View Full Version : Chavez trains militia to defend against US attack
yesdachi
04-03-2006, 15:00
I’m sure Chavez and the people of Venezuela know it is not very likely that the US would ever invade but I found it interesting that he is taking the time and spending the resources to train a “Territorial Guard”. Link. (http://www.comcast.net/news/international/latinamerica/index.jsp?cat=LATIN&fn=/2006/04/03/359481.html)
Is this a political stunt to make himself more popular by demonizing the US, or does he really want a skilled militia, maybe a little of both?
There are 2 parts of the article that I think are great, both for different reasons.
"Kill the gringo! That gringo is taking away your women," yelled a soldier as he tossed a man a rifle to butt a target
I’m sure the women are going to be high on our target list as we invade! :laugh4:
"It was exciting, too good," gushed Yomaira Alas, a 28-year-old housewife, after firing the gun for the first time.
If we did this in the US I’ll bet many of the liberal gun haters would loosen up about gun laws if they got to fire one. I know several people who never thought they would but actually enjoyed firing a gun once they got to. One is a “gasp” British mother of three!
Banquo's Ghost
04-03-2006, 15:07
Is this a political stunt to make himself more popular by demonizing the US, or does he really want a skilled militia, maybe a little of both?
Well, it's a long tried and tested path for a politician feeling a bit shaky at home to exagerrate a minor external threat into something fearsome and then spend loads of money on 'defending' against it.
Devastatin Dave
04-03-2006, 16:33
Everyone's favorite little dictator. Poor Castro, the left around the world are now Chavez worshippers and forgot about poor Castro who's brought so much happiness to the people. :laugh4:
It takes a village and plenty of village idiots to keep these guys in power. Useful idiots as another left icon once said.
Tachikaze
04-03-2006, 16:54
The US has invaded Latin American nations many times in the past. Bush has been chomping at the bit to do it to Iran. He might find it easier to do it in this hemisphere instead.
“I’m sure Chavez and the people of Venezuela know it is not very likely that the US would ever invade”: Why they should be sure of that? In the past Us intervened in all South America, from Chile to Nicaragua, Cuba, Granada, Panama, etc… So, when you are in the Black List, perhaps it is good to show off a little bit…:laugh4:
Everyone's favorite little dictator
~:rolleyes:
The funny thing is, they actually believe this crappy little milita will do much other then run for the hills if the US ever invaded.
Ianofsmeg16
04-03-2006, 18:58
The funny thing is, they actually believe this crappy little milita will do much other then run for the hills if the US ever invaded.
They'd run to the hills, then kick your ass back out of said hills. :laugh4:
Ah well, So Chavez has a militia, i say the US shouldnt invade so that all the money he spent on the militia and not on drugs and other dictator stuff is completely wasted
Banquo's Ghost
04-03-2006, 19:10
The funny thing is, they actually believe this crappy little milita will do much other then run for the hills if the US ever invaded.
That's a military analysis worthy of Donald Rumsfeld. :no:
Kralizec
04-03-2006, 19:23
The funny thing is, they actually believe this crappy little milita will do much other then run for the hills if the US ever invaded.
There's absolutely nothing Venezuela (or most countries, for that matter) can do to repel an invasion. Vietnam and Iraq have shown that the only feasonable way to combat the US is by guerilla warfare.
It does smell like a political stunt, but the truth is that since Bush took on the role of 'war president' the political climate has favoured a more interventionist attitude, sometimes bordering on imperialism. He also was a little too eager recognising his Maybe that will change in 2008 if the US voters pick a democrat president, or it may not.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
04-03-2006, 19:28
Maybe that will change in 2008 if the US voters pick another president, or it may not.
U.S. presidents can only serve two terms.
L'Impresario
04-03-2006, 19:29
This is no news at all, it's part of "Misión Miranda" ("Misiones" is used to denominate a series of social programs during Chavez's term).
"Miranda" was adopted in mid-2004, and has been going through various phases, one of them being the acquisition of 100.000 Kalashnikovs AK-103 from Russia, something that was criticized by the US and Colombia, claiming that they'll be delivered to FARC.
Chavez's critics also accuse him of militarizing the venezuelan society, with examples like this program, along with giving soldiers voting rights and using the army to carry out his social programs.
After the 2002 coup attempt though, the reserves are meant to secure his place against possible similar incidents. And it should be noted that nationalism and sovereignty are, among others, near the top of his ideological agenda.
Kralizec
04-03-2006, 19:40
U.S. presidents can only serve two terms.
Quite right, I meant if they vote for the democrat candidate.
Kralizec
04-03-2006, 19:43
along with giving soldiers voting rights and using the army to carry out his social programs.
God forbid that soldiers ever get to vote in my country ~;)
Quite right, I meant if they vote for the democrat candidate.
I guess you are forgetting the Clinton actually used military force several times during his tenure in office.
The difference is in the type of use by the two.
If you are basing your claim here on the number of times military force was used, Clinton actually used force against other nations more times then President Bush. So there goes your incorrect theory about democratic party presidents.
Then there are several other facts about the 20th Centrury that you have failed to consider in this statement.
God forbid that soldiers ever get to vote in my country ~;)
Why - they are citizens of your nation just as much as you are.
I believe in Canada, Austrilia, and the United Kingdom soldiers are entitled to vote just like everyone else.
I know in the United States this is true. I voted several times while serving in the military.
It seems someone has a bigot view of individuals who serve in the military of their nation. What's wrong - you wish soldiers to be second class citizens? (I could be missing the sarcasm in your response - but if it statement doesn't fit your comment, it definitily fits the one that you were responding to.)
Quite right, I meant if they vote for the democrat candidate.
Democrats are far to limp wristed to be presidents IMO. And if your thinking Clinton wasnt a war monger, he also wanted to invade iraq, was only kept back by congress. And we all know Hilary C. is a whicked banshee, she'll want more war then either of the two.
No militia in the world can stand up to our Armed Forces, Iraqis were semi professional and you remember what happened to them? Guerilla warfare only works if you manage to weaken the occupying forces resolve. Good example of what happens when guerilla warfare just strengthens the occupying forces resolve is Rome conquering Britania. Ultimately if the resolve of the occupier is not shaken guerilla warfare only lengthens the suffering of the peoples in the occupyed territories. A famous European once referred to the U.S.A. as t he sleeping giant, once its awakened not even guerilla warfare will stop it.
Al Khalifah
04-04-2006, 01:45
Good example of what happens when guerilla warfare just strengthens the occupying forces resolve is Rome conquering Britania.
So much so that Britannia had to have three legions stationed there (IX, XX, II), with always at least one legion acting as a constant permanent garisson for the entire duration of the Roman occupation. Britain was never truly conquered by the Romans, the people were too raucus and unruly that many Emperors questioned the wisdom of keeping it as part of the Empire and whether its great economic benefits weren't outwayed by its cost.
The reason the insurgents will continue to fight on in Iraq until they are all dead is that their belief system is incompatable with that of their occupiers. Their goals in life are totally different from those the US is trying to give to the people and so if they yield, they must completely change their values or else their former lives become meaningless. Even the non-extreme Iraqis are not entirely convinced by the new system, because it is such a change to what they are used to. I'm not saying they liked the rule of Saddam more, but radical readjustments take time - revolutions don't happen overnight.
Soulforged
04-04-2006, 01:45
I’m sure Chavez and the people of Venezuela know it is not very likely that the US would ever invade but I found it interesting that he is taking the time and spending the resources to train a “Territorial Guard”. Link. (http://www.comcast.net/news/international/latinamerica/index.jsp?cat=LATIN&fn=/2006/04/03/359481.html)
Is this a political stunt to make himself more popular by demonizing the US, or does he really want a skilled militia, maybe a little of both? It's a political stunt, as always. Periodists concerned about freedom of speech said that this helps Chavez to cloud people's mind even more, giving them an unique narrow version of the world. Now a militia will be concentrated in one life activity, killing gringos.
I really wish I could provide any links on the voices raising on Venezuela, tough it might be a bit hyperbole I think it's still worth reading and knowing their opinions.
Major Robert Dump
04-04-2006, 03:07
Why would we invade Venezuela? If we want women with moustaches we just go to Rhode Island.
yesdachi
04-04-2006, 06:08
It's a political stunt, as always. Periodists concerned about freedom of speech said that this helps Chavez to cloud people's mind even more, giving them an unique narrow version of the world. Now a militia will be concentrated in one life activity, killing gringos.
I really wish I could provide any links on the voices raising on Venezuela, tough it might be a bit hyperbole I think it's still worth reading and knowing their opinions.
Hey Soul, I was hoping you would ring in. I just watched a show on the political climate and “yes” “no” revolution in Venezuela. Interesting to see how passionate people are in their support of Chavez. Especially in their dislike for the private media.:no:
MRD, if all the Venezuelan women looked like (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/r881505518-1.jpg) this I would consider an invasion.:2thumbsup:
Major Robert Dump
04-04-2006, 08:00
Whatever dude, I saw that chic getting her moustache waxed at my barber
You wouldn't need to. They would all have been given expensive 'modelling' contracts and all be in the USA...
doc_bean
04-04-2006, 09:54
No militia in the world can stand up to our Armed Forces, Iraqis were semi professional and you remember what happened to them?
Erm...YOU'RE STILL THERE !
No matter what Bush has said, the war isn't over, and it certainly isn't won yet.
Why - they are citizens of your nation just as much as you are.
I believe in Canada, Austrilia, and the United Kingdom soldiers are entitled to vote just like everyone else.
I know in the United States this is true. I voted several times while serving in the military.
It seems someone has a bigot view of individuals who serve in the military of their nation. What's wrong - you wish soldiers to be second class citizens? (I could be missing the sarcasm in your response - but if it statement doesn't fit your comment, it definitily fits the one that you were responding to.)
He was being sarcastic I presume. Soldiers can vote here in Holland.
Kralizec
04-04-2006, 11:04
Why - they are citizens of your nation just as much as you are.
.....
I was being sarcastic. Read L'empresario's post.
BelgradeWar
04-04-2006, 21:29
Chavez is getting himself a nice armory from the Russians...oil money can get you many toys...I think his biggest risk is if he gets himself too much involved in that bloody mess sometimes called Colombia...if he gets "terrorists/drug lords/rebel supporter" label, he's going down. This terriotorial guard is a joke of course, but Russian choppers and aircraft aren't. It could be much more messy for the US.
Chavez is getting himself a nice armory from the Russians...oil money can get you many toys...I think his biggest risk is if he gets himself too much involved in that bloody mess sometimes called Colombia...if he gets "terrorists/drug lords/rebel supporter" label, he's going down. This terriotorial guard is a joke of course, but Russian choppers and aircraft aren't. It could be much more messy for the US.
Yeah, will take a few more hours to completely destroy them...
BelgradeWar
04-04-2006, 21:57
Yeah, will take a few more hours to completely destroy them...
Depends on how much he can get, and how he plans to use them.
L'Impresario
04-04-2006, 22:04
Interesting to see how passionate people are in their support of Chavez. Especially in their dislike for the private media.
Well, why should they like the private media? They also did whatever they could to polarize society, and Chávez took advantage of that, being quite an inspiring figure for the people living in the slums on Caraca´s hills.
They cooperated exemplary with forces of the opposition, the army officers and the business & industry associations (Fedecámaras) and pulled off a masterpiece of a coup.
Truth is that you can hear dissident voices all over the internet and governement propaganda as well. Most people living in poverty in Venezuela can't get their ovoice heard that easily, leaving them with elections, and even then, the opposition claims that the last 4 elections were rigged, and that Chávez uses state resources to fund his campaigns. In the end it's very hard to seperate the misinformation that is spread from both sides, but Chávez has surely taken quite a few steps away from the western democracy model -bar the "New deal" heh- and is advocating participatory democracy.
It isn't easy to see how such notions can be implemented in countries like Venezuela, where politicians and the government don't decide about oil, but rather the oil has decided decades ago about them.
The "Ley de Responsabilidad Social en Radio y Televisión" makes definately things harder for the private media in their criticism of Chávez, and will probably promote self-censorship to a degree, but it's highly unlikely that the more harsh penalties will ever be used.
It seems someone has a bigot view of individuals who serve in the military of their nation. What's wrong - you wish soldiers to be second class citizens? (I could be missing the sarcasm in your response - but if it statement doesn't fit your comment, it definitily fits the one that you were responding to.)
It seems you 're missing quite a few things in addition to sarcasm.
It seems you 're missing quite a few things in addition to sarcasm.
Not at all, the content of your post indiciated something toward a bigotary stance toward those who serve in their nation's military by Venezuelan societ. Your words are plainly visible for all to see.
The sarcasm in Kralizec's post I did indeed miss, but not the comment of yours that stated this.
Chavez's critics also accuse him of militarizing the venezuelan society, with examples like this program, along with giving soldiers voting rights and using the army to carry out his social programs.
What this statement states is that in the Venezuelen society people are bigots who don't believe soldiers should have the right to vote along with all the rest of the citizens of the nation. The critics of Chavez fall right into the same mindset of the petty dicatorships of the past.
Its the mindset of holding soldiers as a second class citizen, versus a member of the society in which the individual serves. Many of Chavez's policies and ideas I completely disagree with - allowing soldiers to exercise their rights as citizens of the nation is not one of them however.
Maybe instead of degrading soldiers for serving their nation - the people of Venezuelia need to understand that soldiers are also citizens of the the nation entitled to all the same democratic principles of all the other citizens of the nation. Having citizen soldiers is a good thing for any nation, it helps to reduce the abilities of petty little dicators.
Now I didn't miss much in the meaning of that statement, now did I?
Instead of wasting time on Venezuella, how about the US actually does something good and actually invade or help a country that IS a democratic problem; Saudi Arabia, Cambodja, Pakistan, Belarus (White Russia as we say in Sweden) etc.
LeftEyeNine
04-04-2006, 23:21
...Belarus (White Russia as we say in Sweden) etc.
We used to call them White Russia (=Beyaz Rusya) as well -changed recently. I thought it was a matter of confusion derived from verbal similarities (Bel- and Beyaz). OT but, what's the deal about the name "White Russia" ?
BelgradeWar
04-04-2006, 23:28
We used to call them White Russia (=Beyaz Rusya) as well -changed recently. I thought it was a matter of confusion derived from verbal similarities (Bel- and Beyaz). OT but, what's the deal about the name "White Russia" ?
Belarus, or Byelarus, or Belorusija as we call it in Serbia, actually means White Russia. Belo or Bel or whatever form is actually similar in all Slavic languages meaning "white".
LeftEyeNine
04-04-2006, 23:39
Belarus, or Byelarus, or Belorusija as we call it in Serbia, actually means White Russia. Belo or Bel or whatever form is actually similar in all Slavic languages meaning "white".
Great info, thanks. :2thumbsup:
Instead of wasting time on Venezuella, how about the US actually does something good and actually invade or help a country that IS a democratic problem; Saudi Arabia, Cambodja, Pakistan, Belarus (White Russia as we say in Sweden) etc.
LOL - the United States is not going to invade Venezuella no matter how much Chavez would desire for it to happen.
L'Impresario
04-05-2006, 00:02
Venezuela is the longest standing democracy in South America, starting from 1958, and there were special parameters in the region, which, when not taken into account, give a wrong impression. The military was kept with very little influence and completely apolitical for quite some time, and without studying why this happened and its implications, it 'd be hard to pass any judgement. Ofcourse keeping the army and the radical, so to speak, elements in check (with a civil war ready to break out during the 60s) while numerous coups were happening all around Latin America and the Caribbean was achieved through settlements among the "mainstream" political forces (enforcing an effective two-party rule with many negative sides) and support by the US*, among others. Army payments were also soaring, and still are, but the destruction of that system came from within the armed forces, Chávez having attracted many officers to his underground movement MBR-200 and making change through force an accepted course of action against a corrupted and illegitimate, in his view, government, esp. after the Caracazo incident in 1989 and leading to his 1992 coupt attempt.
The voting rights question today is totally different but we must consider the country's political traditions and inner workings. No dictatorships in the neighbourhood anymore I guess, though some claim that Chávez works to change that.
As a sidenote, I'll mention that the democracy of "Punto Fijo" as it was called survived successfuly (ofcourse there are differing views about it) during the first decades and failed badly after the mid-70s. It 's a very complex question to see how it got derailed, along with its incompetence at making good use of the arab-israeli crisis windfalls and the repercussions in society and the various institutions, army included, be ready for quite some reading.
A great book to start with, by focusing on the oil factor, which doesn't limit itself strictly to Venezuela, is "The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States" by Terry Lynn Karl.
*and to make a balanced approach towards US involvement, one mustn't forget to mention that the last dictatorship in Venezuela, that of Perez, was also supported by the US.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.