Hugo Chavez: State Sponsor of Terrorism
March 4th, 2008 at 05:30am Mark Noonan
You lefties love him - now explain this:
…evidence found in the raid suggests that Chavez recently gave the FARC $300 million, Colombia’s national police chief said Monday.
Speaking at a news conference, Gen. Oscar Naranjo said evidence in three seized computers also suggests FARC had given Chavez 100 million pesos when he was a jailed rebel leader.
Naranjo said other evidence in the computers suggests FARC purchased 50 kilograms of uranium this month.
“The revelations about agreements between the terrorist group FARC and the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela will be submitted to the Organization of American States and the United Nations,” Uribe’s communique said Monday.
Naranjo said the evidence also shows that Ecuador’s minister of security met recently with Reyes, and that Ecuador had “an interest in formalizing relations with the FARC,” according to an account published on a Colombian government Web site.
Seems to me that Colombia has a justification for war with Venezuela - and given this, Colombia’s very restrained response to Chavez’ provocations is all the more remarkable. In Chavez, we’re dealing with an unstable, out-of-control thug - there doesn’t have to be war, but there does have to be a campaign to isolate this political cancer until the people of Venezuela get rid of it. Always keep in mind that the people catching the brunt of Chavez’ insanity are the long-suffering people of Venezuela - our job is to assist them in any way possible in enduring and eventually ending the Chavez dictatorship. Meanwhile, we have to ensure that Chavez is contained in Venezuela.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, War on Terror
41 Comments
1. Freedom1 | March 4th, 2008 at 6:09 am
State sponsor of terrorism.
I wonder what FARC plans to do with 50 kilograms of uranium? Build a dirty bomb?
The USA needs to stand by Columbia.
2. extramedium | March 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Freedom - do you believe the claims of the Colombian national police chief? Obviously it’s in Columbia’s national interest to release information which invokes sympathy for its military actions in neighboring sovereign state. I just don’t know who to believe anymore.
Looking at this in more general terms, I’ll predict we’ll see more and more copying of Bush’s preemptive war doctrine around the world. It will always be backed up with evidence of an imminent threat of terrorism. This is American leadership at work.
3. plainjane | March 4th, 2008 at 7:34 am
2. extramedium | March 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Well said. The Bush Administration’s decision to preemptively attack Iraq will haunt our nation for generations.
I also agree with Mark there has to be an isolation of Chavez, even if in the short term it is the Venezuelan people that suffer. What is certain, giving him a daily platform on Fox News and Limbaugh only feeds this piss ant’s ego.
4. Freedom1 | March 4th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Extramedium,
I believe Columbia over that dictator-and-thug Hugo Chavez any day of the week.
Also, Chavez formed an alliance with the world’s leading state sponsor of global terrorism - Iran.
Chavez is a horrible dictator. The Venezuelan people deserve much better than Chavez.
5. Brian G. | March 4th, 2008 at 8:30 am
We “lefties” don’t love him. We think he’s an idiot.
6. Rana Quijotesca | March 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Venezuela isn’t the only country that is pissed off about this… Ecuador is moving troops to the Columbian border as well. Now… will we take troops out of Iraq to aid Columbia if need be?
7. Rana Quijotesca | March 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I hope that they get this under control soon… I’m supposed to go to Ecuador this May… ironically enough for an International Conflict Resolution internship
8. eric | March 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Rana,
Why would we have to move troops out of Iraq?
9. Timothy Horrigan | March 4th, 2008 at 10:30 am
The situation in South America is worrisome… and even though I am sure Presidents Bush & (if things go as expected) McCain will demonize Chavez… we must not loose sight of our #1 priority which is and always will be, Iraq.
One possible trouble spot is Cuba… but Cuba is halfway around the world from Iraq. In fact it is just 90 miles from Florida, which makes it an even lower priority than Venezuela.
10. Joe | March 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Mark,
How about explaining why you spout off that “you lefties love” Chavez.
Who ever said how they love him?
11. Sunny | March 4th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Joe,
Mark makes those inflamatory “you lefties love Chavez” statements to get a reaction from those he considers lefties - you know, those who might have a different opinion than he has. I know of no one who thinks Chavez is a neat guy. Just like we didn’t think Saddam Hussin was a great guy, but anything to put down those who might disagree with pre-emptive wars. Mark just likes to push buttons.
12. eric | March 4th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Why not let Mark answer the question? Just a thought…
13. js | March 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Typical Lib BS.
2. extramedium
“Looking at this in more general terms, I’ll predict we’ll see more and more copying of Bush’s preemptive war doctrine around the world”
Its pretty simple to see. Anyone who thinks Bush created a war doctrine like this ignorant. This is the type of gossip that comes out of liberal sources, and is repeated by immature people that dont take the time to figure out what the truth really is. The doctrine goes back over a hundred years.
14. js | March 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
According to the World Fact Book from the CIA, the USA can pull 109 million men fit for combat into military service.
We have just under 1.5 million under arms right now. 140k in Iraq leaves us with a substantial deployable force still. We could drop 50k (with equipment) into Columbia/Venezuela within a very short time, and be capable of supplying them with out any problems.
15. Joe | March 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
LOL “The doctrine goes back over a hundred years.
That is funny. No really… please explain to us simpletons. Please give a couple of examples of how the U.S. has used that.
Since it has been around for over a hundred years, I thought I would Google it.
Everything sure comes back to a “Bush doctrine”.
Since people around here like wikipedia, let’s see what it says:
16. Joe | March 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
js, for cryin’ out loud…. are you saying we should invade Venezuela?????
17. js | March 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Joe….
You sure do post some stupid stuff.
I post about preemptive war doctrine, you post about Bush’s foreign policy.
I post about projecting the military capability of the USA, you immediately think “invade Venezuela”.
Maybe you should stop with the knee jerk reactions and use your brain for something besides a echo chamber for liberalism.
18. Joe | March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
js, save me the lecture.
You suggest we send 50k people to the Columbia/Venez border. Why? What is that going to do? Other than provoking a conflict, why else would you do that? Are you still upset that Chavez called your dear leader a name?
I also asked you to backup your comment that the preemptive war doctrine “goes back over a hundred years”.
I do notice you just ignore that. So save me the freaking lecture.
19. js | March 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
actually, nimble brained one, if you read post 6 above you might figure out why I posted it
and trust me, if you dont have the wherewithall to figure out where the preemtive war docrine came from, me rubbing in your face will make little difference in your thought patterns, ignorance like that is like a cancer
20. Ricorun | March 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Actually, what has become known as the “Bush Doctrine” was formalized in this document. It created quite a stir when it came out because it was indeed the first time the President of the US publically proclaimed that reemptive war was appropriate. While past presidents engaged in what could properly be called “preemptive wars”, previous to Bush they all juiced up an incident to justify it. E.g., McKinley had the Maine incident, Wilson the Lusitania, Johnson the Gulf of Tonkin. But Bush was the first one to declare such niceties could be dispensed with.
21. js | March 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Oh give it a break. The concepts of preemptive strikes go back to the Brits long before modern warfare ever stepped on the scene. What Bush did was nothing more than the use of legal war doctrine in fighting terrorism and tyrany.
The rest is nothing more than a smoke screne and ego.
22. js | March 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think you are mystifying old doctrine. Preventive strikes are preemptive strikes are not the same;
Traditionally, “pre-emptive” action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel’s borders in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in pre-emptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond.
By contrast, “preventive” military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned military buildup by the United States in the Pacific.
The coldly premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them anathema to well-established international principles against aggression. Pearl Harbor has been rightfully recorded in history as an act of dishonorable treachery.
Historically, the United States has condemned the idea of preventive war, because it violates basic international rules against aggression. But at times in our history, preventive war has been seriously advocated as a policy option.
In the early days of the Cold War, some U.S. military and civilian experts advocated a preventive war against the Soviet Union. They proposed a devastating first strike to prevent the Soviet Union from developing a threatening nuclear capability. At the time, they said the uniquely destructive power of nuclear weapons required us to rethink traditional international rules.
The first round of that debate ended in 1950, when President Truman ruled out a preventive strike, stating that such actions were not consistent with our American tradition. He said, “You don’t ‘prevent’ anything by war…except peace.” Instead of a surprise first strike, the nation dedicated itself to the strategy of deterrence and containment, which successfully kept the peace during the long and frequently difficult years of the Cold War.
23. Sunny | March 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Actually js, I think you just made Joe’s case. good job.
24. Joe | March 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Nice… I go out and get lunch and come back to see js hurling more 5th grade insults.
OK… I didn’t see that you were responding to post #6 with the 50k troops. I still think that would be the wrong thing to do, but hey… at least I see you were responding to someone on that. Of course, in order to do that the military would have to get even more stretched than it already is.
As for the preemptive doctrine, I am talking about the U.S. You are bringing up the Brits.
But hey… kepp tossing out your insults.
btw… nice cut and paste in post #22. You should at least include the link.
25. Rich | March 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“Looking at this in more general terms, I’ll predict we’ll see more and more copying of Bush’s preemptive war doctrine around the world.”
Wow. Just wow. Because war was so rare before the Iraq war. Oh, and countries only went to war for good reasons before the Iraq war. Get a life.
26. Rich | March 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You stooges need to read Carl Von Clausewitz’s book, On War. You will see that preemptive war is nothing new, unsusual, or evil. In todays day and age, it is necessary. When Israel learns Hamas has a new shipment of long range rockets in, they seek them out and destroy them not waiting to have them fall on their cities. Anyone wanna argue with that logic?
27. congressive | March 4th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
A’right! Another evil despotic regime sitting on a boatload of oil that we can bomb!
Let the lies begin! First it’s “evidence suggests” then it’ll be “there is no doubt” and before long, Colin Powell will be waving little white vials in front of the UN while showing cartoons of bad things on the overhead projector.
We must save those poor suffering Iraqis - I mean Venezuelans from the evil dictator by bombing the bejeezus out of their infrastructure and waterboarding some Chileans while we’re at it, while any South American citizen who gets in the way must assuredly be al Qaida.
Do they think we’re all that stupid? Yes, they do.
Are we that stupid? Yes, we are.
28. plainjane | March 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Before you wingnuts start demanding we send our sons and daughters into yet another one of your nation building schemes remember two things. This time the likes of Jenna, Barbara and the Romney boys better be a part of the contingent. Second it was pretty tough for Saddam to hide a tank and his army in a dessert. As those who served in Vietnam will testify, it is a little different fighting in a jungle, even a rag tag band of thugs like Chavez has.
29. js | March 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
lol
whata pair of dud’s you two are sonny and joe
you people have no idea what you are speaking about
like before america preemtive war didnt exist
twist your panties some more boyz, prove how simple minded you really are
30. eric | March 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
jane,
Are you calling for a draft? Unless you forgot, we have an all volunteer military. The only way our govt. can force “the likes of Jenna, Barbara and the Romney boys” to be part of any action in Colombia would be to institute a draft. Great idea. And, it won’t just be “the likes” of Jenna et al.
I hope you have kids that are registerd with selective service. Mommy is going to get them drafted.
31. js | March 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
30. eric
If another war breaks out (ie…Venezuela) they probably will reinstate active conscription.
32. eric | March 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
js,
We will see. I guess it will make Jane happy.
33. Bigfoot | March 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
This time the likes of Jenna, Barbara and the Romney boys better be a part of the contingent.
You mean like Bill Clinton sent Chelsea to the Nato airbases from which we bombed Serbia? Or like LBJ sent Linda to Vietnam? Or like Jimmy Carter sent Chip to rescue those hostages from Iran? Or Truman sent Margaret to Korea?
Oh wait, none of those happened, did they?
Seriously, I think that the last presidential offspring to fight in his/her father’s war was Elliot Roosevelt, son of FDR. He was flying on an escort plane during the mission that claimed the lives of Joe Kennedy Jr. and his co-pilot.
34. Sunny | March 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
js | March 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
lol
whata pair of dud?s you two are sonny and joe
you people have no idea what you are speaking about
like before america preemtive war didnt exist
twist your panties some more boyz, prove how simple minded you really are
Listen dh, why don’t you send your children to fight in one of these wars, or better yet, go yourself. And no, it has not been an American policy to preemptively attack another nation that did not attack us. We have retaliated only when we have been attacked or to support an ally who has been attacked. But you will never convince me that it is the policy of this country to attack another country without provocation. And not complying with the UN mandates is NOT provocation for attacking.
35. plainjane | March 4th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Bigfoot | March 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
It was a figure of speech. You repugs are thick. I would be all for a draft without college or boils on the butt deferments. When everyones kids are in the mix, we may hear let us take a second look before we send our kids to fight in the jungles of Venezuela for the Exxon oil company. It was the draft that made us re-evaluate our position in Vietnam. When it is someone else’s kids the decision is too easy for the wingnuts.
36. js | March 4th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
34. Sunny
What are you, daft? Certainly your full of pork manure@!@@!
Wanna strut your hollow gossip any more? We already know you are a liberal lemming, just how much can you prove, run into the river and drown yourself now like the half wit lemming you are???
You need to wake up and get educated. Why did Secretary of State Daniel Webster justify the conditions of premeptive war in 1861 if its a Bush doctrine from 2002? (in all actuality, Bushes doctrine in more akin to preventive war)
Strange how that words.
37. js | March 4th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“But you will never convince me that it is the policy of this country to attack another country without provocation. ”
What are you, flattering yourself hoping I would agree? How stupid. I never represented any such thing, so its just another figment of your lemming imagination!! See if you understand the reality of the situation, ok?
Show me exactly where I proposed that we SHOULD attack another country without provocation?
Cmon little boy. Before you mommy calls you.
38. Kahn | March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Why do we think you leftists support Chavez? You mean Chavez, the socialist? Why do we think you leftists support Chavez the socialist? Well, lets see:
How about the posts here (well at B4B) supporting him when he attacked us in the U.N.?
How about the Kennedy association and your defence of that?
How about all those Hollywood wacko leftists like Belefonte and Glover and Penn and their OPEN support of him?
How about your defence of them?
But if you are now finding ‘religion”, then by all means welcome to the fold.
I was listening to NPR interview several people in Venezuala who thought the idea of war with Colombia (their biggest trading partner) was insane. That there were already food shortages because of the price controls there.
But if Chavez was/is in league with FARC and so is Ecuador. Well then, maybe Colombia should attack THEM?
None of you are defendind FARC are you? Or Ecuador and Venezuala - IF there is a link with them and FARC, are you? Just wanting to get it on the record..
39. Kahn | March 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
But of course, I speak in the plural. If individuals here are not Chavez supprters and we missed that, well excuse us. Maybe you could be a little more vocal about it when the more socialist minded of your cohorts espouse love and support for him? Maybe join us in conedemning them?
Just a suggestion…
40. FmrMarine | March 5th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
>>>>I hope that they get this under control soon… I’m supposed to go to Ecuador this May… ironically enough for an International Conflict Resolution internship<<<<<<
BWWWWAAAA HA HA HA !….conflict resolution!
GOOD you can get a first hand look at your beloved marxism first hand.
You would be the FIRST to squeal like a pig and cry for W to send in the Marines if something happens to your little party while over there.
I would hope he would IGNORE your plight.
41. Richie | March 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
You’re a god dam fool who swallows any rubbish you hear on fox news… what kind of planet is this that has brainwashed idiots posing as political pundits?
Venezuela’s economy has only gone from strength the strength under Chavez, he has spread medical care, education and literacy programs, he’s given the poor a future.. its jingoistic fools like you that side with the IMF and Venezuelan elites..
Please do yourself a favor and start a sports blog…