Chavez Tells Venezuelan Soldiers to Prepare for War With U.S.

Oh yes - FEAR THE COMMIES!

They come and they eat your ALIVE I heard!

And those SOCIALISTS are even worse!



Anyway, let us see once more what mister Chavez said:

Guardian

President Hugo Chávez has ordered Venezuela's armed forces to prepare for a guerrilla war against the United States, saying there must be a strategy to defeat the superpower IF it invades.

He said Washington had already launched a non-military campaign using economic, psychological and political means to topple his socialist government and seize control of Venezuela's vast oil reserves.

Firstly, I think you did notice the word "IF" U.S. invades. ANY country in this world has the right and the duty to defend itself against any foreign occupying army, so that is like saying that America must defend itself againt - let's say, IF Chinese arrive.

Secondly - we all know that Washington is in asymmetrical warfare against Venezuela for a long, long time, and certain posts such as this one, are just one more proof, how this campaign of demonizing the state of Venezuela is going. It is not secret, that Washington would love to have a pro-U.S., pro-business government here. But as usual, those commies bastards are BAD - and sooner or later they shall be in bed with terrorists and Al-Qaeda and Osama. So of course people must FEAR them.

Originally posted by forestlady
Sorry I can't provide better proof but I will keep looking.

I cannot ask for any more then that. I am sure you will understand when I say, I am still skeptical until I can read it for myself, You see Chicken Little came by the other day screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling and it has not hit me yet,. .

Shots, I applaud your open-mindedness. As you say, I cannot ask for more than that.

PNAC, a neocon Washington think tank, wrote it their report/policy in 1997. In Sept. 2000, it was adopted as our official foreign policy. It may have been edited and changed a little bit, I don't know. But I read the Sept. 2000 version and it clearly stated that the U.S. was adopting a position of hegemony and unilateralism regarding the rest of the world.

I first became aware of Hugo Chavez in 2002, when the U.S.tried to overthrow the Chavez govt. I have read many negative things about him in the MSM, and I researchced every single one of them, looking for something negative about him. I found articles from all kinds of reliable foreign press which wasn't critical of him at all. In fact, those reports explained alot about how distorted our MSM is about Chavez. Everything that Chavez does, is distorted in our MSM.

I would refer all the doubters to read PNAC as Forestlady quite rightly has quoted from it. If any other country produced such a document it would lead ww3. America or should I say those that are running the show are quite explicit in their intentions so who can blame any country trying to counter those murderous ambitions.

Originally posted by forestlady
But I read the Sept. 2000 version and it clearly stated that the U.S. was adopting a position of hegemony and unilateralism regarding the rest of the world.

I noticed their link at PNAC had been removed however how do you know the government officially adopted it. If the government adopted it one would think there would be OFFICIAL references to it, which there are none, and hence the reason I doubted it to start. Perhaps they wrote it and yes, you may have gotten the impression it was adopted when in fact it was not.

I am not saying this is the case I am trying to keep and open mind, just curious how a document that sates our alleged official policy suddenly ups and disappears.

They adopted the foreign policy because they are practicing it. A large portion of cabinet members are founders of PNAC. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Louis Libby, Eliot Cohen, John Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad (U.S. ambassador to Iraq).

Originally posted by wingman77
They adopted the foreign policy because they are practicing it. A large portion of cabinet members are founders of PNAC.

If they adopted the policy it would be a matter of record, but that is not the case. Until someone can furnish proof that it is the offical policy of the USA everything PNAC says/said is meaningless because they are not a government agency



[edit on 6/26/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by Seekerof


Your reference to "honestly" is hilarious, especially when you spew that Chavez is a guy doing the best he can....*cough* for his country.
The "plain and simple" truth is that Chavez is a dictator who simply and plainly only gives a crap about himself. He controls the media in Venezuala: FACT. He controls the phone companies: FACT. He pretty much controls every aspect of Venezualian life: FACT. And before you go off the left-end and start spewing that he was 'democratically elected' let me reminds you that Saddam, Assad, and host of other dictators were allegedly democratically elected.

Just like Bush and Cheney.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Chavez is a guy who is doing the best he can for his country. Plain and simple.

You really crack me up. Actually, you, well, never mind.

You crack me up, too. With your three warnings.

Don't be so hostile, dude.

You'd be more credible.

Originally posted by shots

If they adopted the policy it would be a matter of record, but that is not the case. Until someone can furnish proof that it is the offical policy of the USA everything PNAC says/said is meaningless because they are not a government agency



[edit on 6/26/2007 by shots]

Who are you? Dick Cheney?

Seriously tho, no one knows what 's going on in the exutive b/c they are refusing to divulge any (subpoened or otherwise) info. Period.

Its criminal.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Hugo Chavez: He's quite a guy.

Yes it would appear that way apparently he is in Russia and is trying to get them to Rebel against America, Chavez urges Russia

Meanwhile back at the ranch Russia is keeping his visit low key and keeping Chavez at arms length so as not to avoid spoiling Putns upcoming trip to the US

Russia keeps tricky Chavez visit low key

It would appear even the Rusians have his number and all they are interested in is his money.



[edit on 6/29/2007 by shots]

[edit on 6/29/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
If they adopted the policy it would be a matter of record, but that is not the case. Until someone can furnish proof that it is the offical policy of the USA everything PNAC says/said is meaningless because they are not a government agency[edit on 6/26/2007 by shots]

OK, Shots, here's what I've found so far.
www.crisispapers.org...

"7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade.

7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade."

You probably should read the entire article in order to get the full context of it. Also read the PNAC statement and our U.S. foreign policy, also the article below:
www.logosjournal.com...

Our foreign policy has been designed by the neo-cons, not inline with the traditional Republican values, of isolationism and smaller federal govt.

How does this relate to Hugo Chavez? Because when I read that document (which became U.S. foreign policy) back in Nov. 2001, I was horrified because of the aggressive stance towards every other country that it took. I'm sure Hugo Chavez interpreted it in the same way. I know if I was a head of state and read that, I would be very concerned for my country, at the very least.

Originally posted by forestlady
OK, Shots, here's what I've found so far.
www.crisispapers.org...

"7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade.

Originally, you stated this was an official foreign policy of the US, yet that is not what it states. Are you now saying this is the document that sets the standards for our official foreign polcy? Here to refresh your mind

If you had read and understood PNAC, our official foreign policy paper, you would have understood the reference.

Ok now that was your original contention yet you bring a link to a document that states "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"

That is somewhat of a leap from an official foreign policy in my book and I want to be sure this is exactly what you are talking about before I take time to read all 35 pages. A quick search using key words in the document so far has not produced anything even close to what you claimed. I am not saying they are not there they might well be yet this is still a strategy guide not our official foreign policy according to its title.


[edit on 6/29/2007 by shots]

Shots, the key words here are:

"The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century..."

Perhaps I should ahve said "which became our official foreign policy. If you read them they are the same. I think you're splitting hairs here, Shots, and you will see what I mean when you read BOTH articles, PNAC and our foreign policy paper.

THey are exactly the same, PNAC, and our official foreign policy, they just changed the title.

If you do not mind and since you say you have read the document/documents in question could you perhaps direct me to the portion that you feel is relevant here? Just trying to save some time here is all. I would do the same for you.

Originally posted by forestlady
Shots, the key words here are:

"The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century..."

Just checked the document and those words are not on the government site threfore subject to questions since they are opinions of a third party

Edit
Whoops sorry my error I found it and that was meant as a comentary about the document claiming it is virtually identical.



[edit on 6/29/2007 by shots]

Sorry, I should have told you where the comment was.

When the PNAC came out and people began to find out about it, alot of citizens were very upset at the policies. So, I suspect that the govt tried to bury the PNAC resemblance behind words, and of course it will not say where it got the ideas from on the govt website.

But if you read both documents, they express the same ideas.
I should also add that it was the brainchild of the neo-cons, not the traditional Republicans, who espouse, small govt and isolationism. This is very different from those values.

Originally posted by forestlady
Dear Shots: You asked a perfectly valid question, in fact a very good one. So I went to Google. I could not find ONE govt source for this. But it has been on a govt website before and here's the history:

Right after 911 in 2001, I got on the internet every night when I got home from work, trying to find information about 9/11. I came across the PNAC document and it was on a govt website, as well as having its very own website. Yet when I just went to find it (6 years later) it wasn't there on ANY govt website. This is the second this type of thing has happened. I know you have only my word to go on, but believe me, Shots, I read it right after 9/11 and it was on a govt website. I remember it very well, because I couldn't believe that would be our new forgeign policy. It was all right there on www.pnac.com and on a govt site, as well.
Sorry I can't provide better proof but I will keep looking.


[edit on 25/6/07 by forestlady]

Here is a link to the website for the organization called Project for a New American Century (PNAC):

www.newamericancentury.org...

This is not the offical foreign policy of the US government. It is an organization and a philosophy being forwarded by a group of individuals commonly referred to a "neo-cons". They are no different than the Trilateral Comission or the Council on Foreign Relations. Groups like these are vital and have always existed. Forward planning, the identification of long term strategic goals, and development of strategies and tactics to achieve those goals are vital to any society that has any hope of lasting and advancing.

Here is the the groups Statement of Principles:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Nothing sinister here IMO.





[edit on 6/29/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

This is not the offical foreign policy of the US government.

We are aware of tht and the assumption is by Forest that the US adopted it as its official policy around 2002 that is what we are discussing to see if this is a factor myth if you will.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by shots]

Yeah, I noticed after I posted that someone else had already provided the link.

I was reading through some of their letters and I can't deny American FP since 2001 has been heavily influenced by PNACs priniples and policies.

Here is a prime example.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Seems FL has a valid point regarding the influnce PNAC holds in the current administration, However I just don't see this being as nefarious as she seems to.