Chavez: U.S. Plans to Invade Venezuela

[__Kratos__ 14]

WASHINGTON - 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 is 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.

Source

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet we have plans to invade nearly every single country on earth... why would Venezuela be any different?

I think he is just paranoid over the US.

[Baku 0]

I bet we have plans to invade nearly every single country on earth... why would Venezuela be any different?

I think he is just paranoid over the US.

849093[/snapback]

Well it wont hurt to actually take a look at that documentary

[stillcrazy 0]

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.

Well at least Chavez and I agree on one thing.

[Dr_Strangelove 0]

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.

Well at least Chavez and I agree on one thing.

849119[/snapback]

Good one Crazy! I've become less of a fan of the UN myself over the last few years. I'm not particularly fond of the Bush Administration but even less fond of the UN.

[LarryOldtimer 0]

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

This guy is definitely whacko. If we ever decided to invade over a pressing need for oil, we would just take what oil we wanted. Needless to say, he wouldnt be around all that long to make any decisions about it. Another mouse roaring.

[stillcrazy 0]

Good one Crazy! I've become less of a fan of the UN myself over the last few years. I'm not particularly fond of the Bush Administration but even less fond of the UN.

Thanks.

My new Motto

Get the U.S. (and everyone else) out of the UN

Get the UN out of the U.S.

Edited September 18, 2005 by stillcrazy

[StalingradK 1]

No people get it right, first we have already invaded Iraq, then we'll invade Iran, then Venezuela, then we'll have another civil war, east coast vs west coast style.

[wunarmdscissor 1]

I bet we have plans to invade nearly every single country on earth... why would Venezuela be any differen

oil.

common theme eh..

[Mekorig 19]

Having the oil reserves that Venezuela have, and the international politics of the current USA administration, i would be a little worrie too. Alough i see the USA traying to do again the old method that they love to use in Latin America....military coups made by freindly righ wing militars and rich civilians.

[Fluffybunny 51]

Maybe we can get good old Pat Robertson to Parachute in and get things started for us...

He's a freak.

[Bone_Collector 3]

Having the oil reserves that Venezuela have, and the international politics of the current USA administration, i would be a little worrie too. Alough i see the USA traying to do again the old method that they love to use in Latin America....military coups made by freindly righ wing militars and rich civilians.

850099[/snapback]

But what reasons to invade Venezuela can US give to the world?

Edited September 19, 2005 by Bone_Collector

[stillcrazy 0]

But what reasons to invade Venezuela can US give to the world?

Chavez bought Saddams WMD's at a moving sale

[__Kratos__ 14]

But what reasons to invade Venezuela can US give to the world?

Chavez bought Saddams WMD's at a moving sale

850934[/snapback]

I knew it! Get'em!

[Bone_Collector 3]

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

What a dumb thing to say; if US DOES invade Venezuela then, well....they'll

just TAKE the oil, they wouldn't need a trade agreement, would they?

But what reasons to invade Venezuela can US give to the world?

Chavez bought Saddams WMD's at a moving sale

850934[/snapback]

How much a piece?

I wonder what evidence Chevez has? Maybe they just mistook some kind of US intelligence activity for invasion plans.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Bone_Collector

[Celumnaz 6]

socialists and dictators need enemies to keep their people under control

civil war in the US would be... interesting...

If Chaves is looking at US intelligence... after what everbody thinks about our WMD/Iraq intelligence... wouldn't that say something about his intelligence? Unless everyone blinded by the mass media and leftist talking points is wrong...

[bathory 1]

Having the oil reserves that Venezuela have, and the international politics of the current USA administration, i would be a little worrie too. Alough i see the USA traying to do again the old method that they love to use in Latin America....military coups made by freindly righ wing militars and rich civilians.

most of those coups happened because of sh*tty latin leadership in the first place. 99% of the Coups that happened didn't even have US involvement until after the fact (thats not to say the US wouldn't have gotten its hands dirty, it considered involving the CIA in a coup attempt in Chile however backed out, the attempt went ahead anyways and was bungled)

[Baku 0]

Good one Crazy! I've become less of a fan of the UN myself over the last few years. I'm not particularly fond of the Bush Administration but even less fond of the UN.

Thanks.

My new Motto

Get the U.S. (and everyone else) out of the UN

Get the UN out of the U.S.

849263[/snapback]

The US can leave whenever they want to but why would you want the other countries out aswell. Just cuz US aint wanna be a part of it doesnt mean it gotta go away completly. The UN is pretty much a crappy and lazy organisation, they need years to investigate and stuff, but still it does do some work.

[Mekorig 19]

Bathory, and what about the meeting that a lot of militars have whit USA unoficial * and oficial( representatives before the coups, and the trining a lot of that old class have in the USA sponsored "School of the America" in Panama, or the friendly actitude this military gov had whit the USA, and the very good bussines that some USA companies make whit these miltary govs?

Bathory, you say that some "lefist" look pathetic when critized Bush and company. I said that some right wing suporters like very pathetic when try to defend the action of the USA around the world, specially the organized coups.

[wunarmdscissor 1]

socialists and dictators need enemies to keep their people under control

hmm so are you telling us that tony blair is using iraq as a way of keeping us under control.

i find it laughable taht so many americans make these woeful statements without actually realising that their closest ally in the world are being led by a party that if it were in america would be considered communist.

yet far from attacking tony blairs SOCIALIST!!!!!! govt you openly praise the man.

from a raving socialist.

Edited September 19, 2005 by wunarmdscissor

[Celumnaz 6]

yes, but he's not a dictator, more like the party.

why is that laughable? I supposed in some sense it could be ironic, much like the CIA training Bin Laden to me is sad and ironic. Wish he would have gone a different direction.

When have I openly praised Blair and about what? I'm not saying I Never have, just don't remember it at the moment.

[bathory 1]

Bathory, and what about the meeting that a lot of militars have whit USA unoficial * and oficial( representatives before the coups, and the trining a lot of that old class have in the USA sponsored "School of the America" in Panama, or the friendly actitude this military gov had whit the USA, and the very good bussines that some USA companies make whit these miltary govs?

Bathory, you say that some "lefist" look pathetic when critized Bush and company. I said that some right wing suporters like very pathetic when try to defend the action of the USA around the world, specially the organized coups.

Panama is the only one that had direct US involvement, the US kept its nose out of the other coups howeer as i said before, were more than happy to help out afterwards, though we have to understand when the likes of allande are cuddling up to the soviets and cubans, the US is going to be wondering if there is going to be another cuban missile crisis, this time involving multiple states.

i don't even know where you got your second paragraph from? People forget about the cold war so quickly these days it seems.

why is that laughable? I supposed in some sense it could be ironic, much like the CIA training Bin Laden to me is sad and ironic. Wish he would have gone a different direction.

the CIA didn't train him, I wish people would stop repeating this incorrect peice of information.

[stillcrazy 0]

That Pan-Islamic effort, whose fighters were funded, armed, and trained by the C.I.A., eventually brought some twenty-five thousand Islamic militants, from more than fifty countries, to combat the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The United States, intentionally or not, had launched Pan-Islam's first jihad, or holy war, in eight centuries.

Source

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan galvanized bin Laden. He supported the Afghan resistance, which became a jihad, or holy war. Ironically, the U.S. became a major supporter of the Afghan resistance, or mujahideen, working with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to set up Islamic schools in Pakistan for Afghan refugees. These schools later evolved into virtual training centers for Islamic radicals.

Source

THis next quote is kind of interesting, read through it and check the link, as it may or may not jive with the others.

The further I dig into this topic, with new information daily..... It seems to me the origin and make up of Al quada is somewhat a mystery and disputed depending on who you choose to believe.

Some argue that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[7] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channelled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the US government, which maintains that US aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that [Afghan Arabs] had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself. [8]. The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001

Source.

Almost forgot to stay on topic.

What was the topic again?

Oh yea, Chavez. THe U.N. should be dismantled as it currently stands, we allow dictators and other countries with lousy human rights records to serve on committies that they themselves violate. The security council is a joke. Plus the amount of graft is beyond belief. France, Germany and others violated the sanctions against Iraq and no one cares. Chavez is right, move the U.N. out of the U.S. let some other country support it and protect it for a change.

Edited September 20, 2005 by stillcrazy

[bathory 1]

so my comments regarding Bin Ladin were correct?

THis next quote is kind of interesting, read through it and check the link, as it may or may not jive with the others.

Actually i think it does, the first source appears somewhat biased with its unqualified statement that you quoted, they go out of their way to quote from a fellow who WAS there and in a position of power, and don't even ask him about the relationship with Bin Ladin? or even the relationship with the foreign fighters coming into afghanistan?

All we are told is that Saudi and Pakistani money was flowing to fighters in Afghanistan, there isn't much detail beyond that.

its similar for the 2nd source too

i think its less about what the first 2 sources are saying and more about what they aren't?

[Mr Slayer 4]

I'm surprised people are surprised about US wanting all the oil in the world.

And about conquering the world- yes the Monroe Doctrine is surely the Bible of American Imperialism.

But...what goes up, must come down. Just look at the Roman Empire.

I'll be waiting.

Edited September 20, 2005 by AshKatNah

[Aztec Warrior 2]

We will go in and take what we want. Who can stop us. We should be focused on killing muslim terrorists though.