America.
Venezuela's socialist leader has long been a critic of what he sees as US imperialism.
He has recently accused the country of trying to destabilise the region by forging stronger links with Colombia.
Mr Chavez has some key allies in his fight against capitalism, globalisation and the US.
Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and now the Caribbean island of Dominica are all members of a trade alliance known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a group that takes its name from South America's independence leader, Simon Bolivar.
Mr Chavez has urged them to draw up a joint defence policy and create a united military force against US imperialism. "If the US threatens one of us, it threatens all of us," he said, "we will respond as one."

First off, I'm curious to know if anyone would even regard this as a serious military threat. Also, what happens in the event that a democracy is reestablished in Cuba after the Castro's die?

I don't think they pose any serious potential problems because no one could stand up to the US in a conventonal war, and there is no reason to fight since the US has relatively no geopolitical intrests in the region other than keeping it stable since its our backyard. I heard, though I have no source, that Chavez is fairly unpopular, especially with him nationalizing so much of the economy recently. Although, I could be wrong. I don't claim any concrete knowledge on the subject.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-28-2008, 12:32 AM

I believe that we created this monster and that we tried to kill him. The US supported a lot of dictators in the Cold War, and we trained their soldiers to do all sorts of depravities. We toppled regimes in Iran, Congo, South Vietnam and elsewhere I'm sure. So this is our own failed foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass.

This should best be handled by a lower level official just dismissing this as a usual rant by a failed dictator.

I believe that Chavez still enjoys the support of about 60% of the Venezuelan public, though they would not support him to be President for life, or to run for President ad infinitum, or whatever he just tried to do.

As for military strength, the US could whup every country in the Western Hemisphere in a fight, not that it would ever come to that.

J.Locke777 · 01-28-2008, 12:43 AM

Agreed with you there that we created it. America has a terminal problem of not having the fore-sight to take care of potential problems. We can never imagine anything greater than our current enemy. I've said it before. the Nazis gave way to the communists who gave way to Islamic Extremists. most of whom we supported, financed, and trained as they fought against the communists.

Caltex · 01-28-2008, 12:58 AM

I don't think South American countries even united against us would really pose much of a threat in war, but I would be concerned about the millions of South Americans nationals inside the United States sabotaging things.

J.Locke777 · 01-28-2008, 01:01 AM

True, you do have a point there, caltex. However, I believe most are here because they really didn't like it back in their home countries and wanted to come to america for a better life. While it may be somewhat of an issue, I don't think it would be a huge problem.

Kazikli Bey · 01-28-2008, 02:20 AM

I think it all really depends on how the war is fought (if it ever were to come to that). I think history has shown that America has problems when fighting against guerilla tactics which, undoubtedly, the South Americans will employ in their tactics. In a conventional war, hands down America would win but it may also cause problems amongst the general population of South America if the US was to prematurely attack any South American state. Many still remember problems caused when the Americans interfered with the internal politics of their countries and their neighbours in the last fifty years. (i.e. Guatemala and Arbenz)

J.Locke777 · 01-28-2008, 02:24 AM

That goes into my reasoning when I say that this would never even happen. Although I do find it ironic that the US, the country that invented modern guerilla tactics in the American Revolution and the American Civil War is now getting beat by them.

The US would only attack america if and only if they attacked a US military target first. And it was clear that we did not shoot first. And then, it doesn't really matter who shoots first, but who shoots last- FDR.

Kazikli Bey · 01-28-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Locke777

Although I do find it ironic that the US, the country that invented guerilla tactics in the American Revolution and the American Civil War is now getting beat by them.

A bit off-topic but, you're shitting me right? Guerilla tactics have been around for hundreds of years before the US was even colonized. Vlad the Impaler used them when the Turks invaded Wallachia, the Huns used a form of them (they would have horsemen ride forth, fire flaming arrows and then ride away, which caught many off-guard as they were used to drawing up a shield wall).

J.Locke777 · 01-28-2008, 02:41 AM

granted, it's been used before, but I'm talking about recent war-fare. Like ambushes and mines, tripwires, the stuff that's getting us killed in Iraq, we developed.

J.Locke777 · 01-28-2008, 02:42 AM

Mines were first used in the American civil war by the confederate troops, and in the Revolution, the US perfected the technique of ambushes with firearms and were the first to widely use snipers. Don't forget, we also hid in the trees and wore dark uniforms (period equivlent to camo). The British were still lining up in rows wearing bright red battle dress that was easier to see, making them stand out as targets. Not saying we had an easy go of it, but we did do a bit to improve our chances, if you know what I mean.