Chavez: U.S. planning to invade Venezuela

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Optionpro007, Sep 17, 2005.

  1. Friday, September 16, 2005; Posted: 11:10 p.m. EDT (03:10 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday he has documentary evidence that the United States plans to invade his country.

    Chavez, interviewed on ABC's "Nightline," said the plan is called "Balboa" and involves aircraft carriers and planes. A transcript of the interview was made available by "Nightline."

    He said U.S. soldiers recently went to Curacao, an island off Venezuela's northwest coast. He described as a "lie" the official U.S. explanation that they visited Curacao for rest and recreation.

    "They were doing movements. They were doing maneuvers," Chavez said, speaking through a translator.

    He added: "We are coming up with the counter-Balboa plan. That is to say if the government of the United States attempts to commit the foolhardy enterprise of attacking us, it would be embarked on a 100-year war. We are prepared."

    Chavez has been attending the summit of world leaders at the United Nations in New York this week. On Thursday, he denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq and told other leaders they should consider moving the U.N. headquarters out of the United States.

    To prove U.S. intentions to invade Venezuela, Chavez offered to send "Nightline" host Ted Koppel maps and other documentation.

    "What I can't tell you his how we got it, to protect the sources, how we got it through military intelligence," he said.

    In the event of a U.S. invasion, Chavez said the United States can "just forget" about receiving any more oil from his country.

    Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


    I'm telling you, this guy is a riot. :D
  2. Look..the Bush doctrine is to go after any countries that have the oil...

    Good for his oil cronies............
  3. Isn't that ironic that you are probably the last person on earth still taking seriously the absurd claim that Bush liberated 50 mln people, yet you reject the idea that he may want to liberate 25 mln more in Venezuela.

    Especially if Kindasleezy Rice makes a convincing presentation at the UN showing pictures of Venezuelan mobile biological labs, nuclear weapons sites and tape-recorded conversations between Chavez and Osama. I find it hard to believe that courageous patriots like yourself would not support eliminating this "imminent threat" and liberating 25 million venezuelans from Communist oppression.
  4. Well dddooo:

    what can I say......your arguments have been flawed so far and I have been able to take them apart with ease.

    The guy was elected democratically.(supposedly)

    I am not aware of any Venezuelans that want to hijack planes or blow themselves up with bombs and kill as many people as possible simply because they don't tolerate others people views..

    That is why at the beginning of the investigation into 9-11 the first people that were discarded as potential suspects were the latin based left wing guerrillas.

    They would have never made it to the planes on time to start with.....

    On the other hand Venezuelan's are paying for letting previous administrations steal money like if there was no tomorrow.

    Still, Chavez is an idiot and you know it. That you defend his political views or his position against the US so you can criticize our administration doesn't show you in good light.

  5. You're certainly making perfect sense right now but that's only until the administration starts making case for invading Venezuela (and I am not saying they will). The problem with gullible people like you is that you're easily brainwashed and that was the primary point I was making. The war in Iraq is the best proof - every single pre-war claim by the adminstration turned out to be completely wrong, bogus or a lie, yet you believed them then and you still believe them now.

    If the admnistration decides to invade Venezuela (again I am not saying they will) they will start talking about "clear and present danger", patriotism, 9/11, oppression, liberation, democratization of the region and mushroom cloud. They will come up with lots of convincing documents, pictures and reports, well paid experts, pundits and talking heads claiming 24/7 that we'll be greeted as liberators. There will be a lot of gullible people in this country who will buy this nonsense. Something tells me you're going to be among them.
  6. dddooo again, Chavez was elected democratically, he can for all I care take the US flag and shit on it and Congress will never give permission for Bush to invade the country.

    We don't even have the resources to do such a thing. Chavez, either knows that or he is extremely paranoid. Like most mad dictators turn out to be.

    But this case aside.

    I know where our difference of opinion lies I believe.

    I believe in Machiavelli's, the end (noble*) justifies the means.

    *my addition.

    Taking out Hussein in my view was necessary and what this administration did as far a making a case for going after him is irrelevant to me.

    If they had to lie or exaggerate to capture a known criminal like Hussein, so be it.

    The important issue was taking a mad murderous dictator from power in my opinion.

    The way or excuses or lies or whatever, "good" uses to eliminate "known evil" is not important to me as long as the project comes to fruition.

    You don't see it this way, correct ?

  7. I can understand that it's irrelevant to you but it certainly is not irrelevant to Chavez. If you're not denying the obvious fact that the case for invading Iraq was based on lies (mistakes, distortions, half-truths, whatever) why are you then surprised that Chavez is concerned?

    If this administration has a history of making bogus cases for going after their enemies and Chavez is a sworn enemy of this administration, he has every reason to be worried.
  8. cable


    Who in their right mind actually supports Machiavelli? I got a book for you you'll really love. It's called Mein Kampf. Let me guess, you're hoping Voldemort kills Harry Potter in the next movie.

    Machiavelli also advocated decapitating your enemies and impaling their heads on stakes in the middle of town so his people would know not to cross him. Every psychopathic dictator / mass murderer / crime lord in history has read and agreed with Machiavelli, and every good guy has seen through his stuff for the evil it is and vowed to fight it.

    By your logic, a democrat killing Bush would be ethical. Then someone killing the democrat would be ethical, and pretty soon, we're all dead, because "the ends justifies the means". I need food for my family so I might as well steal it. I haven't had sex in months, and not having sex can cause prostate cancer, so rape is okay.

    Do you see where Machiavelli is going here? It's a thin line between doing what's right and doing what's wrong, and Machiavelli will seduce you into crossing it.
  9. That is very good. I think the asshole would have Russian missiles directed to the US if Russia was still a communist country, no doubt about it.

    He wants to consolidate power, and he will use any means at his disposal, and you know this.

    He has oil, which he can use against us, but then he thinks or knows America is not going to stand and do anything about it.

    I like that.
  10. My dear cable:

    Please don't take my statement out of context.

    I am implying and stand by. If, you have to break the rules to achieve a "noble" cause, that is right with me.

    I never implied and that is the reason I added the word "noble" to my statement, that achieving any goal justifies the means.

    I only said, IF the goal is noble, then fuck the rules if you have to.

    #10     Sep 17, 2005