Thousands chant 'Get out, Bush!'.......

[a_majoor]

Some of the arguments are becoming silly. Some simple refutations:

1. Realpolitik as practiced in the post WWII period was part of the overarching containment strategy of WWIII. It was successful WRT the former USSR, however it created the conditions for a a different set of problems (i.e. the Jihadis). The US has been gradually backing away from much of the "Realpolitik" approach since the 1980s (Starting with South America in the 1980s, the Reagan administration allowed the Argentinian Junta to collapse after the Falkland Islands war even though in "Realpolitik" terms that would not be wise). Castigating the West for policies deemed appropriate in the conditions of the Cold War is "Monday morning quarterbacking" of the highest order. Thinking that things can be changed instantly is just ignoring reality, people, economies, institutions and nations have inertia to overcome, and the "correct" answer to these problems isn't apparent right away.

2. "Chavez was democratically elected, therefore he is untouchable." I would tend to judge people by their actions, rather than how they happened to get there (although that might be a clue to future intentions as well). Please think back to a democratically elected Chancellor of a western European nation back in 1933. This gentleman also began with rhetoric directed against the Superpower of his day (The British Empire), and started with limited provocations, gradually escalating them when little or no effective response was generated. This Chancellor "could" have been assassinated, but a strong response to provocations probably would have done the job as well. We can call Chavez on his actions and take steps to respond to his provocations, this will be relatively easy and effective.

3."The US Government has been implicated..." Well if you want to really dig, so has the Canadian government. Perhaps you should live in a boat off the 200 mile limit from any nation? As they say in the movies "Only the Sith deal in Absolutes". I would be hard pressed to find a nation with a record of genocide comparable to China, widely touted as the "next" superpower (over 65 million deaths, plus the subjugation and deaths of the people of Tibet and the peoples of the "Western provinces"). The former USSR has at least 20 million deaths to its record (thank goodness we managed to win WWIII), yet lots of people still think they had the "correct" ideas about scientific socialism (even in our Universities). Face it, compared to almost any other nation at any other time in history, the United States has been bringing in an era of relative peace and prosperity. I would certainly preffer to live and raise my children under a US hegemony rather than a Chinese one.

Chavez is playing the Anti-American card because it is a quick and dirty way to divert people's attention away from the self generated problems at home, and provides a handy bogey man to blame when things go wrong. IF the Venezuelan Army attempts anther coup, well it was because Dr. Rice was giving them the orders, wasn't it? The decay of the economy, rule of law of the fact the Cubans are taking over things would have nothing whatever to do with that....at least according to the anti-American crowd.

 

[xFusilier]

1.  Realpolitik is not simply a Cold War Containment strategy, the term itself dates to Bismarck. Although very much tied into Kissengers view of international relations it is not an out moded reference akin to the words "Fulda Gap". It is the notion that state-state relations are conducted in the light of a realist view of the world.  Thus carrying out an action based on the assesment that it will be advantageous to the state is realpolitik.  I am not Monday morning quaterbacking, I am simply pointing out the irony of the worlds only superpower, which has a 200+ year history of acting in its own interest, telling other international actors it may not.  The US has not removed itself from a realist view of foriegn relations and  likely never will.  The US has not been backing away from a reapolitik approach and your example of the Argentines is easily shot to holes by the notion that perhaps the US realized that supporting the Argentine Junta after the Falklands War would most likey annoy another, more important ally, thus failure to support the Argentinians was not a repudiation of realpolitik but simply another phenomena that stregthens the hypothesis.

2.  Chavez=Hitler, me thinks that comparison needs a lot of work.  What needs to be realized is that any developing nation is not going to simply transform itself into a liberal democracy, the current form that we are enjoying was the result of almost a thousand years of political evolution and we stil do not have it right.  Certainly we can call Chavez on his actions, however, if we do know anything it is that the destabilization of states inorder to coerce them into towing the "party-line" often has unintended consequences.

3.  Yes, almost every nation in the world has engaged in dirty business in the past, and most likely will in the near future thus no state can deal in the moral absolutism of we good they bad.  All states do things based on a principle of pragmatism and evil and good become very relative concepts depending on where you are standing.  As we have seen yesterdays trusted friend can very quickly become today's enemy.  As for the United States brining in an era of relative peace and prosperity it seems your revisionist defining of the Cold War as World War III means that we've only really enjoyed peace and prosperity since the fall of the Soviet Union a very brief time in comparison to say the Concert of Europe.  Which was largely brought about through cooperation between states.  Hegemony, like the proverbial five-thousand pound gorilla is can be dangerous thing, we are fortunate to live in a nation where our interests happen to coincide with those of our southern neighbors, however, it is not inconcievable that one day they may diverge, as they have in the past.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Excepting the Global Policy ones, I question to integrity and accuracy of those random sources.

And most prove nothing, they only make allegations. That ain't concrete proof in my books.

Its called realpolitik. Welcome to realist politics 101.

Personally, I'd rather have the US on my side. They may not have the cleanest track record, but better then most other ones. Unless, of course, you guys want to ally with China or the few tin-pot communist wannabes that are still left.

Er... a link from the US government itself isn't credible in a discussion of American governmental conduct? As for the other non-global policy links, US policy on Guatemala is no secret and Clinton has apologized for it. If you want, I can find you "credible" links on it, but do a google and you'll have no trouble finding lengthy accounts of the depravity committed.

Likewise, the US support of Afghani resistance (IE the Taliban and AQ) is no secret either. The Stingers bringing down Hind helicopters didn't appear there magically. As for the Bay of Pigs, I don't think anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of Cuban-American relations regards the incident as only "allegation". It's quite well documented and sits solidly in the annals of real history.

 

[Infanteer]

Er... a link from the US government itself isn't credible in a discussion of American governmental conduct? As for the other non-global policy links, US policy on Guatemala is no secret and Clinton has apologized for it. If you want, I can find you "credible" links on it, but do a google and you'll have no trouble finding lengthy accounts of the depravity committed.

That's okay - "not proof in my books" is the only thing one can offer when the ability to think for oneself is not present.

It's all chess guys, of course the US is going to move its knight at times.   And of course Chavez will move his.   Let's not get girlish and try to put anybody on a higher moral plane than the other (WRT international relations).  

Insofar as I see it; Chavez was elected (multiple times) by the people of Venezuela and he has a greater moral imperitive than alot of OUR allies to do what he wants to in the name of the Venezuelan State; ever look at some of these Middle Eastern princes we deal with for bases?   How about the Chinese, our best buddy - when was the last election there?   If he wants to decry globalization, Western imperialism, and what-ever-else then that's his perogative; he can do that and Bush can invade Iraq (and Krushchev can support Castro and the US can support Pinochet)...I don't recall seeing "ideological" rules to how a State plays the game of Diplomacy - just don't expect the West to be required to accept his apology when he figures out he picked the wrong team.   If Venezuela (through its elected leadership) shits the bed, it can sleep in it - it is something we in Canada had to do with Trudeau....

Likewise, the US support of Afghani resistance (IE the Taliban and AQ) is no secret either. The Stingers bringing down Hind helicopters didn't appear there magically.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the notion that the US funded or created AQ and/or the Taliban has been debunked.   Sageman (who was on the ground at the time) decribes how money from the CIA went through the ISI and into the Afghan mujihadeen groups, not the Arab Afghans (they had their own pipeline through Azzam's organization).   Don't confuse the two groups.   As for the Taliban, they did not come into being until 92-93 timeframe and came from the Pasthun lands along the Afghan-Pakistan border in response to infighting between the various warlords.   They were, as an organization, not involved in the resistence against the Soviets and placing them in the context of the Afghan-Soviet war is right out to lunch (it's like saying the Soviets were a force to play in the Crimean War).

 

[Glorified Ape]

That's okay - "not proof in my books" is the only thing one can offer when the ability to think for oneself is not present.

It's all chess guys, of course the US is going to move its knight at times.   And of course Chavez will move his.   Let's not get girlish and try to put anybody on a higher moral plane than the other (WRT international relations).  

Insofar as I see it; Chavez was elected (multiple times) by the people of Venezuela and he has a greater moral imperitive than alot of OUR allies to do what he wants to in the name of the Venezuelan State; ever look at some of these Middle Eastern princes we deal with for bases?   How about the Chinese, our best buddy - when was the last election there?   If he wants to decry globalization, Western imperialism, and what-ever-else then that's his perogative; he can do that and Bush can invade Iraq (and Krushchev can support Castro and the US can support Pinochet)...I don't recall seeing "ideological" rules to how a State plays the game of Diplomacy - just don't expect the West to be required to accept his apology when he figures out he picked the wrong team.   If Venezuela (through its elected leadership) shits the bed, it can sleep in it - it is something we in Canada had to do with Trudeau....

Hey, I'm not saying anyone's a saint, I'm was simply pointing out that the US has been a long-time participant in the stuff Chavez was being criticized for.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the notion that the US funded or created AQ and/or the Taliban has been debunked.   Sageman (who was on the ground at the time) decribes how money from the CIA went through the ISI and into the Afghan mujihadeen groups, not the Arab Afghans (they had their own pipeline through Azzam's organization).   Don't confuse the two groups.   As for the Taliban, they did not come into being until 92-93 timeframe and came from the Pasthun lands along the Afghan-Pakistan border in response to infighting between the various warlords.   They were, as an organization, not involved in the resistence against the Soviets and placing them in the context of the Afghan-Soviet war is right out to lunch (it's like saying the Soviets were a force to play in the Crimean War).

I stand corrected on the Taliban. As for AQ, from what I understand, it came about during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, under OBL. I believe OBL was also a Joe for the US during that time.

 

[Infanteer]

Going off memory, Al Qa'ida was formed near the end of the Afghan War as "The Base" (hence the meaning) for Arab-Afghans (who weren't Afghan and weren't entirely Arab either; it's just the name given to foreign Mujihadeen who came to Afghanistan to fight) to take the skills they had learned against the Soviets to use against other enemies of Islam.  The initial idea was to fight "Apostate" regime like those in Egypt (remember, the Egyptian Zawahiri had a big hand in the formation of AQ).

However, my understanding is that AQ formed out of Azzam's Maktab al-Khadamat; this is the organization that funneled money and arms from men like bin Laden and brought most of the Arab Afghans to fight in Afghanistan.  Azzam is recognized as bin Laden's mentor.  After the Soviets were defeated, there was a falling out as Azzam wanted to direct the successful jihad upon Israel (he was a Palestinian) while bin Laden had somewhere developed a hard-on for the United States.  Azzam was assassinated in Pakistan; evidence suggests it was bin Laden executing a coup.

Again, from what I've read, it is important to seperate the Afghan mujihadeen (who were sponsered by the US and the ISI) and the Arab-Afghans who were sponsered by radical Islamists (and mainstream Arab Islam as well) through the MaK.  Sageman states that US support did not go to the MaK - it was directed to the 4 main Afghan groups.  This would refute the notion that bin Laden was a "US Joe".  I've yet to read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, which appears to be one of the more definitive histories on the issue; I'm interested to see what he has to say on this topic.

 

[paracowboy]

from my reading, Infanteer is correct on the Al Queda/Taliban stuff.
As for the moral plane, I believe in it. I believe we're the Good Guys, and Chavez is a definite Bad Guy, and has to be taken out. The problem is, he's been legitimately elected at least once. As for the "well, we supported dictators" argument: that was wrong, too. But, letting shit slide now, because of shit we screwed up the past doesn't make it any more Right. Batista, the Shah, Marcos, et al, all should have been dealt with decades ago, but weren't. Hellfire, Stalin and Mao should have eaten a lead pill. Now we're still dealing with the mess.

But, I wasn't advocating assassination. That would be wrong.  : I'm talking about killing him, his entire administration, his supporters, and anyone who looks like him.
Until we have established representative governments in every nation on the planet, with laissez faire economies, and Justice systems based on the concept of every man being innocent until proven guilty, we're going to be faced with threats.

 

[Glorified Ape]

from my reading, Infanteer is correct on the Al Queda/Taliban stuff.
As for the moral plane, I believe in it. I believe we're the Good Guys, and Chavez is a definite Bad Guy, and has to be taken out. The problem is, he's been legitimately elected at least once. As for the "well, we supported dictators" argument: that was wrong, too. But, letting crap slide now, because of crap we screwed up the past doesn't make it any more Right. Batista, the Shah, Marcos, et al, all should have been dealt with decades ago, but weren't. Hellfire, Stalin and Mao should have eaten a lead pill. Now we're still dealing with the mess.

But, I wasn't advocating assassination. That would be wrong.   : I'm talking about killing him, his entire administration, his supporters, and anyone who looks like him.
Until we have established representative governments in every nation on the planet, with laissez faire economies, and Justice systems based on the concept of every man being innocent until proven guilty, we're going to be faced with threats.

What??? Are you high?

 

[Britney Spears]

So you're advocating the killing of at least 56% of Venezuela's population?

You know, just because you're in the plumbing business, doesn't mean you need to solve ALL of life's problems with a pipe wrench. 

 

[paracowboy]

So you're advocating the killing of at least 56% of Venezuela's population?

no, not too seriously, anyway.

But, he is the enemy. He makes no bones about it. He is in a position to cause us a great deal of trouble, and pressures should be brought to bear on him to change his outlook on life a little bit. He has to be forced to stop supporting the FARC (and according to rumour amongst the spooky-types on the ground, Sendero Luminoso), stop pushing drugs, and stop generally being a dick-head.

Problem is, as I said, he was democratically and legally elected at least the first time, and is doing good things for the plebes. (Yeah, I just finished watching Rome. The parallels are amusing, to say the least.) The fact that his social reforms are attached to program aimed at furthering his hold on power can be excused as doing what every good policitian does. So, how do we get rid of a democratically elected leader who is at least appearing to do good things for the masses, while simultaneously pushing ahead with an agenda that is directly opposite to our best interests? We'd have to be sneaky. And Canada sucks at sneaky. We're not sneaky people. It's hard to be sneaky in this much snow.

As for his Bush-bashing, I could care less except that every good tyrant needs a bogey-man to blame. Adolf had Jews and Bolsheviks, Marcos had the Communists that he created, Mugabe had Whites in general...And that's all his grand-standing is - another means to cement his hold by furthering his cult of personality.

So, bottom line, he should meet with an untimely demise, along with everyone in his administration. But, he won't. And we'll be arguing about him again in a decade or so, when he's invading a neighbour. But, I'll be long-retired by then. Or dead.