http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286521,00.html)

Chavez has lost his mind, he's already a dictator and now he's trying to pick a fight with the United States.

Don’t you have to have a mind before you can lose it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2111499,00.html)

Didn’t get where he was trying to pick a fight with the US, but more preparing for what his paranoid mind foresees, a US invasion.

If the US oil companies were running things he might have a point, but since they’re not we have bigger fish to fry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2529866220070625)

Seriously, I'm more inclined to believe he's in more danger from his own people than from the United States unless he actually attacks the US.

He's just doing what just about every dictator does. Build up a foreign boogey man as a means to galvanize whatever support he can and distract them from the bs he's trying to pull off at home. The tactic is even referenced when getting the SM on Kashyyyk.

If he fights America, he will lose. Period.

So who wants to start betting on how long the war will last? I say about 12 hours, ala Grenada.

Well the big thing is we wouldn't want to kill civilians, otherwise it would be more like 30 minutes or less the time it would take a bunch of tactical nukes to travel to Venezuela.

If he fights America, he will lose. Period.

So who wants to start betting on how long the war will last? I say about 12 hours, ala Grenada.Fighting is no good, he won't do that. A permanent state of fear is much more useful to him.

If he fights America, he will lose. Period.

So who wants to start betting on how long the war will last? I say about 12 hours, ala Grenada.

I dont think so ... If he enters in war so dose Bolivia,Ecuador and gatemala to help HUgo chavez. ohh and meaby Cuba

I dont think so ... If he enters in war so dose Bolivia,Ecuador and gatemala to help HUgo chavez. ohh and meaby Cuba

If he actually decides to declare war on the United States I pity anyone who decides to stand with him. If he did offer a formal declaration of war it'd be a wonderful excuse to mobilize the economy and finish our business in the middle east before things really get out of hand over there.

For the record, the US hasn't OFFICIALLY been at war since World War II.

Somehow I think it's unlikely that anyone in the US legislature will support another declaration of war again anytime soon without an extremely good reason. If Chavez wishes to posture, he can. He will look silly when we fail to invade, however - but of course, we will always be on the verge of invading, won't we.

Somehow I think it's unlikely that anyone in the US legislature will support another declaration of war again anytime soon without an extremely good reason. If Chavez wishes to posture, he can. He will look silly when we fail to invade, however - but of course, we will always be on the verge of invading, won't we.

As I said before, the US hasn't actually been in a diplomatically recognized state of war anywhere since 1945.

and note that I said "If he DOW's us."

Chaves has the best airplains in America... he has Brasilian airplane technology added with Spanish technology .... he can kick american a** in an air combat ... but by troops he will defenetly lose.

Chaves has the best airplains in America... he has Brasilian airplane technology added with Spanish technology .... he can kick american a** in an air combat ... but by troops he will defenetly lose.

I don't think anything produced by the Spaniards or Brasilians could top the USAF; it is the most technologically advanced air force in the world.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Venezuela#Embargo)

And don't forget NATO: A declaration of war against one member is a declaration of war against the entire organization.

"Mr Chбvez's speech came on the eve of a trip to Russia, Belarus and Iran, hosts who share much of his antipathy towards Washington."* (http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2111499,00.html)

Chavez is crazy like a fox. He timed his trip to coincide with Russia's bristling over the proposed missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech republic. Putin will be traveling to Washington to meet with Bush afterwards* (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/06/26/002.html). Hopefully their talks will ease some tensions that Chavez is trying to inflame.

"Chavez has said he hopes to put the "finishing touches" on an agreement to purchase from Belarus an integrated air defense system with a 200-300-kilometer range (125-200 miles)."* (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=52531&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs)

Meanwhile Iran is under scrutiny for its possible role in helping Hamas in Gaza and there's a resolution in the House of Representative to toughen sanctions. Condoleeza Rice is holding to the demands for suspension of Iran's nuclear program as she meets with French, British and German diplomats. I'm not sure what effect Chavez could have meeting with Iran other than finding a sympathetic ear from another oil-rich country.

Hi Everyone
I have been reading the forums for awhile now but I just had to weigh in on this one.
First of all just so you all know where I'm coming from I am a member of the US Air Force and I have 10 years of service. I wonder padawan if you have heard of the US's F-22? Well if not the F-22 is the worlds first supersonic Stealth Fighter. There isn't a airplane in the world that can stand up to it. Fact not just my opinion.

Meh, Chavez used to be this charismatic leader that you could follow to hell. Honestly, you have to see one of his speeches on TV, understand a bit of spanish (or if you know another latin language, it shouldn't be too hard) and listen and look to him. Honestly, I would never be convinced by anything Bush says, but Chavez gives a good show and has quite a presence. Hell, I would have gone with him on a crazy crusade...There's a reason why he's still in power.

Nevertheless, the figure is quite controversial even in his own country. Families are often split because of some supporting Chavez and others being detractors. I saw a documentary recently, which spoke of how Chavez wanted to unify South America in a Simon Bolivar way in order to offer a counter power to Washington. Strange man indeed.

He has become a strange megalomaniac dictator, bent on achieving his own ideological goals rather then taking care of the internal problems of his own country.

He stands no chance against the US army. Anyone remember the Falklands? How the UK destroyed Argentina? Same thing will happen, I predict.

What makes you think he's waging war PHYSICALLY?

President Hugo Chavez urged soldiers on Sunday to prepare for a guerrilla-style war against the United States, saying that Washington is using psychological and economic warfare as part of an unconventional campaign aimed at derailing his government.

No guns. No tanks. Just mere manlipuation, according to Chavez. Something that Chavez can counter, unlike than a military invasion.

Before you start screaming that Chavez is an evil dictator however, note this:

Political Rights Score: 4
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free

See? According to Freedom House, Venuelza is a free nation.

See? According to Freedom House, Venuelza is a free nation.

And never quote Freedom House. Their methodology is continuously contested.

Although I don't disagree. Protests are obviously allowed and not as heavily reprimended as in other parts of the world. It's not the most free, but not the worst either.

Saying that a nation is "Partly Free" is kinda like saying that someone is "Partly dead," at least if you're someone who leans libertarian. Besides, I'd say that the Freedom House analysis was done before Chavez nationalized the media and the oil companies and decided to scrap the terms of office to become President for life.

Come on people ... Hugo Chavez is General of the Venezuelan army .... do you actualy think that if theres a war it will last minutes?.... plus let me remind its guerrilla .... now what happened to the U.S.A the last time they fighted vs a guerrilla?.... ohh I think they losed vs Vietnam.... so I think It will be very dificult plus Venezuela has allies.

Saying that a nation is "Partly Free" is kinda like saying that someone is "Partly dead," at least if you're someone who leans libertarian. Besides, I'd say that the Freedom House analysis was done before Chavez nationalized the media and the oil companies and decided to scrap the terms of office to become President for life.

For the last part I agree, but for the media and oil companies, no. Nationalized media is nothing special. Public owned stations are present thoughout the western world. Though the Americans usually have a strange hate of anything ''government funded'', there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Only a matter of point of view. Now when he closed a network that was vocally against him, that's another matter.

As for nationalised oil companies, what's wrong with that? There's plenty of nationalised ressources in the world and it isn't ''wrong'' or against freedom or anything.

What I'm trying to say is that Freedom House's analysis is based on their opinion of what is free and what is not. Unlike what some Americans like to believe, the United States of America is not the ''free-iest'' country in the world. None is really.

Come on people ... Hugo Chavez is General of the Venezuelan army .... do you actualy think that if theres a war it will last minutes?.... plus let me remind its guerrilla .... now what happened to the U.S.A the last time they fighted vs a guerrilla?.... ohh I think they losed vs Vietnam.... so I think It will be very dificult plus Venezuela has allies.

We didn't loose in Vietnam we withdrew from Vietnam. While it is true that Vietnam wasn't as successfull as it could have been, that was mainly due to a weak president who wouldn't allow the Millitary to conduct the war as it should have been. IE Limited Warfare. If we had been allowed to conduct the war like the Generals wanted it would have been a far more successfull war. Somehow I don't forsee our current president doing that. Noone is denying that Venezuela has allies but IMO there is no way the US is going to invade Venezuela unless they attack us first. However dont forget that the US is a signatorie of Nato so if war was to break out the Us wouldn't exactly be without allies either.

Come on people ... Hugo Chavez is General of the Venezuelan army .... do you actualy think that if theres a war it will last minutes?.... plus let me remind its guerrilla .... now what happened to the U.S.A the last time they fighted vs a guerrilla?.... ohh I think they losed vs Vietnam.... so I think It will be very dificult plus Venezuela has allies.

We withdrew from Viet Nam because of the f***ing protestors and politicians. The Viet Nam conflict itself, as well as Korea, and at the present Iraq, show the ineffectiveness of the "Partial War" doctrines currently in vogue internationally.

If a dangerous enough situation arose, the 1.3 million professional soldiers currently in the US military are only the tip of the iceburg, so to speak, in terms of manpower. Of course, public will has always been the weakest part of the American war effort.

Dealing with the likes of Chavez would most likely entail a quick strike from a couple of special forces teams to capture or kill the man himself, allowing a quick and relatively bloodless coup to occur to re-establish democracy in Venezuela. With personality cults like the Chavez regime, cutting off the head generally causes the rest to die rather quickly.

but by troops he will defenetly lose.

remind its guerrilla .... now what happened to the U.S.A the last time they fighted vs a guerrilla?.... ohh I think they losed vs Vietnam.... so I think It will be very dificult plus Venezuela has allies.

First you wrote the US would get their butts kicked in the air, but win the ground war. Then you wrote the US would lose a guerrilla war against Venezuela. Which one do you feel with you head is true?

The American Solider did not lose Vietnam and neither did the American people, Vietnam was lost by the American leadership or lack there of, Johnson and Nixon lost that war. Just like Korea the American solider won the battles. The Korean War or police action is still going on. So we can’t say we won, loss or tied it as only a cease fire has been declared.

American military aviation is second to none, but let say for argument sake that Venezuela did have superior technology. We have the best trained and most well disciplined pilots and Navy aviators in the world. I’d still give the advantage to the US military.

The only way this war would ever happen is if Venezuela attacked the US. The world may see the lack of the resolve of the American civilian population in Iraq as an indication that we no longer have the resolve necessary to fight a war. Don’t be fooled, if we were still slogging around the mountains of Afghanistan hunting down the planners of 9/11 a large majority would be behind that fight. The problem with Iraq is the same as Vietnam the American people do not understand the real reason we are fighting there and most of us see no connection between the attacks on American soil and Iraq. No, if we were attacked by a known enemy you would see America’s true resolve much as the Japanese saw it during WW II. There would not peace until we received the full unconditional surrender of Venezuela and any other nation that joined her ranks.

None of this will ever happen, Chavez may have lost his mind, but I don’t believe he is completely stupid.

Unlike what some Americans like to believe, the United States of America is not the ''free-iest'' country in the world. None is really.
QFE

the United States of America is not the ''free-iest'' country in the world. None is really.

Yes, but it used to be, and there are some people in America, such as myself, who would like to see America be the "free-iest" again.

Yes, but it used to be, and there are some people in America, such as myself, who would like to see America be the "free-iest" again.
Why should America be the land of the free? I'd like to see the world be the free-iest place in the world.

You know what is the freest place on Earth? Somaila.

Virtually no goverenment interference in the affairs of its people.

Somehow, I don't feel compelled to move there though. Maybe it has to do with that recently new law that grants people the freedom to form militas and murder each other. /shrugs

Why should America be the land of the free? I'd like to see the world be the free-iest place in the world.

Perfectly said, I don’t believe I’ve agreed with anything more that I have read on this Forum. :thmbup1:


Maybe it has to do with that recently new law that grants people the freedom to form militas and murder each other.
No place is perfect.

Bah. The "Freest" place on Earth is Antarctica.

Anyway, a war with the United States would be a comedy act. One of our Carrier Groups and a unit of the Marines would be able to defeat any attempt at conventional war, and while you can cause a lot of trouble with Guerillas, you can't hold down a country when your soldiers aren't capable of fighting a straight up battle.

Chavez still going on about Pandemic and Mercenaires 2?

Meh, the Venezuelan military wouldn't make it anywhere near the U.S. border. They'd be shot down or destroyed before making landfall. Besides, I'm pretty sure Chavez is just posturing and waving his manhood around.

I hope the Bush Administration just ignores him.

About Vietnam:

The United States lost the Vietnam (yes, lost), mainly because nobody understood why America was fighting in this insignificant (no serious resources) South East Asian country. It was a pure example of American imperialism.

In fact, I'm quite glad the United States lost the war. It was a hit right in the ego and it made some people wake up to the reality that the United States wasn't all mighty and that a little Asian people ate napalm in the morning, bombs in the afternoon and more bombs in the evening managed to stand up and outlast the mighty US army, in what can be considered a mostly political victory instead of a military one.

So sad that when 9/11 happened, some Americans still woke up and realized that there were people who hated them. I guess some never learn...

By the way, I am Vietnamese.

American imperialism? We were stopping the spread of Communism, a noble goal if I ever heard one. Communism is just as evil and dangerous as Fascism. In fact, they're not that much different. We lost Vietnam because the American public didn't have the guts to stand behind the ones actually doing the fighting over there.

As for 9/11, we've always known people hated us. People have hated us for five hundred years. Native Americans first, then the French, then the British, then the Spanish, then the Japanese and Germans, and now it's the Arab's and Communist's turn. The surprise on 9/11 is that we didn't think they had the balls to attack us directly, and we didn't think they were evil enough to do what they did. You might say we simultaneously overestimated and underestimated them.

Chavez still going on about Pandemic and Mercenaires 2?

Meh, the Venezuelan military wouldn't make it anywhere near the U.S. border. They'd be shot down or destroyed before making landfall. Besides, I'm pretty sure Chavez is just posturing and waving his manhood around.

I hope the Bush Administration just ignores him.


I think that as long as he restricts his activities to the usual bluster, it will just be a lot of sturm und drang. Now, if he actually siezes US assets or directly attacks interests, that will be crossing a line that would likely result in a conflict. But the only way America could reasonably invade anywhere (not raid...invade) is if the draft were resumed and military spending seriously ramped up well beyond it's current 25-30% of federal outlays, and then that effort would need to be sustained for several years. Either that, or a "cheap" mechanical army that decimates the opposition.

No offense, Luke, but a "liitle napalm eating asian people" didn't defeat the US all by itself, which one could conclude you mean from your statement. It's unlikely Uncle Ho could have done to America what it did to France w/o a LOT of help from places like the USSR and even some of America's "allies", who placed trade above any sense of loyalty (can anyone say Rolls Royce). Frankly, in a sad kind of way, it could be argued that America backed the wrong horse, b/c the govt in the south was just too corrupt to make victory achieveable w/o America always being there. Backing the communist north was never an option. It is possible, however, had the US prevented France from resuming any control of Indochine, that an accomodation might have been made early on that prevented even the seeming necessity of going there in the first place. Ho wanted independence, had we helped him gain it from the French, they might have ended up no more socialist than Europe. Alas, we shall never know......

About Vietnam:

The United States lost the Vietnam (yes, lost), mainly because nobody understood why America was fighting in this insignificant (no serious resources) South East Asian country. It was a pure example of American imperialism.

In fact, I'm quite glad the United States lost the war. It was a hit right in the ego and it made some people wake up to the reality that the United States wasn't all mighty and that a little Asian people ate napalm in the morning, bombs in the afternoon and more bombs in the evening managed to stand up and outlast the mighty US army, in what can be considered a mostly political victory instead of a military one.

So sad that when 9/11 happened, some Americans still woke up and realized that there were people who hated them. I guess some never learn...

By the way, I am Vietnamese.

I'm sorry, but I could never come to be in any way "glad" when my nation's military is defeated. A lot of good people died in Viet Nam, I'm sure on both sides. However, the war wasn't lost because of the American fighting man (who is, in my estimation, one of the best in the world), but because of protests, political squabbling, and a general lack of support for the ARVN amongst the South Vietnamese people.

Also, I wouldn't regard the Viet Nam conflict specifically as an American imperialist action; it was a proxy war initiated by the Soviets and Chinese against a colony of France, and after South Viet Nam became independent, France withdrew its support for the government. The US, along with Australia and other western nations, sent in increasing numbers of combat forces, in order to prop up the South Vietnamese allies. Admittedly, the US could've stood to learn some lessons in counterinsurgency from the French war in Algeria(which was conducted brilliantly), and US tactics were geared more toward fighting large-scale pitched battles with Soviet armor than fighting a boots-on-the-ground war against determined but ill-equipped guerrillas.

If anything, this appears to be the product of the US absorbing the military and diplomatic blowback from French imperialism. If you're looking for an example of American imperialism, try the US occupation of the Phillipines following the Spanish-American war.

Edit: By the way, I'm American and damn proud of it.

American imperialism? We were stopping the spread of Communism, a noble goal if I ever heard one.

Communism (or any form of government) can't really spread without the consent of the people. That is why our current catastro**** in Iraq is not going very well. We were replacing what the people in Vietnam wanted with that WE wanted them to have. This is imperialistic and fascist in nature.

We lost Vietnam because the American public didn't have the guts to stand behind the ones actually doing the fighting over there.

No. We lost Vietnam because our troops got KILLED. A LOT of them got killed. And the ones that came home alive came home really ****ed up. When you take this into consideration with the fact that the U.S. had nothing to gain from imposing a "democratic" (yeah right) government in Vietnam, the only smart thing to do would be to leave.

Communism (or any form of government) can't really spread without the consent of the people. We were replacing what the people in Vietnam wanted with that WE wanted them to have. This is imperialistic and fascist in nature.



No. We lost Vietnam because our troops got KILLED. A LOT of them got killed. And the ones that came home alive came home really ****ed up. When you take this into consideration with the fact that the U.S. had nothing to gain from imposing a "democratic" (yeah right) government in Vietnam, the only smart thing to do would be to leave.

We weren't IMPOSING a democratic government on anyone in Viet Nam. We were propping up our ally in the region, the Republic of Viet Nam, which was pressed upon the Vietnamese people by the French.

Doctrine was a large chunk of why we had to pull out; it was geared toward fighting large pitched battles against soviet-styled armies. Infrastructure bombing and precision munitions have little effect on guerilla forces, as they most often use the underground "highways in hiding" that are difficult to locate and easy to repair.

Hey what can we say other than the U.S.A is the police of the world!

I'm sorry, but I could never come to be in any way "glad" when my nation's military is defeated. A lot of good people died in Viet Nam, I'm sure on both sides. However, the war wasn't lost because of the American fighting man (who is, in my estimation, one of the best in the world), but because of protests, political squabbling, and a general lack of support for the ARVN amongst the South Vietnamese people.

Political victory indeed. A loss is a loss, if it makes you sleep better at night, you "pulled out".

Also, it is hard for a mostly Buddhist population to see a Catholic leader imposing laws based on Christian principles. A supposedly elected president by the way. Yay, go democracy.


Also, I wouldn't regard the Viet Nam conflict specifically as an American imperialist action; it was a proxy war initiated by the Soviets and Chinese against a colony of France, and after South Viet Nam became independent, France withdrew its support for the government. The US, along with Australia and other western nations, sent in increasing numbers of combat forces, in order to prop up the South Vietnamese allies. Admittedly, the US could've stood to learn some lessons in counterinsurgency from the French war in Algeria(which was conducted brilliantly), and US tactics were geared more toward fighting large-scale pitched battles with Soviet armor than fighting a boots-on-the-ground war against determined but ill-equipped guerrillas.


So Vietnamese nationalism had nothing to do with it right? The fact that the Vietnamese independence movements existed prior to the Cold War had nothing to do with both Indochinese conflicts right? Proxy war alone? America supported an undemocratic regime only to halt the spread of communism. It was originally a war for independence from France which eventually became a civil war. Like many other undemocratic regimes, South Vietnam stood simply because of American support and it furthered their goals.



If anything, this appears to be the product of the US absorbing the military and diplomatic blowback from French imperialism. If you're looking for an example of American imperialism, try the US occupation of the Phillipines following the Spanish-American war.

Do you believe me ignorant enough not to know about the Philippines? Though it was indeed true that they were promised and given their independence, it was decided before the Cold War and a friendly regime was put into power.

I don't think it was the blowback of French Imperialism. The region could have been left alone after the defeat of the French forces and became a single communist country without American intervention. America went only in there to protect its interests, not the ones of the VIetnamese people.



Edit: By the way, I'm American and damn proud of it.

The border between pride and arrogance is a thin one.

No offense, Luke, but a "liitle napalm eating asian people" didn't defeat the US all by itself, which one could conclude you mean from your statement. It's unlikely Uncle Ho could have done to America what it did to France w/o a LOT of help from places like the USSR and even some of America's "allies", who placed trade above any sense of loyalty (can anyone say Rolls Royce). Frankly, in a sad kind of way, it could be argued that America backed the wrong horse, b/c the govt in the south was just too corrupt to make victory achieveable w/o America always being there. Backing the communist north was never an option. It is possible, however, had the US prevented France from resuming any control of Indochine, that an accomodation might have been made early on that prevented even the seeming necessity of going there in the first place. Ho wanted independence, had we helped him gain it from the French, they might have ended up no more socialist than Europe. Alas, we shall never know......

My statement came off wrongly I believe. I tried to make a image of the tremendous losses suffered by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese compared to US casualties and how they still stood. I realize that the USSR and to a lesser extent China gave considerable support to the Communists.

I fully agree with you on backing the wrong horse. In fact, I don't know what strategists were thinking when putting a Catholic president into power. Depending on the source, the Buddhist population of South Vietnam, back in the 50's and 60's, was around 70 to 90% of the total. Knowing the animosity between the two religious groups, it was madness to put Ngo Dinh Diem into power. Corruption was rampant and favoritism for Catholics in high ranking governmental and military positions simply alienated the Buddhist majority further against the government.

There are indeed reports of Ho Chi Minh trying to get Roosevelt to support his fight for independence. I'll try to find the source. I know for sure that Ho Chi Minh did use the United States as an example to follow, of a colony successfully acquiring its independence. France seemed like it was clinging to whatever pride they had left after the crushing defeat against the Germans. Unlike the UK, they didn't start to get rid of their colonies until they got destroyed at Dien Bien Phu. It's kind of sad really. I keep thinking of how Vietnam would be if the United States had supported Ho Chi Minh's wish of independence. Perhaps a few decades of anti-communist military junta like in Korea or Taiwan, but certainly democratization during the third and possibly acquisition of riches similar to those two countries. Or being in the same hole as the Philippines. At least, there would be less bomb holes there right now (which are slowly dissapearing anyway). I'm just speculating.


American imperialism? We were stopping the spread of Communism, a noble goal if I ever heard one. Communism is just as evil and dangerous as Fascism. In fact, they're not that much different. We lost Vietnam because the American public didn't have the guts to stand behind the ones actually doing the fighting over there.

Yes, yes, the noble crusade for democracy. Thank you for the undemocratically elected president who you eventually killed off. Thank you for trying to give us "freedom".

There was no reason for the United States to fight in the Vietnam war other then stopping the spread of an ideology and the possible gain of an ally to its rival superpower.

Nevertheless, it did break the idea that the United States could defeat everyone. It was a political victory, indeed, but a victory nonetheless. Vietnam is now a black mark on American history. Still a taboo it seems, as some people continuously referred to the loss in Vietnam as a "withdrawal". So retreating is not a defeat? I've even more ridiculous arguments, claiming that the Vietnam war was a police action by the United States and as such cannot be considered a war and therefore the US never lost a war.

When I say that the line between pride and arrogance is a thin one, the one between pride and stupidity is thinner.



As for 9/11, we've always known people hated us. People have hated us for five hundred years. Native Americans first, then the French, then the British, then the Spanish, then the Japanese and Germans, and now it's the Arab's and Communist's turn. The surprise on 9/11 is that we didn't think they had the balls to attack us directly, and we didn't think they were evil enough to do what they did. You might say we simultaneously overestimated and underestimated them.


I don't think many Americans actually knew that there were people who hated them enough to throw a plane into a building. In fact, you seem to know nothing about the hate directed towards you. The simple use of the word Arab instead of Muslim extremists show that. I could bring it further. Before 9/11, only a fraction of Arabs hated you. Now, you managed to get more enemies by demonizing them (not pointing fingers at you directly) and getting Arab communities in the world on your back, because now they're wrongly associated with terrorism. Partly due to members of their own communities, but also due to people being afraid of them or ostracizing them. It is unfortunate that it happens, because it's inevitable. Not everyone is intelligent enough to differentiate an extremist with an every day Muslim.

And then they ask me why I want to independence from them ... and why I call them imperialist....

@ luke- I didn't mean to insult your intelligence referring to the Phillipines, I just wanted to point it out as an action that I regard as the most blatantly imperialistic set of policies the US government has carried outside the North American continent.

The Vietnam conflict was, from a policy standpoint, Realpolitick writ large in the ongoing international struggle against communist ideology. We propped up SVN, meeting the needs of an ally, to slow down the spread of communism, per the Domino theory(thus moving toward our objective).

Likewise, one can only wonder what would've come about had the US committed to a static defense strategy, much akin to what it used in Korea, and eventually pushing the Communists out of Vietnam. Perhaps the same Anti-Communist military junta/eventual democracy you suggested, perhaps something much different; we'll never know.

American military aviation is second to none, but let say for argument sake that Venezuela did have superior technology. We have the best trained and most well disciplined pilots and Navy aviators in the world. I’d still give the advantage to the US military.

Perhaps, Padawan, you're not familiar with the Red Flag/Topgun flying programs. American pilots in Vietnam era jets can still beat other pilots in newer fighters. It's the quality of the pilot that makes the key difference. Israel did it in '82 when downing over 80 Soviet near state of the art fighters for the loss of none of their own. Even Saddam had nice new Migs and Mirages, virtually all of which found a new home in Iran in '91. And (as was already pointed out) US pilots in f-22 Raptors would destroy the Venezuelan air farce before it ever knew they were there. Toe-to-toe, no 3rd world airforce could defeat a modern western counterpart.


Why should America be the land of the free? I'd like to see the world be the free-iest place in the world.
That would be nice, but till then.......someone's gotta do it.


Somehow, I don't feel compelled to move there though. Maybe it has to do with that recently new law that grants people the freedom to form milita and murder each other. /shrugs

Talk about delegating/outsourcing...... :blast5:


Communism (or any form of government) can't really spread without the consent of the people. That is why our current catastro**** in Iraq is not going very well. We were replacing what the people in Vietnam wanted with that WE wanted them to have. This is imperialistic and fascist in nature.
No. We lost Vietnam because our troops got KILLED. A LOT of them got killed. And the ones that came home alive came home really ****ed up. When you take this into consideration with the fact that the U.S. had nothing to gain from imposing a "democratic" (yeah right) government in Vietnam, the only smart thing to do would be to leave.


Uh, not quite, and by a country mile no less. If troops dying was the reason for the loss, then we lost Korea, WW2 and WW1 as well. Also, the fascists and communists did not need the consent of the people so much as their cowed acquiesence in order to take over. Then again, many people will consent to things when staring down the barrel of a gun.


I don't think many Americans actually knew that there were people who hated them enough to throw a plane into a building. In fact, you seem to know nothing about the hate directed towards you. The simple use of the word Arab instead of Muslim extremists show that. I could bring it further. Before 9/11, only a fraction of Arabs hated you. Now, you managed to get more enemies by demonizing them (not pointing fingers at you directly) and getting Arab communities in the world on your back, because now they're wrongly associated with terrorism. Partly due to members of their own communities, but also due to people being afraid of them or ostracizing them. It is unfortunate that it happens, because it's inevitable. Not everyone is intelligent enough to differentiate an extremist with an every day Muslim.

Well, this might be a little overly simplistic. I believe that many Americans were aware that there was animosity toward America, but simply weren't paying attention. Just as Pearl Harbor caught people off gaurd, so did 911. The question vis-a-vis the rest of the Muslim world is why they tolerate the existence of such outfits w/o speaking out forcefully enough or just dropping the dime on the extremists (who were actually estimated to hover around 10% of total global population, now as high as 50% of youths in many areas). It would naturally be dangerous, but much less so than standing by, whining in a self-pitying manner and awaiting the destruction that would be visited upon them if/when the ballon goes up. The problem here might not be much unlike that faced in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.. where one side cannot tell the difference between the active resisters and passive ones, because they all look the same. Hence the hoary old motto...Kill 'em all and let God sort them out.




Hey what can we say other than the U.S.A is the police of the world! I dont think so ... If he enters in war so dose Bolivia,Ecuador and gatemala to help HUgo chavez. ohh and meaby Cuba Chaves has the best airplains in America... he has Brasilian airplane technology added with Spanish technology .... he can kick american a** in an air combat ... but by troops he will defenetly lose.

Well, if the UN is, then they are seriously guilty of dereliction of duty. No, America is NOT the world police, but neither is it particularly shy about intervening in its interests (for better or worse). If Chavez were to attack America, he'd gain a greater appreciation of the saying "it's lonely at the top" (or the other one that goes "success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan"). I hate to have to put it like this, but you are basically talking out your backside when discussing military capabilities. Brazil has a very good ethanol program (it's sugar produces 5x the energy of what we can grow up here), but is not yet at a stage where it presents a serious threat to American supremacy in aerodynamics. As to the ground war, we don't need to occupy Venezuela to defeat lil hugo. Ask Noriega...


So who wants to start betting on how long the war will last? I say about 12 hours, ala Grenada. Dealing with the likes of Chavez would most likely entail a quick strike from a couple of special forces teams to capture or kill the man himself, allowing a quick and relatively bloodless coup to occur to re-establish democracy in Venezuela. With personality cults like the Chavez regime, cutting off the head generally causes the rest to die rather quickly.


The first part is probably somewhat true, though it did take a number of months to find Saddam. Also, SH's death didn't end the resistance in Iraq either. There's no reason to think that Chavez doesn't have fanatics (it took a year or so to finish off SS fanatics in post war Germany as well) who would be a thorn in our side or whoever took over after the @sskicking ended.

I don't think many Americans actually knew that there were people who hated them enough to throw a plane into a building. In fact, you seem to know nothing about the hate directed towards you. The simple use of the word Arab instead of Muslim extremists show that. I could bring it further. Before 9/11, only a fraction of Arabs hated you. Now, you managed to get more enemies by demonizing them (not pointing fingers at you directly) and getting Arab communities in the world on your back, because now they're wrongly associated with terrorism. Partly due to members of their own communities, but also due to people being afraid of them or ostracizing them. It is unfortunate that it happens, because it's inevitable. Not everyone is intelligent enough to differentiate an extremist with an every day Muslim.

I will not say I did not know that my county was hated, as we spent the better part of the late 20th century supporting dictatorships and other governments that oppressed their people just because they were the enemy of our enemy. We were so preoccupied with the spread of communism that we actually supported bin Laden and the Taliban. We hated Iran so we supported Saddam Hussein. Even now we say we are in Iraq to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, yet we still support other monarchies/dictatorships that many in the Muslim world consider oppressive to its own people. It is not just the current leadership, the US has sent mixed message on foreign policy for the sixty years. We say (and believe) that we are for freedom, peace, human rights and prosperity for all people, but we then support the very evil we preach against. High minded ideals and words mean very little when your actions tell a completely different story to the rest of the world.

Personally, I did not understand the extent of that hate until I watched television on September 11, 2001. I did not even believe that type of hate existed on such a large scale. Naпve of me since large scale terrorism attacks had happen all over the world in the years leading up to the attack (including right here), but something like that could not happen within our borders. America’s naivety fell with the Twin Towers that day.

America has never been very good at separating or enemies from our allies. Just look at our history of the treatment of the Native Americans or how we put our own citizen in interment camps during WW II. Still don’t understand/believe the justification for putting only people of Japanese decent into camps. What about the German Americans and Italian Americans?

America lost Vietnam, if anything I wrote here gave you the impression I felt other wise I apologize. My intention was only to say that the American Solider and the American people were not to blame for that loss. I see nothing wrong with people of Vietnamese decent being proud of their people taking on a technological superior force and winning. After all the story of David vs. Goliath is very intriguing and the Vietnam War was the quintessential David vs. Goliath story of modern times. To make it even more impressive we must remember the Vietnamese people defeated the French before the American stepped in. Texans are very proud of the Battle of the Alamo; Vietnam is very similar, only in Vietnam the underdog won.

My family lost in Vietnam too, members of my family returned in body bags. Not everyone that fought there were African Americans and Puerto Ricans some were poor white Americans of Cherokee/Scott/Irish decent.

Well, this might be a little overly simplistic. I believe that many Americans were aware that there was animosity toward America, but simply weren't paying attention. Just as Pearl Harbor caught people off gaurd, so did 911. The question vis-a-vis the rest of the Muslim world is why they tolerate the existence of such outfits w/o speaking out forcefully enough or just dropping the dime on the extremists (who were actually estimated to hover around 10% of total global population, now as high as 50% of youths in many areas). It would naturally be dangerous, but much less so than standing by, whining in a self-pitying manner and awaiting the destruction that would be visited upon them if/when the ballon goes up. The problem here might not be much unlike that faced in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.. where one side cannot tell the difference between the active resisters and passive ones, because they all look the same. Hence the hoary old motto...Kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

Perhaps not paying attention is more accurate. When I draw that conclusion, I base it on the American post-Soviet era hegemony. During the 90's, America was the supreme power with no counter whatsoever. The European Union was nothing amazing at the time and China was still in the growing up stage, which it still is. In fact, I think we're living under American hegemony right now, but that's another issue. Not having a clearly defined enemy has made people forget that they were vulnerable and human. As such, they turned a blind eye to the rest of the world. There's also the general accusation of ethnocentrism, which is not without its merits, but to what extent it affects America more then other parts of the Western world, I'm not sure.

Unfortunately, I think the Muslim extremist problem has too much of a hard time being solved by their own. Sometimes out of fear, sometimes because the persons involved are family members and can't be touched or denounced. I think it's even more complex then the situation in Vietnam, since it really is spread out and has many different movements, all with their different ideologies and methods.



America lost Vietnam, if anything I wrote here gave you the impression I felt other wise I apologize. My intention was only to say that the American Solider and the American people were not to blame for that loss. I see nothing wrong with people of Vietnamese decent being proud of their people taking on a technological superior force and winning. After all the story of David vs. Goliath is very intriguing and the Vietnam War was the quintessential David vs. Goliath story of modern times. To make it even more impressive we must remember the Vietnamese people defeated the French before the American stepped in. Texans are very proud of the Battle of the Alamo; Vietnam is very similar, only in Vietnam the underdog won.

My family lost in Vietnam too, members of my family returned in body bags. Not everyone that fought there were African Americans and Puerto Ricans some were poor white Americans of Cherokee/Scott/Irish decent.

Nah, it's nobody in particular, it's just how egotistical and "proud" some Americans are that they can't admit that they lost a war. I mean, everyone else in the whole world admits their defeats because they've had so many during their long history. America is young and I'm certain that in the future will face many other defeats.

I sympathize with your losses. My family also suffered a great deal, both during the war and especially after during the post-war repression.

I never claimed that we didn't lose in Vietnam, I was just trying to explain/rationalize WHY we lost, as I believe that the underlying reason was siginificantly more complicated than "our troops got killed." The reason that the Vietnam conflict is so important to the postmodern strategist(including armchair strategists such as myself) is because of the budding similarities between the Vietnam war and ongoing anti-insurgency actions across the world, especially the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan(although much less so), and how we can apply lessons learned from past mistakes in those conflicts, as well as in the future.

The series of events that led to North Vietnamese victory show clearly the weaknesses of Western-style conventional armies when faced with a determined native guerrilla force. The doctrines, weapons, and other hardware employed by the French and American militaries in Vietnam (and more recently in Iraq) were designed to be used against similarly organized regular armies(namely the Red Army), but are not particularly suited to combat against small groups of enemies with superior knowledge/exploitation of the terrain. This was best exemplified in the ongoing Iraq conflict: The US army crushed the numerically superior regular forces, but has been bogged down in a steadily-worsining quagmire ever since, which has been made even worse by the constant protest and dissent on the home front.

In a theoretical conflict, Chavez's military would almost certainly utilize similar insurgent-style tactics after the initial "Shock and Awe" assault is over, exploiting the ever-fickle public characteristic of western democracies. The effectivenes of US and Western forces against this type insurgency would largely depend on whether popular support for the liberators exists among the populace. Maintaining this support would likely require a rather radical shift in the tactical/doctrinal mindset of the commanding generals, and for the small-unit leaders on the ground. This would involve using military manpower to improve the conditions in which the people there live, which Col. Downey tells me is going on now in Afghanistan.

In short, any western army fighting against guerrillas, be they in Venezuela or elsewhere, would do well to heed the lessons learned in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, although future conflicts are likely to be even more complex in nature than those of the past and present.

Iamyourdad, what makes you think the South Vietnamese wanted to be controlled by Ho Chi Minh?

Chavez update: According to the FoxNews ticker(I'll objectively confirm/refute later), Hugo is visiting Moscow this week, who are welcoming him with open arms. The Russian government expects large-scale arms sales to Venezuela.

EDIT: http://www.epistle.ws/Venezuela.html) confirmation and more.

Uh, not quite, and by a country mile no less. If troops dying was the reason for the loss, then we lost Korea, WW2 and WW1 as well. Also, the fascists and communists did not need the consent of the people so much as their cowed acquiesence in order to take over. Then again, many people will consent to things when staring down the barrel of a gun.

WWI, WWII, and Korea all were very different from Vietnam. Those wars had specific, defined enemies in uniforms that we could fight. In Vietnam, that was not the case. Vietnam was a guerilla war, like Iraq, where our troops die and yet nothing is ever accomplished despite such high casualties.

If Chavez were to attack America, [...]

Oh I wouldn't worry about that. There's a much greater chance of America attacking him first (in order to "protect" us from him).

WWI, WWII, and Korea all were very different from Vietnam. Those wars had specific, defined enemies in uniforms that we could fight. In Vietnam, that was not the case. Vietnam was a guerilla war, like Iraq, where our troops die and yet nothing is ever accomplished despite such high casualties.

They were also very different from one another as well, but I was merely responding to your statement that it was b/c of all the KIAs that we lost: No. We lost Vietnam because our troops got KILLED. A LOT of them got killed. Keep in mind, the NVA all wore distinct uniforms and provided more troops than the VC. Btw, Hanoi wasn't able to take over till almost 3 years after we pulled our troops out. Besides, we lost the same # of troops in 3 years of fighting in Korea as in 12-15 in Vietnam. It wasn't the number of troops killed as much as the erosion of public support for a war that seemed to have no end that did America in on that one.



Oh I wouldn't worry about that. There's a much greater chance of America attacking him first (in order to "protect" us from him).

Wasn't suggesting one way or the other, merely stating what should be pretty obvious. Actually, there's the equal possibility of him attacking American interests as of the US attacking him. Frankly, as I said elsewhere, Chavez's little dog and pony show right now is mostly jingoistic noise, more for internal than external consumption.

Of course Russia will sell arms to anyone--they make money that way, and they're far enough away from Chavez they don't have to worry about him hitting them with the missiles. Yay for capitalism. :)

Some American interests have already been trifled with, but they weren't big enough to garner serious US attention. One of the missionaries we support had his plane and a bunch of equipment, which was owned by a US mission, confiscated by the Venezuelan gov't. They just came in one day and said "It's ours now, bye-bye." Obviously, the US doesn't think a plane and some equipment is that big of a deal, but if Chavez is willing to do that, I don't know where he's going to stop.

The missionaries there were very concerned for their safety, and a lot of them have gotten out or have been recalled by the home office for fear that they would be killed. It's not a good situation at all right now.

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if Chavez next tries to invade a neighboring country, which drags the US into a fight against him.

By the way, the United States has both the F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor. The F-15 has been considered the best air superiority fighter for decades, and the F-22 is its replacement and is even better at air superiority than the F-15. Seriously, I don't think the Venezuelan fighter aircraft stands a chance.