Chemtrail Central
Register
Login
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Gallery
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Polls
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Top Websites
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  President Chavez warns United States against invading Venezuela

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author
Topic:   President Chavez warns United States against invading Venezuela

Topic page views:

KNOW-THIS
Senior Member


703 posts, Jul 2003

posted 03-09-2004 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KNOW-THIS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040307/w030750.html


President Chavez warns United States against invading Venezuela
01:37 PM EST Mar 09
ALICE CHACON

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to freeze oil exports to the United States and wage a "100-year war" if Washington ever tried to invade Venezuela.
The United States has repeatedly denied ever trying to overthrow Chavez, but the leftist leader accuses Washington of being behind a failed 2002 coup and of funding opposition groups seeking a recall referendum on his presidency.
Chavez accused the United States of ousting former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and warned Washington not to "even think about trying something similar in Venezuela."
Venezuela "has enough allies on this continent to start a 100-year war," Chavez said during his weekly television show.
He added that "U.S. citizens could forget about ever getting Venezuelan oil" if the United States ever tried to invade.
Venezuela provides about 15 per cent of U.S. oil imports, but relations between the two countries are rocky over Chavez's friendship with Cuban President Fidel Castro, his criticism of U.S.-led negotiations for a free trade zone in the Americas and his opposition to the war in Iraq.
The United States was slow to condemn the 2002 coup, initially accusing Chavez of provoking his own downfall.
Chavez has increasingly railed against U.S. meddling in Venezuelan affairs as his opponents step up protests to demand the recall vote.
On Saturday, at least 500,000 Venezuelans marched in Caracas to protest the National Elections Council's ruling last week that an opposition petition for the recall vote lacked enough valid signatures. Opponents turned in more than three million signatures Dec. 19, but the council ruled only 1.8 million were valid. The council ordered more than one million citizens to confirm they signed and rejected more than 140,000 signatures outright.
Rioting over the decision killed eight people and hurt scores more. The violence subsided after the Organization of American States and the U.S.-based Carter Center pledged to help give citizens a fair chance to prove they signed.
Venezuela is deeply divided between those who fear Chavez is trying to impose Cuba-style socialism and those who say he has given an unprecedented political voice to the impoverished majority.
Chavez insists the recall petition is fraud-ridden. He claims many signatures belong to dead people, minors and foreigners.
On Sunday, Chavez promised his government would investigate the deaths and injuries from last week's violence. Opposition leaders accuse national guard troops of committing abuses while trying to keep rock-throwing protesters from blocking roads with burning tires. Chavez accuses his opponents of instigating chaos.
"The government is investigating all the acts of violence and especially those in which people died," Chavez said. "Violence only takes place when a group of the opposition leaders decide there will be violence."

IP Logged

letxa2000
Senior Member


U.S. citizen in Mexico
394 posts, Dec 2003

posted 03-09-2004 03:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for letxa2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know about the rest of Latin America, but in Mexico Chavez is basically thought of as a thug and an idiot. His theatrics and comments are generally viewed as being rediculous and many people wonder how such an airhead could ever come to power. When Chavez visited Monterrey at the America's summit in January there were two Venezuelan woman who, at the Monterrey international airport, apologized on behalf of the people of Venezuela that such a man could be here supposedly speaking for a Venezuelan people.

Chavez is right up there with Castro in terms of radical and generally baseless propaganda and I seriously doubt he has any allies that would support him in a 100-year war against the United States... doubtfully even in his own country let alone the rest of the continent.

IP Logged

swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County


Jersey City, NJ
1362 posts, May 2002

posted 03-09-2004 04:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swamp gas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm glad Chevez is standing up to America's thug, idiot, alcoholic, aspartame damaged, cocaine riddled, p-resident, Dumbya.

Can't have the country own oil now can we? Privitize! Privitize!

What's Bushie going to do now? Invade Venezuela? or continue the CIA infitration, just as it's done hundreds of times before.

IP Logged

KNOW-THIS
Senior Member


703 posts, Jul 2003

posted 03-09-2004 04:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KNOW-THIS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And don't you think Bush and his selfish foreign policies are seen the same way by the millions of people all over the world who protest his actions as well Lexta?

IP Logged

letxa2000
Senior Member


U.S. citizen in Mexico
394 posts, Dec 2003

posted 03-09-2004 04:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for letxa2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
And don't you think Bush and his selfish foreign policies are seen the same way by the millions of people all over the world who protest his actions as well Lexta?

I couldn't care less. I'm no big Bush supporter. The topic here was Chavez, wasn't it?

IP Logged

KNOW-THIS
Senior Member


703 posts, Jul 2003

posted 03-09-2004 04:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KNOW-THIS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The topic was Venezuela warning the US against an invasion. And last time I checked, the current US president is Bush. Where am I off topic?

IP Logged

letxa2000
Senior Member


U.S. citizen in Mexico
394 posts, Dec 2003

posted 03-09-2004 04:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for letxa2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

quote:
Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
The topic was Venezuela warning the US against an invasion. And last time I checked, the current US president is Bush. Where am I off topic?

By that logic, a slam against Bush is on-topic anywhere international politics are involved.

I was replying to the credibility of the person making the warning and the probability (or lack there of) that what he says even matters. He's taking a page from the Castro playbook of trying to make the world and his own citizens think that an American invasion is imminent. At home he probably hopes that that will drum up his very marginal domestic support.

But whatever... I'm done. I was just providing a little Latin American perspective of the idiot that is the president of Venezuela. Do with my input as you will.

IP Logged

KNOW-THIS
Senior Member


703 posts, Jul 2003

posted 03-09-2004 05:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KNOW-THIS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lexta: "By that logic, a slam against Bush is on-topic anywhere international politics are involved."

Only if the international debate was directly related to United States policy & at a time when George W. Bush was the president which happens to be the case here. I don't see where the mentioning of Bush either pro or con wouldn't be absolutely appropriate.

Lexta: "I was replying to the credibility of the person making the warning and the probability (or lack there of) that what he says even matters. He's taking a page from the Castro playbook of trying to make the world and his own citizens think that an American invasion is imminent. At home he probably hopes that that will drum up his very marginal domestic support."

I'm not dissenting with you there, North Korea has taken that same philosophy I believe even several steps further. However, it is possible that despite our perceptions of lunacy, our enemies may at times also have some valid points. Our domineering foreign policy has an immense impact upon the way other countries view us. I feel it's just as important to see the grass from the other side. Smaller countries have every reason to be concerned when one of the world's major superpowers begins adopting invasive policy. The revolving door spins both ways.

IP Logged

letxa2000
Senior Member


U.S. citizen in Mexico
394 posts, Dec 2003

posted 03-09-2004 07:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for letxa2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Know-This: I'm not dissenting with you there, North Korea has taken that same philosophy I believe even several steps further. However, it is possible that despite our perceptions of lunacy, our enemies may at times also have some valid points. Our domineering foreign policy has an immense impact upon the way other countries view us. I feel it's just as important to see the grass from the other side. Smaller countries have every reason to be concerned when one of the world's major superpowers begins adopting invasive policy. The revolving door spins both ways.

Perhaps. The point I was making with Chavez is that I don't even think his perception is consistent with what most of the people in his country believe or feel. Here in Mexico, for example, a lot of people don't like Bush but that's nothing new--they're aprehensive of the United States always, not just with Bush. I visited Colombia and Ecuador in 1994 and while I can't speak of their opinions of current events a decade later, they seemed to respect the U.S. even in the midst of what was then a very destructive period in the DEA drug wars in their country.

As for the issue at hand, I don't believe there is any imminent threat of invasion on Cuba or Venezeula even though both Castro and Chavez seem to like to make speeches that would suggest to their people that it could happen at any time. Again, their motivations are clear. If you paint a picture to your people that you may be invaded by the U.S. then a nationalistic response will increase your support at home when, under other circumstances, those same people might be ready to lynch you in the street. It's entirely possible for our enemies to have valid points but in the case of Venezuela they aren't our enemy, their president is an idiot, his comments are clearly more aimed at a domestic audience, and it's very questionable whether his view really reflects those of his people.

In all, Chavez is worthy of ignoring. If the U.S. wanted to topple Chavez we wouldn't invade him. We'd simply stop buying oil from him for a few months.

IP Logged

KNOW-THIS
Senior Member


703 posts, Jul 2003

posted 03-09-2004 07:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KNOW-THIS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
-Lexta

Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about North Korea's similar stance? After all, they are part of the axis of evil. Why wouldn't they be next(to be invaded) & if so, would it be a good idea in your opinion?

IP Logged

letxa2000
Senior Member


U.S. citizen in Mexico
394 posts, Dec 2003

posted 03-09-2004 08:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for letxa2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about North Korea's similar stance? After all, they are part of the axis of evil. Why wouldn't they be next(to be invaded) & if so, would it be a good idea in your opinion?

I don't think we're eager to invade North Korea. Had we been they've already given us sufficient reason to escalate. That we have pretty much ignored their saber-rattling suggests to me that we aren't interested in doing so. If we were to attack, though, I think North Korea can only blame itself. Despite flagrant and open violation of nuclear proliferation treaties and despite their fighting words and taunts, they've essentially been left alone. Other than appealing to the domestic North Korean audience I really don't see why North Korea continues to push the envelope. I suspect the main reason we haven't attacked is that the U.S. probably recognizes that it is mostly aimed at the North Korean people.

I personally am not hoping for war but I do think it would be justified if push came to shove. If they ever test a missile that could reach the west coast and they're still nuclear, we need to act.

IP Logged

KNOW-THIS
Senior Member


703 posts, Jul 2003

posted 03-09-2004 08:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KNOW-THIS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My concern would be the reaction of their ally China. I wonder if they would get involved if a war were to break out. China seems to have a significant influence on North Korea.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/24/willy.column/


China readies for future U.S. fight
By CNN Senior China Analyst Willy Wo-Lap Lam
Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Posted: 4:43 AM EST (0943 GMT)



Beijing has said the war in Iraq would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe.



HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- The Iraqi war has convinced the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership that some form of confrontation with the U.S. could come earlier than expected.

Beijing has also begun to fine-tune its domestic and security policies to counter the perceived threat of U.S. "neo-imperialism."

As more emphasis is being put on boosting national strength and cohesiveness, a big blow could be dealt to both economic and political reform.

That the new leadership has concluded China is coming up against formidable challenges in the short to medium term is evident from recent statements by President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.

Hu indicated earlier this year Beijing must pay more attention to global developments so that "China make good preparations before the rainstorm ... and be in a position to seize the initiative."

Wen also pointed out in the first meeting of the State Council, or cabinet, last Saturday the leadership "must keep a cool head."

"We must boost our consciousness about disasters and downturns -- and think about dangers in the midst of [apparent] safety," he said.

Alarm bells about a deteriorating international situation have been sounded by the CCP's secretive Leading Group on National Security (LGNS), which coordinates policies in areas including diplomacy, defense and energy.

The LGNS, which is headed by Hu, has since early this month called a series of meetings to discuss ways to handle the Iraqi crisis.

In the near term, of course, the focus is on the impact of rising oil prices -- and on the need to build up a strategic oil reserve that can last at least 30 days.

However, economic concerns are not the top priority. Given the likelihood oil prices will drop after the resolution of the conflict, some government economists are saying the war's impact on this year's economic performance will be insubstantial.

Officials even cite the safe haven theory to predict foreign direct investment flowing into China will exceed the record $52 billion last year.

Of more concern to the LGNS is the perceived expansion of American unilateralism if not neo-imperialism.

As People's Daily commentator Huang Peizhao pointed out last Saturday, U.S. moves in the Middle East "have served the goal of seeking world-wide domination."

State Council think-tank member Tong Gang saw the conflict as the first salvo in Washington's bid to "build a new world order under U.S. domination."

Chinese strategists think particularly if the U.S. can score a relatively quick victory over Baghdad, it will soon turn to Asia -- and begin efforts to "tame" China.

It is understood the LGNS believes the U.S. will take on North Korea -- still deemed a "lips-and-teeth" ally of China's -- as early as this summer.

These developments have prompted China to change its long-standing geopolitical strategy, which still held true as late as the 16th CCP Congress last November.

Until late last year, Beijing believed a confrontation with the U.S. could be delayed -- and China could through hewing to the late Deng Xiaoping's "keep a low profile" theory afford to concentrate almost exclusively on economic development.

"Now, many cadres and think-tank members think Beijing should adopt a more pro-active if not aggressive policy to thwart U.S. aggression," said a Chinese source close to the diplomatic establishment.

He added hard-line elements in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advocated providing weapons to North Korea to help Pyongyang defend itself against a possible U.S. missile strike at its nuclear facilities.

Forestalling the challenge

Hu was elected president of China by the NPC this month.
Even less hawkish experts are advocating beefing up the national security apparatus.

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) economist Yang Fan pointed out the recent global flare-ups had alerted China to the imperative of improving national security and cohesiveness.

"Equal weight should be given to economic development and national security," Yang said. "As we become more prosperous, we must concentrate our forces [on safeguarding national safety]."

What is China doing to forestall the perceived U.S. challenge?

Firstly, the CCP leadership is fostering nationalistic sentiments, a sure-fire way to promote much-needed cohesiveness.

While not encouraging anti-U.S. demonstrations, Beijing has informed the people of what the media calls "increasingly treacherous international developments."

This explains what analysts including Beijing scholars considered the unexpectedly virulent official reaction to the start of the Iraq war.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the U.S.-led military campaign had "trampled on the U.N. constitution and international law" and that it would lead to regional and global instability.

Equally tough statements were issued by the National People's Congress (NPC) and the advisory Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Major official media such as Xinhua and People's Daily have run dozens of articles and analyses whose gist is that, in the words of commentator Li Xuejiang, the invasion of Iraq had "damaged the international order."

In an apparent departure from Beijing's cautious attitude at the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, authorities last weekend allowed a group of nationalist intellectuals to hold a conference condemning U.S. "hegemonism."

The corollary of boosting national cohesiveness could be the suppression of dissent, particularly politically incorrect views expressed by "pro-West" intellectuals.

The warning and punishment that party authorities recently meted out to several Beijing and provincial publications may augur a relatively prolonged period of ideological control in the interest of promoting "unity of thinking."

On the economic front, the authorities may play up the imperative of concentrating resources to boost China's "economic security" and "energy security."

"The Wen leadership is checking out why earlier plans to build up a strategic oil reserve failed to materialize last year, when prices were much lower," said a Beijing-based party source.

"It is possible that bucking the overall trend of market reforms, Beijing may bring back more government fiats to sectors deemed to have strategic and national-security implications."

It is instructive that in his 90-minute long interview with the international media last week, Wen was quite reticent about boosting economic reform such as the liberalization of state-owned enterprises.

In accordance with the theory of "the synthesis of [the needs of] war and peace," civilian economic projects in areas including infrastructure may be planned will the requirements of the defense forces in mind.

On the military front, the Iraqi conflict will kick start another season of accelerated modernization of weaponry.

Diplomatic analysts in Beijing said PLA officers and strategists had been scrutinizing the latest hardware used by American and British forces.

They pointed out the PLA's astonishment at the wizardry of American firearms used in the 1991 Gulf War was a major factor behind the Chinese army's aggressive modernization drive through the 1990s.

Academy of Military Sciences (AMS) expert Peng Guanqian pointed out that the Iraqi war would provide the Pentagon with "a testing ground for new military equipment and strategies."

The Liberation Army Daily last Friday quoted unnamed officers from the Army and the People's Armed Police as saying the PLA must "quicken the pace of military modernization."

Such developments could in turn hasten a possible showdown between the two countries that harbor deep-seated mistrust of each other even in relatively tranquil times.




[Edited 1 times, lastly by KNOW-THIS on 03-09-2004]

IP Logged

letxa2000
Senior Member


U.S. citizen in Mexico
394 posts, Dec 2003

posted 03-09-2004 09:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for letxa2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
My concern would be the reaction of their ally China. I wonder if they would get involved if a war were to break out. China seems to have a significant influence on North Korea.

My understanding has been that China has significant influence on North Korea, but they aren't best of friends. China also agrees that North Korea should not be nuclear.

I personally don't think China would get involved in a North Korean war but would certainly push for us to leave ASAP after the fact. Given that we could leave South Korea taking care of things I don't doubt we'd have a quick exit strategy... we might not even enter. We might just soften them up and let South Korea do the footwork.

IP Logged

swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County


Jersey City, NJ
1362 posts, May 2002

posted 03-10-2004 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swamp gas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
As for the issue at hand, I don't believe there is any imminent threat of invasion on Cuba or Venezeula even though both Castro and Chavez seem to like to make speeches that would suggest to their people that it could happen at any time.


Does the Bay of Pigs ring a bell Lexie?

Does hundreds of attempts by the CIA to kill Castro also toll?

The US won't invade North Korea fro a few reasons:

1) Would fight back viciously
2) Uncertainty of China
3) Cabbage and no oil.

Here's the scoop: The Anglo-NWO brain does not understand the Mongolian-based mind. Period. They use different standards for living, and when they armed armed to the teeth....Well?

Chavez would do well to be cautious of the US. This country, the US, is infiltrated with unsavory characters with a lot of influence and firepower, that will not compromise their shear insanity. Oh, don't think there was and still is Nazis and their ancestors living amongst us, AND directing policy. Follow the bloodline.

Start here and come back when you are ready for more:

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html

IP Logged

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:








Site Meter

Contact Us | Chemtrail Central


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c