03 March 2008

Chavez Needs To Be Gone

I said in a comment over at Ace's that Chavez was buddy-buddy with FARC:

18 Chavez is aligned with FARC and wants them to overthrow the Colombian government.  That way, he has an ally (puppet) close by and would have taken the first step towards his anti-US, South American Union.  He's pissed because one of his biggest allies was killed and it has set back his plans.

Why do you think he was able to negotiate those hostage-releases?  His winning personality?

Posted by: Stashiu3 at March 02, 2008 06:31 PM (tarqT)

This was before the news about the intelligence found on FARC computers.

Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.

Chavez is a thug who... like the old Soviet Union, the Palistinians, and the Iranians, wants to blame the United States for all the world's problems.  We get between 7% and 10% of our oil from Venezuela and Chavez has threatened to stop selling to us.  What most of the MSM is failing to tell anyone about this story is that Venezuela's oil can only be refined in the United States because it is such a poor grade.  If he doesn't sell his oil to us, he doesn't sell his oil. 

Maybe a month or two of reduced supply would be worth it to get rid of this tinpot dictator because his economy is only being supported by the inflated price of oil right now.  Without that income from us, it won't be long before the people of Venezuela (and it's military) take care of this problem for the entire world.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 22:35:00 | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm intrigued by how George Bush will respond to the escalating problems in South America.  First, I can't imagine any Democrat would agree to a military intervention, even if he wanted one.  Second, in modern times, the US has opted for covert interventions in the Americas in order to prove we have no territorial designs on our neighbors.

Nevertheless, I assume the US has a significant contingent of Special Operations personnel and equipment already in Columbia with more available on short notice, and I bet the satellites are busy overhead. My guess is the Bush Administration will officially keep its distance and encourage the parties to resolve their differences, while unofficially doing as much as possible to help Colombia and hurt Chavez.

Posted by: DRJ at 04 March 2008@00:18:08 (KBxnL)

2

That's probably a safe assumption.  I would be very surprised at any attempt to deploy regular troops since the Dems would have a field day.  It's sad that the political considerations carry so much weight.  I wouldn't be shocked at seeing Chavez cut off economically just to see how much support he'd get from Ecuador and Iran.  I don't think the Saudi government would give him any overt support as they want to continue the pretense of being allies.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 04 March 2008@00:24:46 (tarqT)

3 Why would the Saudis want to help Chavez?

Posted by: DRJ at 04 March 2008@00:41:05 (KBxnL)

4

It is to their political and economic advantage to draw our attention in as many different directions as possible.  The Saudi government is not our friend, although I wouldn't say the same about Saudis in general.  Same with Iran and Venezuela actually.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 04 March 2008@00:56:13 (tarqT)

5 I realize the Saudis are not our friends but following the adage of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" then the Saudis should be happy to see America pitted against Chavez and his friends, the Iranians.

Posted by: DRJ at 04 March 2008@14:46:26 (KBxnL)

6

Which is why they won't support him overtly.  They have been supporting him covertly for quite a while, for just that reason... to make him a large enough problem that it draws our attention.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.  The belief in that little maxim being absolute is what brings us Rush Limbaugh supporting Hillary Clinton.  I don't subscribe to it and believe the enemy of my enemy is potentially useful.  Neither friend nor enemy until I decide.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 04 March 2008@15:34:00 (tarqT)

7 I see.  Does that mean you are a George H.W. Bush/James Baker-type realist when it comes to foreign policy?  On the surface, they seemed to know how to play the Saudis.  (I qualify that because it's hard to know who's playing who in the Middle East.)

Posted by: DRJ at 04 March 2008@19:04:32 (KBxnL)

8

Actually, I think they're a little blind to Saudi machinations because of their personal ties.  You don't want to believe bad things about people you like, and the Saudis can be very personable as individuals.  I think we've just been relatively fortunate that the Saudis want to appear our ally instead of overtly opposing us.  They don't like us, our way of government, our laws, or our way of life.  Radical Islam began with them and will end with them.  Once they decide to overtly seek a global caliphate, Iran will be their best friend.

In the Middle East the Saudis run the show (with rambunctious children as part of the act, so things don't always go exactly as they wish.)  Like parents however, they set the direction of the family and make the final decisions, backed by the family wealth.  The other problem countries in the ME are symptoms of the real problem originating in SA... Radical Islam.

Would I do anything different with the Saudis?  I don't honestly know enough to say.  I would need a lot more information before considering any changes.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 04 March 2008@19:49:30 (tarqT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008



22kb generated in CPU 0.02, elapsed 0.0863 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.0736 seconds, 91 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.