The fact that he has oil, and hates us, seems to have deluded Hugo Chavez into believing that we want to invade his country:
Chavez threatened on Wednesday possible government takeovers of Colombian companies in Venezuela, and said Venezuela could sell off investments it has made in Colombia.He said Venezuelan mobilization of military hardware and troops was to defend itself against possible attacks from Colombia and the United States.
"Our policy is peace, but we have to take preventive measures to prevent war," Chavez said after meeting with Correa.
Would invading Colombia to stave off a nonexistent US invasion threat count as a preventative war?
Obviously, I don't think that Chavez is actually planning to invade Colombia, though I certainly wouldn't put some convenient nationalizations past him. But I wonder if his rhetoric about the US sounds less ridiculous at home than it does here. The US doesn't care enough about Venezuela to invade--indeed, I'm surprised that Citgo's gas sales have been affected by his antics, since I wouldn't have thought anyone outside the wonkosphere was aware of them.
LOL, I make a habit of going to a Citgo whenever I can just to support the guy. Doesn't hurt that they always seem to have the best prices in town, too.
" But I wonder if his rhetoric about the US sounds less ridiculous at home than it does here. "
Probably, particularly among the target demographic. His propaganda efforts are made much easier by the speed and enthusiasm displayed by our government in accepting the coup against him in 2002.
If he constructed an elaborate plot involving disaffected Venezuelan elites and right wing Colombian militias supported by diversion of US drug interdiction resources he'd be more plausible. You must, however, keep your audience in mind when putting on a show.
Let the hawks now remind you that if it wasn't for the threat of overwhelming force of the US, and a propensity to use that force in past situations that Chavez indeed would be contemplating invading his neighbors, taking over oil fields, etc.
Chavez is playing from an ancient play book. When face with domestic difficulties and opposition, the tyrant turns to the demonization of foreigners and the initiation of war.
During the past 54 years, the US has interfered in Latin American affairs by invading their countries, overthrowing their (democratic) leaders, training repressive government's militias, and funding right-wing death squads.
So yes, painting the US as an evil imperialist sounds "less ridiculous"--even plausible--in Latin America than it does stateside. This is partly because the US has acted as a evil imperialist toward Latin America.
And most of us--at least since Teddy Roosevelt-- still cling to that notion of empire, as if it were our national due to run things.
This is partly because the US has acted as a evil imperialist toward Latin America.
Without endorsing US actions at all (which I don't), this is rather patently ridiculous. If you want to see evil imperialism, you might do well to examine, say, the Belgian Congo or the USSR in Eastern Europe. Or, hell, the Spanish in Latin America.
It might be somewhat evil (compared to what, though?), but US foreign policy in general involves a very weak form of "imperialism."
Would invading Colombia to stave off a nonexistent US invasion threat count as a preventative war?
Nooooo.
Whether or not one finds it ridiculous, I think it's pretty clear he's talking about invasion by Colombian troops with tacit US support.
I doubt he thinks that squadrons of American ground troops are readying themselves for invasion, as Megan seems to imply.
Back when American foreign policy was run by people with more brains, causing your opponent to equip, transport, and deploy their military at a time and place where there was going to be no attack would be considered "strategy"
Rule #1 of life is: When your opponent is doing something stupid, shut the hell up.
During the past 54 years, the US has interfered in Latin American affairs
"54 years"? What a weird number to pick out of a hat.
But I wonder if his rhetoric about the US sounds less ridiculous at home than it does here.
Probably. Plenty of Americans have no trouble believing that Iran is on the verge of nuking Israel, and believed that Saddam Hussein was a serious military threat. Reagan didn't get laughed out of office when he complained that the Sandinistas were only 2000 miles from the Texas border.
Dan, I don't think RickM pulled the number 54 "out of a hat". I'm pretty sure he was dating things from the CIA's overthrow of Guatemala's President Arbenz in 1954.
STC you think it's smart to support Chavez. How stupid. Do you not realize what he is doing while his own country is standing in line waiting on rations of milk/food. He makes money from his US assets and purchases more antique diesel subs. What a joke to our superior Navel fleet. You don't have a clue who this crazy man is.
Avram,
I'm pretty sure he was dating things from the CIA's overthrow of Guatemala's President Arbenz in 1954.
I'd assume so, but that's still picking a number out of a hat. There is no sense in which our "interference" with "Latin American affairs" can be said to have started, or even especially intensified, with the overthrow of Arbenz. Heck, we sent troops in and out of Central America so many times during the first half of the 20th century that they practically had to install a revolving door on the continent.
1954 is significant in that it was the first time we interfered in Latin America in order to stop the further spread of Communism. There's no reason for a person whose true concern is the self-determination of Latin Americans to focus on that particular date; that RickM did so suggests that his real beef is with our motives, not our actual actions.