Venezuela Says US Violating Airspace From Curacao

[struggle4progress]

Source: Associated Press

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 31, 2009

Filed at 2:43 p.m. ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's government said Thursday that U.S. military counter-drug flights from nearby Dutch islands are violating its airspace in preparation for an attack. A U.S. official denied the allegation.

A Venezuelan Foreign Ministry statement listed no examples of such violations, but it accused the United States of using ''the colonial territories of Aruba and Curacao in preparation for a military aggression against Venezuela.''

Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, has repeatedly complained about Dutch permission for the U.S. to use the islands -- Aruba is about 20 miles (30 kilometers) off his coastline -- for flights meant to monitor drug planes from South America.

Chavez has repeatedly accused the U.S. of plotting to invade Venezuela or overthrow him since 2002, when a failed coup briefly removed him from power. U.S. officials have denied any such plans and say they did not back the coup ...

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/31/world/AP-LT-Venezuela-US.html?_r=1

[boppers]

1. Sad.

Maybe one day Chavez will care more about his people and less about crackpot theories.

I doubt it.

[dipsydoodle]

2. He cares more about his people

than his most recent predecessors.

[boppers]

16. He has improved conditions more than his predecessors.

That would be the good part.

[northzax]

67. not exactly a high bar to reach, right?

kinda like being the tallest oompa-loompa, ain't it?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

6. "Crackpot theories" . . . ??? Right, the CIA has never been a threat to other nations--!!!

:evilgrin:

:eyes:

[boppers]

17. ...therefore, they are a constant threat to all nations?

Teh tinfoil, it burns.

Tastes funny, too.

[defendandprotect]

19. The CIA and American policy of war mongering is a constant threat to most nations . . .

if it has to be "ALL" we can probably go there as well ---

From Haiti, to Mexico, from Hawaii to South America --

from Vietnam to Cambodia, to Laos -- to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq . . . .



If you have fear of tinfoil -- here's some real tinfoil to work on --

[defendandprotect]

20. Link to that tinfoil --

Click once on photo --

[Demeter]

65. The CIA Is a Constant Threat to OUR Nation

with their black ops and plots. If they stuck to gathering information, it would be a different story.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. The purpose of the CIA is to gain intelligence of what's occuring around the world

With that in mind, shouldn't they be keeping an eye on what's unfolding in Venezuela? After all, it's a well known fact that paramilitaries, drug runners, and leftist guerillas are all using Venezuelan territory for their own purposes, on top of which, Venezuela and Colombia are ramping up of the rhetoric significantly these last few weeks... Love it or hate it, Latin America has traditionally been considered the United States' backyard, it's definitely in our interests to be aware of what's unfolding.

[provis99]

9. crackpot? The US routinely violates Canadian airspace,

why should the idea that Venezuelan airspace is being invaded by the US be a "crackpot" theory"?

[boppers]

15. Is the US planning to attack Canada?

Is Harper complaining in press conferences that there's an attack being planned?

Is he holding press conferences about how US the US military having bases in Alaska and access to airfields on the border are a threat to the poor of Canada?

[TheWatcher]

22. Do you have the ability to intelligently debate, or is simply misdirecting with these kinds of

irrelevant statements all you have to offer?

[boppers]

25. I was responding to a claim about Canada.

Thus, I applied the same circumstances that would be needed if the comparison was reasonably appropriate.

[defendandprotect]

21. You know .... I had added in Canada to my list . . . because who could

avoid the feeling that eventually it will be our "Canadian Bacon" -- !!!

Nah . . . we're not doing anything -- except sending drones over Pakistan!!!

A little killing from a distance . . . cool, cold and calculated -- !!!



sigh . . . Happy New Year -- !!!



:)

[northzax]

68. the crackpot part

is that this is in preparation for a US attack on Venezuela.

[Proletariatprincess]

3. If I was a Venezuelan, I would be terrified of the USA.

From that perspective, I would thank my leader for being vigilant and speaking out against incursions into airspace. It isn't unreasonable to suspect the very worst from a nation that fomented a coup against the popularly elected leadership and whose history in the region is brutal and shameful.
Everyone knows that the drug interdiction is just a false premise for doing evil deeds in South and Central America. Everyone, that is, except USAers.

[struggle4progress]

4. Eh. The intelligence boys are probably toying with him, using minor incursions into

the airspace to poke him. After the coup attempt, which was rather obviously had US support, and years of regular bellicose language from the Bushistas and their media collaborators, it may not take much to provoke responses that can be portrayed here as irrational or paranoid. It's a long-familiar pattern

[defendandprotect]

23. "Toying" .... ??? You mean US/CIA doesn't have real designs on Venezuelan OIL . . . ???

[struggle4progress]

28. I mean that after thugs set your car on fire and shoot out your picture windows, they might

follow up by leaving empty sterno cans and burned matchsticks on your front porch or setting off strings of firecrackers in your driveway at 2 AM, so your enemies can sneer and roll their eyes about how you over-react to a bit of litter and some silly teenage pranksters

[defendandprotect]

31. Apologies . . . I better understand what you were saying . . .

my fault -- I got distracted by "toying" and didn't properly read thru the entire

post to the end.

Agree with you completely!!!

Happy New Year --

:)

[northzax]

69. not really

we already get all the oil from Venezuela that we need, thanks. the value added in petroleum is in refining, and it's refined in Texas. no worries.

[JonQ]

10. Which is precisely what he's counting on

and it's working great to keep him in power.

We must remain vigilant and loyal in the face of outside aggression! And the most important thing is to never question your government, to do so exposes us to attack!

[Peace Patriot]

18. "...working great to keep him in power"? The Venezuelan voters have done that

and they have one of the most aboveboard and transparent election systems in the western hemisphere. (Can any of our office holders say the same?)

Venezuelans have voted for Chavez's government in three elections (including the 2004 recall election, funded by the USA, which Chavez won, hands down), with increasing margins of victory, and recently overwhelming voted to lift term limits on the president and other office holders (including rightwing governors). That is what's "keeping him in power"--the will of the people.

As for Chavez being concerned about the illegal U.S. overflights, the SEVEN new U.S. military bases in Colombia, the $6 BILLION that U.S. taxpayers are forking over to Colombia in military aid--to a government and military with one of the worst human rights records on earth--the two new U.S. military bases in Panama, the reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (mothballed since WW II), the rightwing military coup in Honduras (U.S. air base and port facilities--historical "lily pad" country for U.S. aggression in the region), and other signs and omens that the Pentagon is surrounding Venezuela's main oil fields, facilities and shipping (adjacent to Colombia and to the Caribbean), not to mention the multi-millions in USAID to rightwing groups in Venezuela and other countries with leftist democracies, and the relentless, lying, psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez, and, by implication, against the people of Venezuela who keep voting for him, nothing to see here, move along....

:sarcasm:

[wayne fontes]

26. Same post over and over

I don't know why, I just feel I have the http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=4th+fleet&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images">I read this before .....

[ronnie624]

58. So?

Can you respond to the content?

[wayne fontes]

64. Sure, but it already been done

There are no <i>new</i> US bases in Colombia. The agreement provided access to existing Colombian bases, most if not all, of which we already had access to. The amount of personnel the US can station at these bases is limited to 1,400 and in 2009 there are fewer than 600 personnel stationed in Colombia. Hardly a force capable of surrounding Venezuela's oil fields. This has already been discussed on DU.

But wait there's more! The reconstituted 4th fleet represents an administrative change only. No new assets (ships planes or men) have been added to the region. Why would Venezuela be threatened by an administrative change? I can't personally can't come up with a reason. This has already been mentioned on DU.

But wait there's more! The statement that there are two new US bases going in to Panama is completely in error. It comes from a rumor published in Pravda which was denied the next day by Panama. Not just no new bases no US military personnel at all! Take a deep breath and think about it. Do you really think given our history with Panama any Panamanian politician would allow the us to station personnel there?

The 6 billion dollars we gave Colombia during the past decade represented 4% of there defense budget. Given the fact some of that fights the drug trade and Colombia currently has a civil war going on does any one think it's enough to fund an invasion of Venezuela? Come on.


The Honduran base contains all of six hundred personnel. Not exactly a huge striking force poised to invade VZ. It's also a thousand miles away from VZ. Us dam Yankees are surrounding VZ, from a thousand miles away with six hundred guys. On the topic of bases no mention of the fact the US lost the Air Force Base at Manta Ecuador.

In addition the assumption that the US has violated VZ's airspace doesn't seem likely to me. We wouldn't want to give Chavez a propaganda victory and I think our satellites can be relied upon to provide surveillance info.

But let's make a bet Ronnie. I say the exact same erroneous info gets posted again. Do you want the other half of that bet?

[Peace Patriot]

82. "Just a few hundred military contractors...". Remember? Or are you too young?

The Pentagon LIES. The war profiteers LIE. The U.S. State Department LIES. The CIA LIES. And, frankly, you sound like them, in the U.S. military buildup in South Vietnam, 1963-64.

The keys to whether or not they are LYING now are....one, OIL, two, history, three, the reaction of Latin American leaders, who know our history better than most of our own people do.

I've asked myself questions, the answers to which would sound much like your list of answers, above. Are these facts "innocent"--at least in regard to a war plan (if not in regard to war profiteering)? Am I overreacting because of Iraq? Would the Pentagon be so foolish as to...? Etc. There are just too many facts pointing to a war plan, too many points at which their explanations ring hollow (or set off alarm bells, like the USAF "full spectrum" doc), too much motivation (oil, ALBA, oil, socialism, oil, Bank of the South, oil, "free trade for the rich," oil, oil, oil), too intense a psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez (and Correa), too many war rehearsals and feints toward a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and too many important points on which other South American leaders have cried foul.

For instance, I was inclined to swallow the Bushwhacks' explanation of their reconstitution of the US 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, in summer '08--that it was just an "administrative" action--because, what do I know? And they're rather busy, as you say, with their land war in Asia, er, their spreading of Greek culture to Afghanistan, er, their pipeline, or whatever it is they're DOING in "AFPAK." Then Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, says that the U.S. reconstitution of the 4th Fleet is a "threat to Brazil's oil"! That made me sit up and take notice. Why would Lulu--the U.S. ally, the "good left" (in DC's view)--say that?

Things like that stick in my mind. They help me evaluate Chavez's statements. He is so obviously a U.S. target that his being a bit alarmist would be understandable, but is the U.S.--after announcing a policy of "peace, respect and cooperation in Latin America"--actually pulling a Japanese diplomats-during-Pearl Harbor thing? Talking "peace" while planning war? Lula's reaction caused me to question the Pentagon's explanation about the 4th Fleet and I think they're lying. Then the Guajira peninsula base item came out, just recently. Christ, that's the point from which they would coordinate a blockade of Venezuela's oil ports!

Then there was Donald Rumsfeld's op-ed in the WaPo of 12/1/07, right in the middle of Hugo Chavez's hostage negotiations with the FARC at Colombia's request, Rumsfeld saying, in para 1, that Chavez's help "is not welcome in Colombia" when it had been just days before.

I'm not stupid and I'm not paranoid. I am sensitive to signals like that. I pay attention. I read. I remember things. What is Donald Rumsfeld doing, a year after his retirement, interposing himself like that in an extremely touchy situation, with hostages' lives at risk? And what does he MEAN when he urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America? What "friends and allies" is he talking about?

I've been around a LONG time. I've been through all this before, time and again, since I cast my first vote for president, voted for the "peace candidate" and got the Vietnam War. The war profiteers LIE. The Pentagon LIES. Time and again. We've got to get smart about this, and figure out their lies BEFORE they spring their next war on us, so that we can do everything possible to prevent it! We can't just wait around while they lie to us again. Egregious lies, like the WMDs that weren't in Iraq. Or sneaky lies, like "just a few military advisers" in South Vietnam--or Colombia.

In the case of the Pentagon and the oil in South America, there is just too much accumulated evidence that they are LYING. The evidence that they NEED the oil and can't have Iran (too well defended, scary nuke-power allies). The evidence of a US military build-up, recently come to light after a SECRET negotiation with Colombia's narco-thug government and military--kept a secret from the Colombian people, from the Colombian legislature and from the other leaders of Latin America, who were alarmed and outraged by this development. The weird, duplicitous, provocative, and apparently inexplicable behavior of Obama's envoys in Honduras. Chavez's comment that Obama "is the prisoner of the Pentagon."

You know what I thought about the Honduran coup, for a long time? I thought it was a Bushwhack mole INSURRECTION in the Pentagon and the diplomatic corps in Latin America, in cahoots with Jim DeMint, John McCain, John Negroponte, et al. DeMint was blockading Obama's appointments in Latin America, and they and their Bushwhack brethren in the Pentagon were fomenting a rightwing military coup in Honduras before Obama could get control of the situation. What happened there was the OPPOSITE of Obama's announced policy.

I still think there was some blackmail involved (sabotage of Obama), but overall I've concluded that he is on board for at least threatening Chavez with war, ripping up the ALBA trade group, "dividing and conquering" all the leftist alliances, toppling leftist leaders where they can and installing Exxon Mobil-friendly whores and their death squads over these countries, where possible, and generally wreaking havoc on Latin America's leftist democracy/independence movement. Obama personally may not be planning an oil war in South America, but the Pentagon IS, and the Pentagon thinks long term, past 2012, and is probably privy to who Diebold & co. is going to install in the White House at that time.

Have we learned NOTHING from the Clinton-Bush continuum on Iraq? Have we learned NOTHING from the Democratic leaders' support for Bush's wars? Have we learned NOTHING from Vietnam? Our leaders LIE about war ALL THE TIME, repeatedly, creating threats and "enemies" where there are none, creating bogeyman after bogeyman, and then creating the "war frenzy" when the time is ripe. We have been through this time and again. When are we, the people, going to get smart about this, learn to read the signals and figure out how to head it off, if we can. Our war profiteers obviously fear us. They put a great deal of energy into FOOLING us. So maybe we should work on not being fooled again?

So, no, I don't believe the explanations that you have laid out--that the 4th Fleet is "administrative," that their doubling of the U.S. troops and 'contractors' in Colombia is a 'mere' doubling, that this doubling of troops and 'contractors' is 'merely' providing 'advisers' to the Colombian military, that this SECRETLY negotiated agreement with Colombia is just confirming what the Pentagon is already doing in Colombia (access to SEVEN bases?), that the Colombian base on the Guajira peninsula will be "paid for with Colombian taxes," or any of the other bullshit that the war profiteers are throwing at us about this situation. I don't believe them. Get it? Why should I? Why should you?

I think that what you should do is ask yourself what your sources of information are, on all of the above explanations. Have the sources that you are using ever lied to you before about U.S. war plans? What and who are you relying on? The Associated Pukes and other Pentagon/CIA stenographers?

[ronnie624]

83. If the Pentagon says it wants bases in Colombia for:

- "contingency operations, logistics, and training in Central/South America"
- "air mobility reach on the South American continent"
- "full spectrum military operations"
- "access to the entire South American continent"
- "Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance"
and
- "expanding expeditionary warfare capability"

then I believe it. Clearly the Pentagon is planning for something more than just the "war on drugs".

The U.S. has a well-documented history of maintaining hegemony in Latin America through the funding of political factions, economic coercion, covert activities like funding and organizing coup d'etat, proxy warfare and even overt invasion. It is clear to me that those who currently establish U.S. foreign policy intend to continue that tradition.

It doesn't matter that there are no "<i>new</i>" U.S. bases in Colombia. The fact of the matter is, the bases are new in the sense that the U.S. military will now have access to bases that it did not have before, and there are many upgrades and expansions planned, at the expense of the U.S. government. The cap on personnel can be raised or eliminated, and the "administrative change only" reconstitution of the 4th fleet can be augmented at some point in the future as well. The State Department press release hinted at the possibility of further agreements. It also makes clear that the U.S. now has potential access to more than just the seven facilities mentioned.

Your whole outlook on this issue seems to rest on a belief that there is no history of U.S. intervention in Latin America.

[The abyss]

56. +1

Truth is more than necessary.

Hang in here!

[defendandprotect]

32. Yes . . . "don't question your government" ...

especially if you are an American -- !!!

[Pavulon]

14. That 's the point. Its the US' fault you have no power or milk

this is all a fat distraction for the people in power.

[Arctic Dave]

38. No power? I thought rolling black outs were only for California.

[Pavulon]

39. yeah, we blamed that on hugo. That is why we tried the coup.

because he stole our power. No problems here in NC. Lots of nice reactors supplying cheap power. Hugo is full of SHIT. If he had balls he would shoot them down. So given that, this just makes him a liar.

No planes, just a whining jackass blaming the great satan for his problems. Pretty good for a petro whore, which is pretty much all he is. He is just a supplier.

[Arctic Dave]

42. I believe the US is the petro whore, he would be the petro pimp.

So rolling blackouts aren't just for California?

[Pavulon]

44. Nyet. No blackouts here. Lots of datacenters

moved in because our power comes from reactors. Both RTP and Charlotte host major capability thanks to maguire and sharon harris. Hugo is just selling a product. They have NOTHING else to export. No services, no R&D, nothing other than rotten reptiles.

[Arctic Dave]

46. And yet we can't live without the product he sells.

They sell their crap, we sell ours. Not much of a difference.

[Pavulon]

49. We just have a more diverse lineup of crap.

aerospace, technology, energy, etc. He has dead lizards and red shirts, thats it.

[Arctic Dave]

52. We have our redshirts too, we call them contractors. A few them became meat piles a few days ago.

[Pavulon]

54. Like the GC who built my house? I would choke that bastard.

I only heard about CIA officers being killed. They are not contractors.

[northzax]

70. wait, have there been systematic rolling blackouts

in California in the past five years? it was one summer, and an aberration engineered by a corporation for profit. said corporation has been eliminated and it's surviving executives incarcerated.

Chavaz has had roughly absolute power in Venezuela for roughly a decade. that decade has seen the country's largest export quintuple in value. Venezuela should be richer now than at any time in its history. if I were a citizen, I'd wonder where that money went? after the most lucrative decade for oil producers in history, why are there still shortages of milk? it can't be the oligarchs, again, Chavez took control of the oil industry top to bottom, as well as milk production, agricultural production and heavy industry. so who's to blame now? the US? still?

[Arctic Dave]

71. Does California have electrical rationing. The answer is yes. Almost all

sun belt states do, due the massive demand during peak months. Theirs on the other hand is due to water shortage for their hydroelectric.

Should we talk about water rationing now? After all we control that as much as they do. As for the milk, what about the rice shortage this summer or the gas or the fuel oil? You act as if the US never runs out of products either.

[Peace Patriot]

61. Sounds like you're disappointed he didn't shoot down a U.S. war plane, Pavulon.

As for "petro whore," a leader who STOPS whoring to Exxon Mobil deserves the title "hero" not "whore."

Previous Venezuelan leaders toadied to Exxon Mobil & brethren and basically gave away the oil, in a 10/90 split, favoring the multinationals and screwing all but the rich oil elite in Venezuela. The Chavez government renegotiated the contracts several times, ultimately achieving a 60/40 split of the oil profits, favoring Venezuela and has used the revenue to bootstrap Venezuela's vast poor majority--with education, health care, help to small businesses, pensions for the elderly, land reform and other social programs.

And they did so at some risk. Alone among the multinationals in refusing to deal with a non-whore government, Exxon Mobil stomped out of the oil contract negotiations, and went into "first world" courts to try to seize $12 billion of Venezuela's international assets and cash reserves--the richest corporation in the world literally trying to take school books out of the hands of children and food out of their mouths. And since Exxon Mobil is the real president of the United States--a corporation that can commandeer the U.S. military for its resource needs, and, against the will of the American people, order up the slaughter of a million innocent people to steal their oil--the Chavez government incurred the wrath of the U.S. political establishment (talk about whores!) who are bent on destroying Chavez, his elected government and democracy in Venezuela.

That risk remains. The U.S. has often toppled social justice democracies in Latin America, and installed hideous dictators who gladly throw leftists out of airplanes or bury their tortured bodies in mass graves, on behalf of U.S. corporations. Nothing has changed, in that regard. The U.S. is most certainly deeply engaged in efforts to topple the Chavez government, one way or another--and the huge U.S. military buildup in Colombia and the region points to violence as the method of choice.

Facing down Exxon Mobil, using the oil profits to benefit the poor and living every day with U.S. bull's eye targets on your backs are brave acts, undeserving of contemptuous epithets. The "whores" are those who serve the rich for their own benefit and that of their cronies. The heroes are those who don't. They may make mistakes. They may have blind spots. They may be overwhelmed. They may be slandered. They may be mixed bags of egotism and altruism, as many heroes are. And they may fail. But heroism is not a matter of being perfect. It is a matter of trying to do the right thing, despite the dangers and against the odds. The ones who instead take the easy path of serving the rich are the weak ones, the selfish ones--the undead, the malfeasant, the grubby, the contemptible, the "whores." We have too many of those here, and too few of the kind of leader that Chavez is--and Morales in Bolivia, and Correa in Ecuador, and Lulu da Silva in Brazil, and the other leftist leaders of Latin America-- who are willing to take great personal risks to serve the people who elected them.

It is those people whom you are slandering, as well, when you call Chavez "a petro whore," and a "jackass" --the people of Venezuela, the voters, the grass roots activists, the poor majority who have worked so hard, and taken such risks themselves, to elect a government that serves their interests and to establish and protect their democracy. You try to personalize the slander--"Hugo is full of SHIT," etc.--but "Hugo," that is, the President of Venezuela, represents millions of people who agree with him and approve of him. The struggle here is between the U.S. empire and the people of Venezuela, not between the U.S. empire and "Hugo." The latter is a highly distorted view, right out of the CIA disinformation department: the creation of a bogeyman, a phantom, by which to justify smashing the real "enemy," the people of a country who won't be dictated to by the U.S.

[Igel]

30. If I were Aruba or Curacao, I might also be a bit nervous.

I mean, essentially he's saying that they're engaging in activities that would justify aggression. And not for the first time.

Moreover, he's already decreed that they're essentially Venezuelan territory occupied by an imperial power. Great framing for a bit of anticolonialist liberating. "They are three islands in Venezuela’s territorial waters, but they are still under an imperial regime: the Netherlands. Europe should know that the North American empire is filling these islands with weapons, assassins, American intelligence units, and spy planes and war ships.” (Snagged from http://www.thehollandbureau.com/tag/curacao/, but it was fairly widely reported elsewhere.)

In fact, by treaty they are not in Venezuela's territorial waters. The maritime border accommodates them.

[Vidar]

60. Stop making so much sense.

[bloomington-lib]

7. Chavez is an egomaniac

[ThomThom]

8. yes but he was elected..... seems simple to me

Honduras too
What are we doing? We have lost our direction.

[defendandprotect]

24. Right . .. but Bush and Cheney were sane????

Increasing the drones we're flying over Pakistan is sane?

Attacking Iraq was sane?

The first CIA coup on Venezuela was sane?

:evilgrin:

[bloomington-lib]

27. Not really sure what you're getting at

Are you putting words in my mouth to make it easier to argue with me?

[defendandprotect]

29. You're not sure what I'm getting at . . . ???

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

[bloomington-lib]

33. I said he was an egomaniac. He is. You pointing out

our actions insanity has nothing to do with my post. Yes, those are not sane actions. WTF is your point? I'm actually curious about the sanity of your post so instead of laughing why don't you explain how what you're saying relates to my post.

Actually don't reply. I just went back and read some of your dumbass responses you've made to other people. I'm sure it'll just be another reply about how the CIA fucks with people so I can't call out Chavez. I'm putting you on the ignore list so I don't ever have to read anything so misdirected and meaningless as the shit I've read from you again.

[defendandprotect]

34. An "egomaniac" is unbalanced . . .

insane -- sociopath --

You're trying to suggest that Chavez is mistaken about US/CIA involvement in a coup

on Venezuela! Venezuela supplies 1/6th of our oil!! Aren't they also moving to the Euro?

Guess CIA wouldn't be interested in that --

but, then again, CIA is of course to be trusted -- !!!

:sarcasm:

Bye --

[EFerrari]

43. Venezuelan air space is being violated so he's an egomaniac?

Simon Romero, is that you?

[Pavulon]

45. He needs to use them migs son. After all those billions

did he forget to buy some air to air missiles. I think he is a lying sack of shit. If he had a chance to shoot he would. Castro shot down civil aviation stuff, surely hugo can do the same?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. Any proof of that other than the words of Saint Hugo?

[EFerrari]

72. You want me to prove someone else's ad hominem?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Is there any proof of airspace violation based on ICAO defined boundaries other than the claims made

by Chavez.

I don't see an ad hominem in this subthread

[EFerrari]

75. U.S. plane strays into Venezuelan airspace

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/19/venezuela.us/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[Pavulon]

76. Post up that date friend. That happened today right???

poor hugo. Maybe he needs to start shooting at them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. So it takes Hugo over six months to get upset about it? It sounded like the US was conducting

full scale military exercises in his airspace.

Note that in the article you cite, the pilot followed ICAO rules appropriately

[EFerrari]

81. I don't know who you have to be to not know

that Chavez has been being baited for years. The whole region witnessed that. It's not a secret.

The truth is, Obama's cred in Latin America was used up in Honduras. No Latin American leader is now looking forward to hope and change.

And no matter how much the right wing nutcases try to make this about Chavez, his is the regional majority opinion.

What a sad waste of goodwill.

[Flaneur]

11. What are we going to do when he shoots one down?

[Pavulon]

36. That would mean this was not bullshit rantings of a wanker

who has nothing to shoot and nothing to shoot at.

[David__77]

12. They should shoot them down, of course.

If they exist, shoot them down. It is Venezuela's sovereign right to defend its airspace.

[defendandprotect]

35. Would you do anything like that vs US/CIA if you were Chavez . . . ????

[Pavulon]

13. Hugo, Post that radar info, or STFU.

he is trying to divert attention to how fucked up his domestic situation is. He could show flight info and radar info showing incursion. He has all the migs, he could shoot them down. I mean even castro had the balls to shoot down un-armed planes out of miami in (near) his air space.

He keeps mentioning the islands, the question is if he gets froggy and tried to take them (falkland style) how much of an ass beating will he take.

[Arctic Dave]

40. How do you know he doesn't have information.

[Pavulon]

47. He is lacking truth or balls.

either he is a lying sack of shit or he spent all that money on migs and does not have the capability to hit an unarmed flight. That or he has no balls to shoot us aircraft or force a landing. Like our chinese friends did with the plane they flew into.

Personally I vote for lying sack of shit.

[Arctic Dave]

50. China didn't bring down the spy plane the first time.

Only after repeated incursions. Did we ever get that back?

[Pavulon]

53. Yep, they never found that meatpuppets body after flying into our jet

I bet we spent billions replacing all the systems compromised on that aircraft. It was never in there airspace, until after their guy died after crashing into it. It entered their space to land.

[PacerLJ35]

79. The "spy" flights never violated China's airspace

Some countries claim well in excess of the 3 nautical mile limit provided by ICAO charter. Venezuela is one of those countries, along with China (they seem to confuse themselves between the terms "economic exclusive zone" and "sovereign airspace"...they aren't the same thing). US aircraft can and do operate legally within a foreign nation's FIR/UIR, without violating their sovereign airspace. I've personally flown through Havana's FIR, as well as Tehran's FIR...and we weren't in violation of anything.

[Vogon_Glory]

37. Sounds Like Rationalizing a Land Grab to Me

Chavez's repeated claims about the ABC islands read like typical 20th century post-colonial land grabs to me. First, accusations are made about either the colonial power of some tiny or remote territory or some other country, then the standard noises about 'anti-colonialism,' then the troops are sent in and nobody dares to say what it was--a mini-colonialist territorial grab, like Indonesia's grab for Western New Guinea around 1960, like Indonesia's grab for East Timor in 1975, like Argentina's attempted seizure of the Falklands, and more recently, Saddam Hussein's grab for Province 19 (Kuwait).

I have no objections to territorial re-alignments if such realignments are done voluntarily with the consent of the inhabitants of the to-be-annexed territories. If Kuwait really desires to be a part of Iraq, fine--but let them vote for it. If the Falkland Islanders vote to join Argentina, good. I wouldn't even object if the inhabitants of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao voted voluntarily to join Venezuela--IF THEY THEMSELVES VOTED FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY TO JOIN VENEZUELA WITHOUT VENEZUELAN POLICE OR MILITARY COERCION.

But if folks want to say they're anti-colonialist, let them say that they are as much against colonialism by the lesser powers as by larger nations.

[Pavulon]

41. That would be unwise for senior hugo.

given the british reaction to the last tinhorn that tried that. Hopefully he will just continue juicing family and friends with petro dollars and not try to step out of his box.

[Vogon_Glory]

48. The ABC Islands Are Dutch, Not British

Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao are Dutch, not British. The Netherlands is much weaker militarily than was Thatcher's Britain. Unless NATO as a whole served notice on Chavez that such a move would be punished with military force, Hugo might be tempted to try it.

[Pavulon]

51. That NATO treaty (sec 5) is a motherfucker

we were pretty much ready to kill the entire european continent over that treaty. I would assume hugo is aware of how that conflict ended. I would assume any move against US interests would be a move against nato.

[Vogon_Glory]

55. I Hope He's Wise Enough To Remember That

A move against the ABC islands would be as much a move against the territorial sovreignity of the Netherlands and against Dutch citizens as it would be a move against the US. I hope that Hugo Chavez is wise enough to see that point.

I fully understand the desire to kick sand on a bully, and admittedly the Dutch were indeed colonizers in the past. But I suspect that even a few DU'ers would note the disparity between the size and population of the Netherlands and Venezuela and would choose not to fall into line against the evil, colonizing Dutch.

[Zorro]

62. An interesting take on Hugo's comments

Thought so when you first posted this in the LatAm forum a couple of weeks back.

ABC may be perceived as a much easier target instead of Colombia, or as an opportunity to exercise some of the weapons Venezuela is acquiring.

I suspect, though, that it's just bluster to keep his supporters energized and his political opponents at bay.

[Vogon_Glory]

63. Alas, There's Precedent

Alas, there's precedent for such a move by strongmen and dictators. The Greek Colonels made such a move against Cyprus in the 1970's; I don't recall whether their popularity was sagging or if the Greek economy was in a downturn mode. I do remember that the Argentine junta's popularity was also sagging when they made their grab for the Falklands/Malvinas.

I do hope I'm wrong and that President Chavez is just blustering. But recent history is too full of similar moves by other authoritarian rulers for me to get away with playing Compañera Pollyana.

[Zorro]

66. Unfortunately true

Although an aggressive action by Venezuela to take over ABC ultimately would lead to Hugo's removal, and the US would be blamed/credited for creating/resolving the situation.

I spent some time in Greece shortly after their military government was removed, and although the Greeks were the aggressors in Cyprus, the US was accused with siding with the Turks in that conflict (because the Turks used NATO weaponry). Of course the Greeks also used NATO weaponry in their invasion, but that was beside the point.

[EFerrari]

73. What part of a US military build up is unclear?

It's happening all over Latin America. Our sold out press makes Chavez look like a lone wolf but he's anything but.

Blustering? Good grief. Go look up what Lula say. Or Morales. Or just about anyone but the lapdogs in poor Colombia and Peru.

[Pavulon]

77. Is honduras commenting?

maybe the "people" are speaking up there too. Poor hugo, the evil us empire has conspired to leave his country milkless. He is short on rain and tits apparently.

[Vogon_Glory]

85. Reality Check Regarding the ABC Islands

Anyone who has visited some or all of the ABC islands know that these are rather small places (the biggest is Curacao) and that they are frequently visited by hundreds of thousands tourists from the US, Europe, and elsewhere in Latin America. A 'US military buildup' would be rather hard to ignore--it would show up at the airports and as cruise ships sail in and out of Aruba and Curacao.



Ergo: bluster

:dunce: :tinfoilhat: :silly:

[EFerrari]

90. Right. But we're not talking about one small place, rather

pattern all over the region. Ergo, reality, not bluster.

[Vidar]

59. We violate every one elses at will.

[PacerLJ35]

80. Acutally we don't

I fly for the military and airspace violations are taken pretty seriously. I've personally witnessed crews being de-certified for accidentally doing so.

[ronnie624]

89. The problem with your argument,

is that the experiences of an anonymous poster on the internet cannot be verified. I hope you're not offended if I reject it out of hand, with little or no consideration, as it is, by definition, completely useless.

But in fact, the U.S. has committed many and varied violations against other countries, including against their "airspace". Your claim is just unadulterated denial.

[PacerLJ35]

91. There have been purposeful violations of airspace, but this isn't one of them

The statement said we routinely violate other countries airspace with impunity, as if we don't even think twice about it. But we actually are very careful to avoid other airspace unless we specifically mean to violate their airspace (ie, wartime actions). In the event of this Curacao episode I'm familiar with the operations there and it wasn't intentional and likely was an episode of Venezuela claiming US aircraft violated their airspace while transiting their FIR/UIR. The aircraft at Curacao aren't there to invade Venezuela, or even spy on them. They don't have the capability to do that...think further west of Venezuela and think drug interdiction.

[ronnie624]

93. I have to take the Pentagon's word on the matter.

They spell their 'needs' out clearly in their budget proposal, and drug interdiction is not at the top of their list. Their focus in South America is on "full spectrum military operations" and "expanding expeditionary warfare capability", in an area of the world I might add, where there is no military threat to the United States.

The United States maintains a military presence in Latin America in order to preserve hegemony there. It is control over resources and markets, U.S. power elites want in Latin America, not drug interdiction. Hell, the illicit drug industry kept Western banks afloat in 2007 and 2008.

[PacerLJ35]

94. Out of all the operations I've been involved in down there

with military aircraft, they either involved counter-terrorism or counter drug ops. If you are implying the US military flies around trying to "preserve hegemony" in SA, I have a feeling you're reading too much into it. Sure, you can read all you want to but you haven't been involved in planning or executing any air ops in the region...I have.

[Odin2005]

86. Chavez needs some meds.

[NJGeek]

87. what a nut. someone needs to send a drone his way.

[ronnie624]

88. The underlying assumption in your message

is that the United States has a moral imperative to attack other countries at will. I urge you to re-examine your outlook.

The elites who establish our foreign policies have no legitimate reason to attack Venezuela. Venezuela is not a threat to the U.S. or any country in South or Central America. Venezuela spends less, per capita, on its military than most other countries in the region, and only an insignificant fraction of what the U.S. spends. It has shown no propensity for aggression, whatsoever. They have a transparent election process, and Chavez is favored by a clear majority of Venezuelan voters. In short, there is absolutely no logical reason for wanting to attack Venezuela.

And above all, read about the century of aggressive U.S. intervention in Latin America.

The basic facts about this issue, minus any ideological spin, point to the proper outlook.

[PacerLJ35]

92. We aren't trying to "intervene" in Venezuela with the Curacao flights

Those flights are for the US counter-drug effort. You can guess all day long but in the end you really don't know much about those flights.