Obama to invade Venezuela?

[ramallamamama]

Sec. Clinton defends deal to send US troops into Colombia
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/18/sec-clinton-defends-deal-to-send-us-troops-into-colombia/
By Agence France-Presse Published: August 18, 2009


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday defended an imminent agreement that will give the United States access to military bases in Colombia, amid regional concerns about US intentions.

Clinton and visiting Colombian Foreign Minister Jaime Bermudez said the two countries expected to sign a defense cooperation agreement soon that will boost their longstanding military ties.

“I want to be clear about what this agreement does and does not. First: the agreement does not create US bases in Colombia, it does provide US access to Colombian bases,” Clinton said after a meeting with Bermudez.

The top US diplomat said the governments in Washington and Bogota hoped to sign the agreement “in the near future.”

The deal, finalized last week, is expected to give the US access to three Colombian air bases, two navy bases and two army bases.

Leftist leaders in Venezuela and Ecuador, which border Colombia, have loudly denounced the agreement as a ruse to establish bases that threaten their governments.

The US plans also have raised concerns among more moderate Latin American leaders.

Clinton sought to counter these concerns on Tuesday, stating that the move was aimed at targeting groups inside Colombia.

“I certainly hope that anyone who is speaking out about the agreement will take the time to understand that this is built on years of agreements between the United States and Colombia.

“This agreement does not pertain to other countries. This is about the bilateral cooperation between the United States and Colombia regarding security matters within Colombia.

“It will allow us to continue working together to meet the challenges posed by narco-traffickers, terrorists, and other illegal armed groups in Colombia,” she said, adding, “These threats are real.”

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has led opposition to any further US deployment in Colombia, casting the move as an attempt to encircle Venezuela and warning of a coming military escalation.

“We do not want war, we hate it. But we must prepare for it. We are number one on the list, Venezuela. We are the first target of the (United States). Using Colombia and the bases in Aruba and Curacao, they are surrounding us,” Chavez warned on Sunday.

Clinton said there would be “no significant permanent increase in the US military presence in Colombia,” pointing to a Congressional cap on troop levels.

According to the US State Department there are currently 800 soldiers and 600 contractors in the South American nation.

Colombia’s Bermudez said the agreement would be in line with “the principle of non-intervention, and the principle of the territorial integrity of states.”

He added that Colombia would be willing to enter similar agreements “not just with the United States, but with other states in the same vein.”

Orwell would be proud. I bet she HATES to be called a secretary.

[Dig]

Orwell would be proud. I bet she HATES to be called a secretary.

someone should ask her what Bill thinks of the situation. then you would see blasts of fire fire and hillzilla would emerge spitting poison everywhere "shut the f up about bill you barbarians!"

[ramallamamama]

Lol.

[5 Points]

WTF? Seriously?

[Harconen]

Prepare for war: Chavez

'We do not want war, we hate it. But we must prepare for it,' Mr Chavez warned

Straits Times - Agence France-Presse
Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:10 UTC
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_417757.html

Hugo Chavez on Sunday bridled at US plans to use military bases in Colombia, asserting that Venezuela was the top US target in the region and that Venezuelans should prepare for war.

Speaking in his weekly live radio and television broadcast, Chavez also chided US President Barack Obama for accusing leftist Latin leaders of 'hypocrisy' for demanding that Washington intervene more forcefully to reinstate Honduras' ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

Mr Obama 'is lost in the clouds. I think he is entering a terrible labyrinth', Mr Chavez said. 'Obama doesn't understand. He needs to study a bit more. He is a young man, full of good intentions.'

'Obama, we are not asking you to intervene in Honduras. To the contrary, we are asking that the empire remove its hand from Honduras and that the empire remove its claws from Latin America,'he said.

His comments come amid growing tension over a plan by Colombia to give US forces access to seven of its military bases to accommodate counter-drug operations following the closure of a base in Ecuador.

Mr Chavez cast the move as a US attempt to encircle Venezuela, warning of a coming military escalation aimed at the country's oil, access to the Amazon basin and plentiful water sources.

'An aggression against Venezuela will be met not only by Venezuela; various countries would take up arms,' he said. 'It is clear to me that a great anti-imperialistic movement would rise up on these lands, God help us.'

'But we have to prepare for it. And one of the best ways to avoid it is to show the enemy that it would be so costly for them to attack Venezuela that they would repent,' he said.

'We do not want war, we hate it. But we must prepare for it. We are number one on the list, Venezuela. We are the first target of the (United States). Using Colombia and the bases in Aruba and Curacao, they are surrounding us,' Mr Chavez warned.

[Unintelligable Name]

It's inconceivable that we would be hit with physical Martial law with us getting involved in Venezuela, Iran, and already being in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Korea. There simply isn't enough troops/hardware to do it all.

[Monkeypox]

It's inconceivable that we would be hit with physical Martial law with us getting involved in Venezuela, Iran, and already being in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Korea. There simply isn't enough troops/hardware to do it all.

That would explain the foreign troops, wouldn't it?

[Harconen]

It's inconceivable that we would be hit with physical Martial law with us getting involved in Venezuela, Iran, and already being in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Korea. There simply isn't enough troops/hardware to do it all.

US Army is not alone in NATO.

[Unintelligable Name]

US Army is not alone in NATO.

That would explain the foreign troops, wouldn't it?

Even then, I don't see there being enough to go around. We can't fight 4 simultaneous wars alone, so we'll need NATO help, which takes a chunk out of their forces, leaving the rest to possibly come to the US. However that leaves their respective countries vulnerable and they will have rebellion.... (4 wars assuming that we become involved in Iran with Israel, which may not happen at all)

There just ain't enough grunts to make it all happen, so which is more important to the globalists... and we may find our answer of what to expect.

[Monkeypox]

Even then, I don't see there being enough to go around. We can't fight 4 simultaneous wars alone, so we'll need NATO help, which takes a chunk out of their forces, leaving the rest to possibly come to the US. However that leaves their respective countries vulnerable and they will have rebellion.... (4 wars assuming that we become involved in Iran with Israel, which may not happen at all)

There just ain't enough grunts to make it all happen, so which is more important to the globalists... and we may find our answer of what to expect.

Grunts, maybe not.  But we can bomb the living shit out of anyone we want to.

[Unintelligable Name]

Grunts, maybe not.  But we can bomb the living shit out of anyone we want to.

Yeah... we'll see, I'm not claimining I know any better. People aren't going to fall for these wars of agression much any more.

[Harconen]

Grunts, maybe not.  But we can bomb the living shit out of anyone we want to.

[Harconen]

Colombia: U.S. Bases Stoke the Flames of Regional Conflict

Roque Planas
Toward Freedom
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:13 UTC
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1649/1/

It was a moment that promised to define a new era in U.S.-Latin American relations: Obama greeted Hugo Chávez at the Summit of the Americas with a smile and a handshake, and Chávez responded with a gift and a heavily accented "I wanna be your friend." The Cold War-style chasm between Washington and the leftist leaders of the Andes that had widened during the Bush administration finally seemed to be narrowing a bit.

But a nearly completed agreement between Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Obama administration to grant the U.S. military access to Colombian bases is rapidly undermining whatever diplomatic progress was made in that fleeting moment.

The Uribe administration announced on July 12 that it had nearly reached an agreement on the terms of a decade-long lease to allow U.S. military personnel to use Colombian military bases to conduct anti-drug trafficking and anti-terrorism operations. No draft of the agreement has yet been made public. The increased access would serve to replace the U.S. lease at Manta, Ecuador, the only U.S. base of operations in South America until the lease was allowed by the Correa administration to expire this month.

President Uribe defended the agreement as a necessary step in his administration's fight against drug traffickers and Marxist guerrillas at a public event in Santa Marta last week. "This agreement guarantees continuity in the era of an improved Plan Colombia," he said, referring to the pact that has funneled $6 billion in U.S. aid to the Colombian government and military.

The lease agreement has drawn criticism from Colombian congressmen across the political spectrum, who argue that the executive does not have the authority to allow foreign troops into the country. Liberal Senator Juan Manuel Galán claimed that the Uribe administration "bypassed the Senate." Senator Jairo Clopatofsky, an uribista of the right-wing Partido de la U, echoed Galán's criticisms.

Source: NACLA

[Harconen]

US Escalates War Build-Up Against Latin American Revolution

Federico Fuentes
UpsideDown World
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:03 UTC
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2067/68/

The US State Department and the coup regime in Honduras have publicly stated what many of us already knew: the June 28 military coup was not just directed against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, but also Venezuela and the unfolding Latin American revolution.

On July 20, US state department spokesperson Phillip Crowley said he hoped Zelaya now understood that in "choosing a model government and a model leader for countries of the region to follow", the US believes "the current leadership in Venezuela would not be a particular model".

"If that is the lesson that President Zelaya has learned from this episode, that would be a good lesson."

The same day, vice foreign minister of the Honduran coup regime, Marta Alvarado, said: "Honduras is playing a very important role in the sense that the continuity or otherwise of the avalanche of the ALBA [Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our Americas] countries depends on Honduras, and whether the people who are under the pressure of the ALBA countries wake up."

ALBA, an initiative of the revolutionary Venezuelan and Cuban governments, unites nine Latin American and Caribbean countries into an anti-imperialist bloc that combines solidarity-based trade agreements with a coordinated political intervention into regional politics.

In response to the global economic crisis, the ALBA bloc has denounced the capitalist system. It has proposed radical measures that place the burden for the crisis on the capitalist elites who created it - not the workers and poor.

This revolutionary challenge is a dangerous threat to an empire in decline.

The June 28 coup in Honduras shows that, as the crisis deepens, Washington is increasingly turning to military solutions to "solve" this problem.

With two failed coup attempts so far this century (Venezuela in 2002 and Bolivia in 2008) and one successful one (Haiti in 2004), this strategy is not new. But extending this strategy is becoming more likely - and more dangerous, as military incidents threaten to spill over the borders and become a regional conflict.

Pro-imperialist governments in Latin America are aiding the US in this task.

Colombia, which in March 2008 bombed Ecuadorian territory, has just opened the door to five new US military bases on its territory. This occurred just days after the US began to move out of its base in Ecuador, from which the government of President Rafael Correa expelled it.

This move has been combined with a heightened propaganda campaign against Venezuela, not unlike the one that preceded the Iraq invasion.

Venezuela has been accused by Washington and the Honduran coup regime of "interference" in Honduras. The US Congress Foreign Relations Commission decided that Venezuela is a "narco-state" that protects guerrilla and criminal organisations.

A tampered video has been released purporting to show a leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) admit they funded the election campaign of Ecuador's Correa, whose government has joined ALBA.

srael joined in, claiming a Hezbollah cell is now operating in Venezuela near the border with Colombia.

These are just the latest shots fired against ALBA and specifically Venezuela.

Venezuela has initiated a review of its diplomatic relations with Colombia in response to the new US bases.

Bolivia has called for ALBA to increase military integration and denounced governments that allow US bases as "traitors to the homeland".

It is essential that there is a clear rejection of the US war drive from those within the belly of the beast This includes Australia, whose government continues to be one of the few globally to not condemn the Honduran coup.

An important task for anti-war and anti-imperialist activists is to build a movement that can hold back US imperialism in Latin America. Immediately, this means opposing the US bases in Colombia, the disinformation campaign against Venezuela and solidarity with the Honduran people.

Source: Green Left Weekly

[Harconen]

South American leaders attack US bases plan

Indalecio Alvarez
Agence France Presse
Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:13 UTC
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090828/wl_afp/colombiausmilitarylatamsummit_20090828215038

Bariloche, Argentina - South American presidents attacked plans for US bases in Colombia at a summit on Friday, and issued a statement warning "foreign military forces" against threatening national sovereignty.

The meeting, in the Argentine mountain resort of Bariloche, heard fears from Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and his leftwing allies that the bases were part of a US strategy to act freely in Latin America, possibly against his oil-rich country.

The final summit declaration warned that "foreign military forces must not... menace the sovereignty and integrity of a South American country and in consequence regional peace and stability."

Its deliberately broad language, avoiding direct reference to the US military and Venezuela, permitted all 12 presidents present to sign the text, including Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

But it did reflect strenuous demands from Brazil, Chile and Argentina that binding guarantees be made that the US military assets and personnel in Colombia not be used for any other purpose other than their stated mission of fighting drug-traffickers and Colombian rebels.

An attempt by Bolivian President Evo Morales to sign other presidents on to a statement rejecting the bases plan failed.

"As long as there are uniformed foreigners in a South American country, it's difficult for us to think there can be peace," Morales had told the summit.

Chavez was blunter.

The imminent deal to give the US military access to seven bases in neighboring Colombia was "about mobility to make war," said the fierce anti-US critic.

"The US global strategy for domination explains the installation of these bases in Colombia," said Chavez, brandishing a document he said was a US air force strategy document setting out that aim.

In Washington, a Pentagon spokeswoman said the document -- titled "White Paper Air Mobility Command: Global En Route Strategy" -- was "just an academic document."

A copy of it obtained by AFP described possible air bases in Latin America the US air force had considered using, depending on geographic and political availability.

Chavez, who recently bought more than four billions dollars' worth of sophisticated fighter jets and tanks from military ally Russia, has said an increased US military presence in Colombia could unleash "winds of war."

Uribe, responding to some of the criticism at the summit, said he would "not cede one millimeter of sovereignty" in the bases deal. He stressed that a lease arrangement would leave the facilities under his government's control.

Uribe was effectively isolated at the meeting, however, with even Peruvian President Alan Garcia, who had previously backed him on the issue, backpedaling somewhat.

"If the United States ends up putting invisible (stealth) aircraft and radars in Colombia, I would be tempted to sign a document rejecting the bases," Garcia said.

"If an agreement is reached defining the Colombian area (subject to US military activity), I would not see a threat," he said.

[Satyagraha]

 
Summit criticises US-Colombia deal 
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/200982904428579318.html
 
Unasur members were critical of a deal that could increase US military presence in Colombia [AFP]
 
South American leaders have issued a statement warning "foreign military forces" not to threaten the sovereignty of any of the region's nations.

The declaration, which was signed by all 12 leaders of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), came after a lengthy debate on Friday on plans to increase the presence of US troops at bases in Colombia.

The statement "reaffimed that the presence of foreign military forces must not ... menace the sovereignty and integrity of a South American country and in consequence regional peace and stability".

It deliberately avoided specific mention of the US military in order to allow all the leaders, including Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian president, to sign the text.

Regional fears
The extraordinary meeting the Argentine mountain resort of Bariloche was called after Venezuela, along with Bolivia and Ecuador, complained that the US military could use seven bases in Colombia as launch points to overthrow their governments.

"The US global strategy for domination explains the installation of these bases in Colombia," Chavez said, holding up a document he said set out the US air force strategy to achieve that aim.

Crisis hangs over US-Colombia military plan
In video: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/200982915058322340.html
 
An attempt by Evo Morales, the Bolivian president, to get other leaders to sign a declaration rejecting the US deal with Colombia was rejected.

"As long as there are uniformed foreigners in a South American country, it's difficult for us to think there can be peace," he had told the summit.

Colombia has insisted that the US troops are vital to tackle drug trafficking in the region and pose no threat to its neighbours.

Uribe told the summit on Friday that he would "not cede one millimetre of sovereignty" under the deal.

"We are not talking about a political game, we are talking about a threat that has spilled blood in Colombian society."

US expansion
But Eva Golinger, a consultant to the Venezuelan government, told Al Jazeera that the US military deployment was not necessary.

"It has been made clear in other US documents this year, particularly one on irregular warfare, about the need not to have permanent troops stationed in any one country but to have this type of mobility which allows for effective non-conventional military operations - so that's the fear," she said.

"The fear comes in the form of territorial occupation of US military forces or an access to the entire infrastrucure of Colombia for an alleged war against drugs and that doesn't pan out."

Under the plan, about 300 US troops are already stationed in the country, but the new agreement allows the expansion of the force to 800 US soldiers and 600 civilian officials.

Many Latin American nations are wary of US intervention in the region, recalling Washington's backing of right-wing military governments in the past.

Brazil, Chile and Argentina have demanded binding guarantees be made that the US military assets and personnel in Colombia not be used for any other purpose other than their stated mission of fighting drug-traffickers and Colombian rebels.
 

[Satyagraha]

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky Meets with Chavez in Venezuela
08.28.2009 | Venezuelan Analysis
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/noam-chomsky/

U.S.. author, dissident intellectual, and Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology Noam Chomsky met for the first time with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas and analyzed hemispheric politics during a nationally televised forum on Monday.

Chomsky is well known in Venezuela for his critiques of U.S. imperialism and support for the progressive political changes underway in Venezuela and other Latin American countries in recent years. President Chavez regularly references Chomsky in speeches and makes widely publicized recommendations of Chomsky’s 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.

“Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival,” said Chavez in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He compared Chomsky’s thesis to that of German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, “Socialism or Barbarism,” and referred to Chomsky as “one of the greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest pioneers of a better world.”

Through an interpreter, Chomsky responded, “I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that’s easy. What’s harder is to create a better world… and what’s so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created.”

During Monday’s forum, which was broadcast on the state television station VTV, Chomsky pointed out that the ongoing coup in Honduras, which began on June 28th, is the third coup the United States has supported in Latin America so far this century, following the coup against Chavez in 2002 and Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004.

The nearly finalized deal to allow the U.S. to increase its military presence on Colombian bases “is only part of a much broader effort to restore Washington’s capacity for intervention,” said Chomsky. According to Chomsky, the region has the capacity to unite and form a “peace zone” in which foreign militaries are forbidden to operate. “Venezuela can help to advance this proposal, but it cannot do it alone,” he said.

“The transformations that Venezuela is making toward the creation of another socio-economic model could have a global impact if these projects are successfully carried out,” said the renowned author.

Aporrea.org, a popular Venezuelan news and pro-revolution analysis website, described Chomsky as oriented toward “libertarian socialism” and “vehemently anti-Stalinist” in an introduction to a recent interview in which Chomsky said U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy will be similar to that of the second administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

Chomsky addressed this issue during Monday’s conference as well, commenting that Obama “could have much to offer Latin America if he wanted to, but hasn’t given any signals that he does.” He cited the U.S.’s indecisive posture toward the coup in Honduras as evidence. Chomsky also addressed the media and freedom of expression in the U.S. “In the United States the socio-economic system is designed so that the control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations… and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression,” he said.

Chomsky said the growing disappointment with the Obama administration in the U.S. was predictable because the corporate media marketed Obama’s presidential candidacy on the slogan of “Change We Can Believe In” but omitted concrete proposals for effective changes, and the Obama administration has since shown an incapacity to institute such changes.

Chomsky was accompanied in Caracas by the co-founder of South End Press and ZMagazine and system operator of ZCom, Michael Albert, and the co-founder and editor of Venezuelanalysis.com, sociologist Gregory Wilpert.

[Harconen]

Castro: US aims to overthrow Chavez's government

Press TV
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:08 UTC
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=104656&sectionid=351020702

Fidel Castro has accused the US of seeking to overthrow Venezuela's government and to establish power through its future military bases in Colombia.

The former Cuban leader's attack on the White House came on the eve of a summit of South American presidents that could be overshadowed by a growing row over a deal between Washington and Bogota to give the American military access to seven Colombian bases.

Washington's "only purpose with these bases is the ability to put US troops in South America in a matter of hours," Castro said in an article published on the official government website cubadebate.cu.

The United States insists that the facilities, spread across the territory of its main regional ally, are aimed at fighting drug gangs and left-wing rebels in Colombia.

Castro said America's real objective was to "eliminate the revolutionary process" begun by Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez, a key Cuban ally, and to "gain control of the oil and other natural resources in Venezuela."

"The delivery of land to establish seven US military bases in Colombia directly threatens the sovereignty and integrity of the peoples of South and Central America and the great Latin American fatherland our forefathers dreamed of," Castro added.

[N.E.P.]

Don't you think the American people will be a little pissed off if we start a third war ? How about the military?
" On behalf of the American people, thanks for spending 3 years of the prime of your life in the 120 degree desert heat. Now pack your stuff your going to the Jungle to fight another pointless war"

I would think that there would be some pissed of vets and families.

[Harconen]

Don't you know that war is soooo good for economy, also full scale war with everybody who don't like NWO can be done. I was living in country which was in war with whole NATO machinery, and if you are apposed to it you just went death, overnight. So, same thing can be done on global scale. 

[Harconen]

The Afghanistan-Pakistan War: Obama's Vietnam?

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay
Global Research
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:18 UTC
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15030

"Our interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists bent on attacking us. That does not require the scale of military operations that the incoming administration is contemplating. It does not require wholesale occupation. It does not require the endless funneling of human treasure and countless billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan government." Bob Herbert, The New York Times, January 6, 2009

"I don't want to just end the [Iraq] war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place." Presidential candidate Barack Obama, January 31, 2008

"If we are strong, our character will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help."
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) 35th U.S. President

"No nation ever profited from a long war." Sun Tzu, author of "The Art of War"

A solid majority of Americans (54 percent) now oppose President Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan War. In fact, among Democrats, only twenty-six (26) percent support such a foreign war. In other words, by enlarging this conflict, President Obama is governing as if the opinion of a majority of Americans and of his own political base did not matter. In a democracy, a politician can do that for a while, but not for very long.

This undeclared war, just like LBJ's Vietnam War (1959 - 1975) and George W. Bush's Iraq War, is an adventure with no clear objective and no clear exit strategy, but with tremendous costs in lives and money. Nobody can tell if the U.S. and NATO are killing people in Afghanistan and in Pakistan because this is an operation to stop al-Qaeda terrorists from mounting future Sept. 11-type attacks, or because it is part of a larger plan to counter a Taliban insurgency and prevent this Pashtun Islamist party to regain power. But also, it has been said that it is a war waged to protect a pipeline crossing Afghanistan. Such a pipeline would move oil from the Caspian Basin to the coast of Pakistan through Afghanistan. Nevertheless, since this is not clearly explained, the war remains a blur for most people. The reason why such a war brings fewer open protests than the Vietnam War is essentially because it is waged with mercenaries.

That may be a reason why such open-ended wars fought with mercenaries can last for so long. For its part, Great Britain, a country used to colonial occupations, says through its incoming military Chief of Staff, General Sir David Richards, that it could stay in Afghanistan for 40 years. Even Germany seems to have regained its taste for military adventures, as its Defense Minister says it could occupy Afghanistan for ten years.

With this frame of mind, the world could be back in the nineteenth century, a century characterized by the anarchy of lawless armed conflicts, with militarized empires involved in prolonged wars, if not perpetual wars, with colonial and imperial military occupations. If the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991 has simply ended the restraining its presence imposed on other empires from being lawless and imperialistic, then the world may be on a very dangerous course. It will be back to the future. All the democratic ideals of the second part of the twentieth century would be gone.

One has the feeling that such badly designed military adventures as the Afghanistan war, with no clear objectives in sight, are primarily launched and expanded to keep the military establishment busy and the military-industrial complex prosperous.

Mired in financial scandals and plunged into a deep economic recession, many Americans suffer from war exhaustion. There seems to be too many of these endless and costly wars, even though the professional warmongers relish them. For his part, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declares that the American public is "pretty tired" of the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan, and he believes that the situation has to be turned around in a year.

Indeed. Only a few months ago, a substantial majority of Americans thought they had kicked the Bush-Cheney neocon warmongering crowd out of power. Those who favor American-led wars of aggression had a choice in voting for Republican candidate John McCain. But, to no avail. The Obama-Biden soft-neocon crowd seems to be in the same camp as Bush and McCain. Nothing of substance has changed, or hardly.

At least in terms of foreign policy, the question can be asked if the Obama-Biden administration is anything more than a third term of the Bush-Cheney administration? The Obama-Biden administration did not arrive in power determined to take control of the government apparatus and to change its direction. In fact, the reverse seems to have happened: It was pre-empted and subdued by the entrenched governing nomenklatura. This reflects a lack of preparedness, dedication and vision.

As soon as it was sworn in, the Obama-Biden administration began planning to enlarge the Afghan conflict with more troops and more mercenaries, and, to make its intentions crystal-clear, kept in his post Bush's Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) while asking Congress for $109 billion more funds to finance the adventure. Then President Obama fired Gen. David McKiernan, who had been in charge in Afghanistan, and replaced him with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a former Green Beret who lead the secretive Joint Special Operations Command, an outfit of commando teams that was involved in widespread murder and carnage in Iraq. And, what is strange, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal proposed to President Obama the adoption of a Soviet Strategy of building bases and troop build-up for Afghanistan. With friends like this, Barack Obama needs no enemies.

As a matter of fact, Obama's political enemies, beginning with Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, but also other right-wing corporate media, are salivating at the thought. I wonder how many editorials the WSJ will write supporting candidate Obama in 2012!

But the die is cast: President Barack Obama now "owns" the Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) war and he will have to live with the consequences. If the British and Soviet examples of foreign occupations in that part of the world are good indications of things to come, Commander-in-Chief Obama is going to be bogged down in this devastated mountainous land for years to come, and this may very well cost him his presidency in 2012. For a while, the Republicans and some neocon Democrats are going to cheer him. But later on, most Americans are going to turn against him.

Let's place things in perspective here. Just as in Vietnam, the U.S. is intervening in a civil war involving Pashtuns (40% of the Afghan population), Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazara Shiites, among over ten minority groups sharing a traditional and often repressive and barbaric Islamic culture, in a country called Afghanistan. And it is waging guerrilla warfare in Afghan villages and towns in order to support a corrupt and illegitimate Islamist government.

The foreign soldiers are trying to "flush out the Taliban from villages" just as they were trying to flush out the Vietcong from villages. Since such wars cause many civilian deaths, sooner or later, the entire population will turn against the foreign military invaders and they are likely to be kicked out. That was the story in Vietnam and there is little doubt that this will be the story in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Sending more troops to this Asiatic region will only make matters worse. The advantage for the military establishment, besides generals getting a few stars on the shoulder, is that a prolonged conflict will keep the money flowing in their coffers and in those of their suppliers.

But wait. Now Obama is enlarging the Afghan conflict, not only by waging a drone war against tribesmen in Pakistan, but he also wants to turn the Afghanistan war into a war against Afghan drug lords. The logic here, I gather, it to multiply your enemies: the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Pakistan tribesmen, Afghan drug lords, etc. The more you have, the more likely the conflict will endure.

When you forget that the initial objective in Afghanistan, after the 9/11 attacks, was a narrow one, i.e. to prevent that country from becoming again a haven for terrorists, it is easy to widen a conflict ad nauseam. As a matter of fact, this was tried before in Afghanistan. The Soviets tried it for nine years, from December 1979 to February 1989, and despite sending in hundreds of thousand troops, they did not succeed. It was the Soviet Union's Vietnam War, to paraphrase Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's Security advisor.

Similarly, Obama's war in Afghanistan-Pakistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Like the Soviet Union, the U.S. is building large military bases in Afghanistan and its commanders think there are never enough troops. Presently, the U.S. has some 60,000 troops in Afghanistan. Next year, it is easy to predict it will have more than 100,000 troops in that remote country, if the current policy is followed.

And under what legal basis? It is stretching quite a bit the terms of the U.N. Security Council's resolution 1368 of September 12, 2001, to justify an open-ended war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. That resolution was adopted under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter that affirms the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. Since the 9/11 terrorists had trained in Afghanistan under Taliban control, such training camps had to be dismantled, either by the Afghan government or by external forces. Since the Taliban government refused to comply, the U.S. was in its right to intervene. Thus the overthrow of the Taliban government and the destruction of al-Qaeda training camps in that country. This was done in the fall of 2001.

On December 20, 2001, the U.N. Security Council (Resolution 1386) authorized the creation of a NATO-led military international force to assist the newly established Afghan Transitional Authority in creating a secure environment in and around the capital Kabul and to support the reconstruction of Afghanistan. That's the legal reason why there are foreign soldiers in Afghanistan. They operate under the umbrella of the so-called International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), whose mission has been expanded, year after year, to cover most of Afghanistan (see U.N. Security Council Resolution 1510).

Later, the U.N. Security Council also authorized a mission of assistance in Afghanistan. In March 2002, the U.N. Security Council organized an Assistance Mission in Afghanistan's (UNAMA) with the adoption of Resolution 1401. UNAMA's primary mandate is "to manage all humanitarian, relief, recovery and reconstruction activities." That mandate has been renewed in March of each year, the last time on March 23, 2009, extending it until March 23, 2010.

But now we are in 2009, eight years after 2001. Is there really a legal basis for the U.S. to drop bombs over villages in Pakistan and to occupy Afghanistan indefinitely with foreign troops? There is some play with words here. For example, the European countries participating in the NATO-U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan talk about a "police mission" to justify the presence of their soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact, this so-called police mission has turned into a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan and into a guerilla war against local militants and insurgents, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Let's keep in mind that many of the so-called "militants" or "insurgents" in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen and to a certain extent the Taliban, used to be called "Freedom fighters" by President Ronald Reagan (see the Reagan Doctrine) when they were fighting the Soviet invaders, with the help of the American C.I.A., Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani secret police (ISI). This shows how such "freedom fighters" conveniently change names when they switch camp! They have gone from being called "heroic" to being called "insurgents". Such is the propaganda of war. - An historical fact remains: The unintended consequence of the Reagan Doctrine is the current Afghanistan-Pakistan war, and it may have played an important role in preparing the ground for the 9/11 catastrophe.

Nevertheless, let us say that this is stretching the U.N. Charter to the limit to say that it now permits the permanent military occupation of a sovereign country by foreign troops. It is true that the U.N. Charter, under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression), can authorize collective action against a country for good reasons. But the intent of such a military intervention is to be short-term and not to be turned into a permanent colonial occupation.

In conclusion, let us say that since the Obama administration is clearly enlarging the Afghan conflict and has authorized drone bombings in Pakistan, it would seem that the U.N. Security Council should be called to authorize or condemn such an enlargement of the conflict. It should also indicate that it favors a compromise solution to the conflict.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com

[hpbiii]

History repeats itself.

The United States creates and escalates a conflict, to protect the drug supply and slave labor which is threatened by economic development and reform, (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Colombia) should ring a bell.

Plan Colombia which cost the US taxpayers billions included a program of aerial spraying, the gringo ground crews and pilots all civilians were guided to their prospective targets using military satellites. The program has managed to hit about everything imaginable expect coca plants, resulting in an increase in cocaine exported out of Colombia.

Now with these predator drones without doubt the accuracy will be the same expect innocent people will be the (un)?-attended targets escalating the conflict.

Cocaine in Colombia is a worthless bag of contaminated salt, it may increase a little in value on paper the as it heads North, but even then it is a worthless salt. Only when it is in the United States does it have value. If it is lost along the way all that is lost is a bag of contaminated salt.

If you watch American television some Latino ganister hands an American ganister a big bag of cocaine in exchange for a big bag of cash for the Latino to take back on the return trip. Really think about what I just said about worthless salt.

No in fact like everyone else drug traffic payments (buy or sell) are managed and distributed though the banks.

Colombians think everyone in the United States has so much money to spend on so much cocaine, they think everyone does not work much and has a party every weekend.

The rich and or famous spend more on Rehab than drugs, so their not much of a client base to lose unless your in the rehab business. That leaves the people who get paid and have no responsibility, wonder how many government checks get chased at the bank to begin the cycle? The KILO TONS of cocaine go up a lot of noses beside Paris Hiltons and her friends.

The Colombian mafia is still here they just now are elected, and soon the Mexican military will control the major drug routes into the US.

The US taxpayer can not allow crazy people in Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil break up the monopoly. If payoffs no longer work then the US taxpayers will just have to sacrifice their sons and daughters.

Please wake up it does not matter if you’re a lefty, righty, communist, capitalist or whatever.

 DO NOT BACK THE REAL CRIMINALS. 


EXPAT in Colombia

[Harconen]

Chavez prepares Venezuela for 'US-provoked war'

Press TV
Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:23 EST
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=113150&sectionid=351020704

President Hugo Chavez says Venezuela must be ready to defend itself against what he called the US and Colombia's gearing up for initiating a military conflict.

Chavez who accused Washington and Bogota of planning to stage war against his country announced that thousands of Russian missiles and rocket launchers were being received by Venezuela as the country is preparing for a possible military conflict.

"They are preparing a war against us," Chavez was quoted as saying by the Associated Press. "Preparing is one of the best ways to neutralize it."

"Thousands of missiles are arriving," Chavez said, adding Caracas's growing arsenal includes Russian-made Igla-1S surface-to-air missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Chavez added that Russian tanks, including T-72s, will be arriving to strengthen the country's armored divisions.

The Venezuelan leftist leader's charges came after a deal between the United States and Colombia that would let Washington increase its presence at seven Colombian military bases.

The Colombian government, however, says the agreement is to help it fight the war on drugs and militants inside its territory.

Since 2005, Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion worth of Russian arms, including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, dozens of attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles.

In September, Russia opened a $2.2 billion line of credit for Venezuela to purchase more weapons.

[kushfiend]

History repeats itself.

The United States creates and escalates a conflict, to protect the drug supply and slave labor which is threatened by economic development and reform, (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Colombia) should ring a bell.

Plan Colombia which cost the US taxpayers billions included a program of aerial spraying, the gringo ground crews and pilots all civilians were guided to their prospective targets using military satellites. The program has managed to hit about everything imaginable expect coca plants, resulting in an increase in cocaine exported out of Colombia.

Now with these predator drones without doubt the accuracy will be the same expect innocent people will be the (un)?-attended targets escalating the conflict.

Cocaine in Colombia is a worthless bag of contaminated salt, it may increase a little in value on paper the as it heads North, but even then it is a worthless salt. Only when it is in the United States does it have value. If it is lost along the way all that is lost is a bag of contaminated salt.

If you watch American television some Latino ganister hands an American ganister a big bag of cocaine in exchange for a big bag of cash for the Latino to take back on the return trip. Really think about what I just said about worthless salt.

No in fact like everyone else drug traffic payments (buy or sell) are managed and distributed though the banks.

Colombians think everyone in the United States has so much money to spend on so much cocaine, they think everyone does not work much and has a party every weekend.

The rich and or famous spend more on Rehab than drugs, so their not much of a client base to lose unless your in the rehab business. That leaves the people who get paid and have no responsibility, wonder how many government checks get chased at the bank to begin the cycle? The KILO TONS of cocaine go up a lot of noses beside Paris Hiltons and her friends.

The Colombian mafia is still here they just now are elected, and soon the Mexican military will control the major drug routes into the US.

The US taxpayer can not allow crazy people in Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil break up the monopoly. If payoffs no longer work then the US taxpayers will just have to sacrifice their sons and daughters.

Please wake up it does not matter if you’re a lefty, righty, communist, capitalist or whatever.

 DO NOT BACK THE REAL CRIMINALS. 


EXPAT in Colombia

great 1st post, you seem pretty educated on Latin American - U.S. relations.

I have to agree with pretty much everything you said.  Indeed, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies are simply protecting their investment in coccaine in Columbia and other South American regions.  Just as is the case with their heroine investment in Afghanistan, and Vietnam before that, as you said.

the real losers in this whole debacle are the poor people of Columbia.  I really feel bad for them, forced into narcotic smuggling for money to meet basic needs of life. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to truly regulate is to legalize all so-called "drugs."  That is the only way you have any chance at regulation and helping addicts. 

imprisoning people for doing something they are going to do regardless is dumb and a huge waste of tax-payer money.

Now it seems as if all out war is around the corner in South America.  I pray this is not the case as our forces are stretched to the absolute breaking point already.

If they have a draft I'm out.  GAme over.

[IrishJonesfan]

Now if Chavez was a Capitalist Dictator, they'd back him, like Batista in Cuba. Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Chile, the list goes on, and on, and on........

It was only inevitable that this would happen between American and Venezuela.

Let's see if it does happen, and if the zombies still support Lord Obama.

[chris jones]

Long ago in Brazil there was a comminist uprising.

Brazilans have one thing in common, the majority are confirmed Christians, sure other religions exist, it is a nation that accepts and defends religous beleifs.

What happened when the communist tribes began their revolt. Citizens of the nation purchased guns in every sh0p in the nation, they emptied the gun stores.
WHY?
They will not allow their beleifs to be trampled on, religion being a very deep and fundamental issue. The saw communism as a Godless regime intent on taking over. Chaos began, the communist movement was stopped..

I read on a post that PREZ LULA is a Marxist, that is a blatant lie.

Had to toss that in there, folks there is no perfect goverment, we know that. We can judge them by their fruits.

They judge the fruits of the USA regime by its invasion, genocide, arrogant internal interventions, torturing, etc. The same is true with the majority of S,A. nations.

Hugo has sttod up to the might of this nation, the regimes methodry of slaughter and invasion. He has labeled in the UN while making a speech,Bushmaster as the devil incarnate.
My take, he stated the words others knew and were terrified of saying. He recieved a standing ovation.

In Brazil decades past the military controlled the nation, para militarys were but a word for hit teams. They the people understand what tyrany is.
They removed them and replaced a *representative democratic system.  They also impeached Prez. Colar, the conman who suked this nations blood, who's photo had been man of the year on times magazine.

If the regime has made a decision to invade, the resistance will be beyond the scope of imagination.

They will not succeed in giving these people lollypops and promises and then grid bombing. In general the people are well aware of the USA's regime ambitions, disregard for human life.

As of today the country of Brazil must play the game a bit, why, they have been financialy imbedded in the dollar, as most 3rd world nations have. Obviously they can not become a isolationist, they must first overcome the system they were imbeded within.

As Hugo said, they detest war, however these people when pushed have another side.




 

[Triadtropz]

Obamas not going to invade Venezuela this is ludicrous, he likes to do his killing in a different hemisphere...It's so much neater.

[WheresFreedom]

Wait.. Didn't the new 'Avatar' movie hint that some kind of conflict broke out in Venezuela?

"Venezuela. That was some mean bush."

[Elijah returns]

Yeah,  he's going in, and its all about kicking the chinese out (in end effect), wheels within wheels, games on top of Games brothers, theres a war on in Africa too, darfur, and its not about Muslims and Christians, thats just scenery, its all about kicking the chinese out and cutting off their supplies to oil. But, Venezuela has been on the cards for a while, anywhere that has anything of value or of strategic importance. The Falklands have nothing except for being the gateway to antarctic. They do have minerals, but its getting them. On Chinese maps here, they state that the Malvinos are Argentinian and not British.

[amazon]

George Orwell summed it up very succintly:

"We have always been at war with ____________"

(Fill in the blank with the name of any country the NWO is attacking at the time.)

[Aussieteen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27hq0yel6FY

not sure if sane or someone uploaded this somewhere else, or has an article somewhere

just delete if they have

lots of these rumours pop up but never happen

[tosso]

no way

[BBSkunk]

You might well be right with the Invasion... Looks like Venezuela has more oil than the Saudis!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8476395.stm

Venezuela oil 'may double Saudi Arabia'

A new US assessment of Venezuela's oil reserves could give the country double the supplies of Saudi Arabia.

Scientists working for the US Geological Survey say Venezuela's Orinoco belt region holds twice as much petroleum as previously thought.

The geologists estimate the area could yield more than 500bn barrels of crude oil.

This assessment is far more optimistic than even the best case scenario put forward by President Hugo Chavez.

The USGS team gave a mean estimate of 513bn barrels of "technically recoverable" oil in the Orinoco belt.

Chris Schenk of the USGS said the estimate was based on oil recovery rates of 40% to 45%.

Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), Venezuela's state oil company, has not commented on the news.

However, Venezuelan oil geologist and former PDVSA board member Gustavo Coronel was sceptical.

"I doubt the recovery factor could go much higher than 25% and much of that oil would not be economic to produce", he told Associated Press news agency..... Read More
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8476395.stm

Cheers

BBS

[DireWolf]

As of this morning 2-27-10 the Obama administration now has a launching platform to work from, the 8.8 earthquake will be a plausible cover with which to set the stage for the  invasion of Venezuela.

Tectonic weapons anyone?

[Freeski]

As of this morning 2-27-10 the Obama administration now has a launching platform to work from, the 8.8 earthquake will be a plausible cover with which to set the stage for the  invasion of Venezuela.

Tectonic weapons anyone?

There's also the British/Argentinian/Falkland Islands issue:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160156.0
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160192.0

[chris jones]

Obama will be stepping on thin ice to even contemplate an invasion.

We can be certain there are numerous agents CIA, contractors, instigators, and politcal intimidation and bribery in place.

Hugo is not perfect,(who is? ) but he is very much aware of the trickery that has taken place in his nation in the past and is ongoing at this present time.

He was subject to a standing applause fom the UN assembly after his speach defining Bush for what he most certinly is.there will not be an invasion in my humble oppinion, other tactics will be involved as they most certainly are now, but an out and out invasion, my take, no way.

[debinlcfl]

Apparently it's not just Venezuela.

Obama's First Coup d'Etat: Honduran President has been Kidnapped: Updates 1-17

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print/4554

[citizenx]

I am going to go out on a line and predict the U.S. wiil not invade Venezuela under Obama, but an attack by the U.S. and/or Israel on Iran seems very likely in the present situation.  That seem like the next kid on the block to get beat up if anybody.  There could be other smaller actions beforehand.

Out and out invasion seems unlikely.  Even in Iran, we are probably talking about (cowardly) airstrikes or carpet aerial bombardment.

This spook (spy, not racial epithet) is not going to intentionally start another land war, if he can help it.

[L2Design]

I thought those two were in kahoots together