Chavez: Colombia plans 'aggression' By JORGE RUEDA, Associated Press Writer
19 minutes ago
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez on Friday accused neighboring Colombia and the United States of plotting a military "aggression" against Venezuela.
ADVERTISEMENT
"I accuse the government of Colombia of devising a conspiracy, acting as a pawn of the U.S. empire, of devising a military provocation against Venezuela," Chavez said.
"A military aggression is being prepared," Chavez added. He did not offer evidence to support his claim.
But he warned Colombia not to attempt a "provocation" and said Venezuela would cut off all oil exports in the event of a military strike from the neighboring country.
"In that scenario, write it down: the price of oil would reach $300, because there wouldn't be oil for anyone," Chavez said. "The invaders would have to step over our dead bodies."
Chavez has repeatedly accused Washington of plotting to oust or kill him, though it was the first time he has accused Colombia's U.S.-allied government in such strident terms.
Relations between the two countries have sharply deteriorated since a dispute that erupted during Chavez's mediation efforts to free hostages held by Colombian rebels.
Chavez spoke as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Colombia, saying she and two other senior American officials who have visited Bogota recently "came to attack Venezuela" in their remarks. Rice did not mention Chavez during her earlier statements in Colombia.
Cesar Mauricio Velasquez, spokesman for Colombian President Uribe, said his government had no immediate comment.
Chavez said he expects relations with Colombia, which he and Uribe once managed to maintain cordial "are going to continue deteriorating," predicting that it will hurt cross-border trade
This loser has the biggest hard-on for Colombia! The way he behaves towards Colombia is like some jerk at a club who keeps pestering some pretty chick who keeps telling him to get lost and he refuses to understand she really means it.
Is it possible for a country to have a stalker??? I guess so.
Ah, well that explains your affinity with Chavez: the Big Bad USA. Oh the world would be such a paradise of brotherhood and peace if it was'nt for those horrible Yankees.
But if the USA "breeds a defensive mentality" one would assume Chavez was reared in the USA, because nobody but NOBODY is as "defensive" as he.
Let's see, the USA is a little over 200 years old. So before 1776 everyone was rich and privileged? Poverty, wars, injustice and empires did'nt exist until then? Wow! What a valuable history lesson I just learned.
yes your are young and a little wet behind the ears, forgive my ancestors for plundering that vast wilderness and giving you religion, and realy I mean that PLEASE forgive me RELIGION what a terrorist
Cassini,
These hypothetical ´war game´ plans you mention are perfectly normal, legal, and don´t mean squat.
Many countries/alliances of countries have contingency plans in place for a wide variety of scenarios. That way, if the shit hits the fan, they at least have some form of plan ready. The UK, for example, has a plan to invade Norway - one of it´s staunchest and oldest allies, in the event of Russia pushing westwards. It also has plans to secure Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Belize, British Guyana, British Honduras and some West Indian islands. The Falkands Campaign in 1982 was a good example of such contingency plans being put into action.
I only hope that we still have our old plans for invading France.
I was going to say the same thing tasco. Invading France, would be like invading Key West. My apologies to the conches; Key West has much nicer people than France.
It seems pretty clear to me that all of Chavez's rhetoric about Colombian invasions is REALLY intended to make the Colombians think twice about crossing the border to take down the FARC commanders who are allegedly sheltering inside Venezuela on the border. I think he's just protecting his buddies.
Because why in the hell else would Colombia want to invade Venezuela.
This feat of arms was for many a significant proof of the valor and courage of the French soldiers, bitterly criticized since June 1940. British General Playfair wrote: "The lengthened defense of the French garrison played a major role in the re-establishment of the British troops in Egypt. The free French gravely disrupted, from the beginning, Rommel's offensive, resulting on a disturbed supply line of the Afrika Korps. The growing Axis troop concentration in the sector, needed to subjugate the fort, saved the British 8th Army from a disaster. The delays in the offensive caused by the relentless French resistance increased the British chances of success and eased the preparation of the counter-offensive. On long term, holding back Rommel allowed the British forces to escape from its meticulously planned annihilation. That's why we can say, without exaggerating, that Bir Hakeim greatly contributed to El-Alamein defensive success." On June 12th, marshal Claude Auchinleck would release a statement: "The United nations must be full of admiration and gratitude towards those French troops and their valiant General [Koenig]".[5] Winston Churchill would be more terse: "Holding back for fifteen days Rommel's offensive, the free French of Bir Hakeim had contributed to save Egypt and Suez canal's destinies."
Even Adolf Hitler would answer to the journalist Lutz Koch, coming back from Bir Hakeim: "You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I've always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to military control a country capable of such impressive military feats." As a consequence, the Führer gave the order to execute the Free French prisoners, an order that Rommel refused to carry out. Anecdotally, Rommel, impressed by the French resistance, and understanding that the prisoners suffered of thirst, ordered that French prisoners and Axis soldier would receive the same water ration. It matched with Mussolini wills, whose orders to its troops were to treat particularly well the French prisoners.
De Gaulle to Koenig: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."
--
"On the Western Desert Campaign, I had not seen a more relentless fight." Friedrich von Mellenthin, one of the staff officers of the Afrika Korps, would later write that he "had not ever been confronted, during the whole desert campaign, to such a relentless and heroic defense".
The German invasion of France, with subsidiary attacks on Belgium and the Netherlands, consisted of two phases, Operation “Yellow" (Fall Gelb) and Operation “Red" (Fall Rot). Yellow opened with a feint conducted against the Netherlands and Belgium by two armoured corps and paratroopers. The Germans had massed the bulk of their armoured force in “Panzer Group von Kleist", which attacked through the comparatively unguarded sector of the Ardennes and achieved a breakthrough at Sedan with air support.
The group raced to the coast of the English Channel at Abbéville, thus isolating the British Expeditionary Force, Belgian Army, and some divisions of the French Army in northern France. The armoured and motorized units under Guderian and Rommel initially advanced far beyond the following divisions, and indeed far in excess of that with which German high command was initially comfortable. When the German motorized forces were met with a counterattack at Arras, British tanks with heavy armour (Matilda I & IIs) created a brief panic in the German High Command. The armoured and motorized forces were halted, by Hitler, outside the port city of Dunkirk which was being used to evacuate the Allied forces. Hermann Göring had promised his Luftwaffe would complete the destruction of the encircled armies but aerial operations did not prevent the evacuation of the majority of Allied troops (which the British named Operation Dynamo); some 330,000 French and British were saved.
Overall, “Yellow" succeeded beyond almost anyone's wildest dreams, despite the claim that the Allies had 4,000 armoured vehicles and the Germans 2,200, and the Allied tanks were often superior in armour and calibre of cannon.[20] It left the French armies much reduced in strength (although not demoralised), and without much of their own armour and heavy equipment. Operation “Red" then began with a triple pronged panzer attack. The XV Panzer Corps attacked towards Brest, XIV Panzer Corps attacked east of Paris, towards Lyon, and Guderian's XIX Panzer Corps completed the encirclement of the Maginot Line. The defending forces were hard pressed to organize any sort of counter-attack. The French forces were continually ordered to form new lines along rivers, often arriving to find the German forces had already passed them.
Ultimately, the French army and nation collapsed after barely two months of blitzkrieg operations, in contrast to the four years of trench warfare of the First World War.
The best regiment/unit within the French military is the Foreign Legion - made up from, well...mainly foreigners.
To completely take the piss out of the French, go back further than WW2 - although the Fascist Vichy Government remains enough of an embarrassment for them. How about the Napoleonic Wars, Canadian Wars, 100 Year War, etc. What ever you do, don´t mention Waterloo or Trafalgar, or Agincourt, or Crecy, etc.
Having said that, their armed forces aren´t as bad as those of some European countries.
GIB,
What´s with all the "Europe will become all of a sudden our friend again"? Last time that I looked NATO was still intact, which includes most of Europe, the US, Canada etc. That´s a military alliance, not an agreement based on the petty squabbles and political infighting that´s going on at the moment. Disagreement with a foreign policy isn´t the same as breaking associations or diplomatic relations with. And when S Korea lets one of them warheads go at you guys, who´ll be swimming across the pond to help you?
Anyway, the US needs air bases in Britain and Europe as Iran is too far from the US mainland, although Basra airbase could be used now that Southern Iraq has been totally secured by the Brits.:-)
Pedro,
Is your real name Pierre or something? Your globalfirepower site shows Turkey, Brazil and India as having a ´better´armed forces than the UK. Please. It even shows India as having a better army than France, which I´m sure you´ll agree is utter crap. But to top it all, it shows the US as having the best army of all! Biggest maybe. Most firepower maybe. Best troops? Naw.
slguy,
Just given those details to MitchAlvares I´m afraid.
All I can say is that she´s called Tania and she´s a model from Cali. If I find out where she lives I promise that I´ll let you know what colour her bedroom´s painted.
About 40% of the military deaths in Afghanistan were non US military, including 87 British, 78 Canadian,25 German, 23 Spanish, 14 Dutch... Gates recently complained that the coalition forces in Afghanistan don't know how to fight an insurgency (he later apologized).
There probably would have been more American deaths if they hadn't had to leave the country to fend off the imminent attack from Iraq.
GIB,
I´m glad that you made the distinction between the UK and Europe.
Europe isn´t like the States....yet. As you probably know, it still consists of individual nations with there own armies. Some European countries (notably France) and those who remain neutral (Switzerland & Sweden) opted out of NATO. Since the end of (or break in ) the cold war, NATO armies inside Europe have been systematically and gradually reduced in size, supplied less equipment, had their budgets cut, etc. Unfortunately the British government is one of the worst for this, and I know of guys in Iraq who weren´t even clothed properly. It´s well known that if you want nice rations, good kit, or free beer - you walk over to see the Yanks.
I can totally see where you´re coming from. Some European countries didn´t even intervene in Yugoslavia - in their own back yard. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very unpopular in the UK because they drag on, don´t seem to change anything, costs losses of UK troops, and the Brits think that there are more legitimate targets to strike at.
As for helping if you got whacked by a nuclear hit, you´re right again. We wouldn´t respond because we´d be fighting our own little war by then. But I´d like to think that a UK sub would be the one that got payback. Also, half the silos in the UK are US anyway - same with airbases. That´s where you took off from when you bombed Libya.
You say the US was attacked by forces from Afghanistan, and you didn´t get much help. I´m not taking anything away from 9/11. It was fu**ing awful to watch and I can´t imagine the shock and disbelief that the US must have felt. Definately one of those ´JFK´moments. But, if a plane had taken out Canary Wharf in London, or Buckingham Palace, and it had been a group of terrorists from Ireland, would we have invaded Ireland? Would the US have helped us, and if so, how? Over 25 years of Irish terrorism in the UK there have been far more civilian deaths than the US suffered on 9/11. And when Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, the only Americans that showed up for the party were mercenaries fighting for the wrong side.
Surely the reason why you guys do more shit, is because there´s more of you. One of your US Marine Divisions is larger than our entire Royal Marines. If we do 20% of the shit, we´ll probably take 20% of the casualties too. Also, our tactics are slightly different, which may mean less casualties in any event.
I think that, with the public´s perception that the wars are gradually deteriorating, objectives not being met, etc. public opinion has changed, on both sides of the Atlantic. They´re in danger of becoming forgotten wars because they become the norm. And agin I agree with you. Pull them all out, seal the borders, drop a smart-bomb as a parting gesture, and let them start again from the year 0.
"The Continentals are in no apparent hurry to break a five-decade habit of enjoying a free ride on security."
The Continentals fill up lots of air space at policy conferences talking about Europe's readiness to play a prominent role in global affairs. The Canadians are now usefully calling their bluff.
"If NATO can't come through with that help, then I think, frankly, NATO's own reputation and future will be in jeopardy,"
GIB You were complaining about the lack of support for the US in Afghanistan. My point was that many countries have lost soldiers helping the US in Afghanistan - the list is much longer than I provided. As a percentage of population the Canadians have lost almost twice as many as the US (that includes the soldiers killed when the US bombed their camp). I'm not sure I understand your analysis, but maybe they don't know what they are doing, but they are trying. And I agree with most of britabroad's points.
Yeah, the Russians have started their sorties over the North Sea again, testing British and Norweigan responses. Just like the old days.
I personally feel that Europes lack of interest and action harks back to WW2 and probably WW1 too. Having spoken to many Europeans, the attitude is one of peace at any cost. I can see why. The continent was ripped up for arse paper by 2 world wars within 20 years of each other, plus the Spanish Civil War and 3 Fascist Dictators (Germany, Italy & spain). Their attitude now is that there can never be another such war in Europe, hence the quagmire of the European Union - which some say is just France and Germany finally accomplishing peacefully what they haven´t been able to accomplish militarily in the past. Hence the reluctance to engage. There are also some pretty weak, liberalists in Europe too.
I feel that any anti-american feelings at present are down to a couple of things.
1. The WMD fiasco - civilians feel that they and the military, who are now suffering the consequences, were duped by Tony Blair over the issue, which was given as the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq. The evidence was tenious anyway, and has never materialised. Blair is seen as Bush´s poodle and as dragging Britain into a war that it´s forces were not equipped for due to budget cuts etc.
2. No UN backing - in the UK there are some who feel that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, especially as the WMD seem to have been a false catalyst. If a war aint just, it shouldn´t be fought. We´d have been happier if Bush & Blair had just come clean and said that by taking Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran was surrounded, which I´m sure is the long term objective.
3. Concentration Camps etc - Much media coverage about US attrocities in Iraq. Torture. Guantanimo Bay etc. By the way, I personally feel that all British citizens being held at Guantanimo should be returned to the UK forthwith - so they can be hung for treason.
I just feel that to fight a war you need to know that what you´re doing is justifiable, right, and necessary. Kicking arse in Afghanistan was. But I think we should have left there a long while ago having left the country in tatters. Hearts and minds is okay, but how does that work with a sub-human mind and no heart. But Iraq? When Iraq was mentioned everyone at home looked suprised. Iraq? Again? Why not Zimbabwe? Oh, cos that´s a British gripe and it may look racist. Why not N Korea? Oh, cos of China and the nuclear issue. Why not Syria? Oh, their army´s too large and they have friends in the middle east. Why not Iran? Why not Indonesia? Then the WMD reason was given. Always guaranteed to get a response.
4. Fear - There is a real fear amongst the civil populace that we´re kicking a hornets nest. That all the Arab/Islamist states could unite and turn on Europe. They´re even quoting Nostrodamus for Gods sake. The apocolypse is nigh.
I think that until the coalition forces start to receive more favourable media coverage and their successes are highlighted, there´s always going to be an element of discourse. We know that war is war, but the civil populace don´t want to see or hear about that side of things and want our armed forces to behave like gallant gentlemen.
Let's face the reality that the Iraq war has been a disaster and has not led to peace or a reduction in terrorism.
Europe (France and Germany in this case) called this correctly, and America got it wrong. Europe was not even united in opinion in this instance, since Spain and Poland joined the Iraq war, for example.
Pretty much everyone supported the Afghanistan war (including the UN if I recall correctly). So it's not a case of no will to fight.
If you want to get an indication of how loyal the USA's allies are... you only need look at what countries heeded the call of the draft dodging chimp and signed up for the coalition for Iraq. I really don't think the other countries were convinced of the correctness of the war. But America has always been there as an ally and plenty of countries put in when asked to. They disregarded the moral questions to sing the same tune in public that the Bush administration wanted to sing.
Agreed GIB.
If you want peace, have a strong standing army.
But sometimes the "Peace Through Superior Firepower" bit wears a bit thin - especially when some of the best equipped and trained forces in the world can´t beat a group of goat shepherding peasants with rotten teeth.
That film "Colors" (note the US spelling to keep you all happy) says it all.
"Dad, let´s run down there and fuck one of those cows"
"No son, let´s walk down and fuck all of them".
It feels like the US are always running. If they walked sometimes they´d be truly awesome.
By the way, the way you feel about how the US always bails Europe´s arse out? That´s how we Brits feel about Europe too. I guess that if Ze Germans had managed to overwhelm the UK we might feel differently, but they didn´t so we don´t.
The Sleeping Bear. V True. Putin has always been banging on about the Russian Empire and how great his country is. But, like during the Cold War, they still only have a radio for 1/3 tanks, rely largely on undertrained conscripts, and have lots of internal conflict going on. But, by meeting with the Iranian President etc. they´ve laid their cards on the table and are definately the ni**er in the woodpile again.
billy,
sadly, in some cases yes. But most would stop at their own nation being attacked. There´s no love lost between the Brits and the Germans, or the French and the Brits, or the Dutch and the Germans, etc. I don´t think you get that in the States as much. For example, do you still find the old Confederate States hold a grudge or see themselves a seperate entity?
Like I said earlier, Europe isn´t yet a Federation of States like the US with the same common policies and a national European army. It´s a group of individual nations trying to sort out their shit, but failing miserably. There are more mosques being built in certain European countries (Britain included) than any other type of building. It´s very PC, to the point of infringing on personal freedom of speech and beliefs, and the War on Terror has been used to excuse all sorts of laws which only make things even worse. That´s one reason why I´m here and not there. England is no longer ´Mother of the Free´, I´m afraid.
I lived in Tennessee for about six months a while back and I was known (somewhat endearingly) as the damn Yank, even though I am Colombian. I became accepted when one of the "smarter" ones pointed out that it was in South Carolina :)
GIB,
That´s cos they´re all in Britain or Spain! :-)
I think that the intelligence and informant system is far better now. The UK has scuppered about 10 possible attacks on the UK mainland since 9/11. Then there were the one´s that managed to slip through the net anyway - small self-managed units with no official association with Al Qaida etc. Just young muslim guys with a bomb-making manual, their heads full of shit and an axe to grind against the very society that allowed them their freedom of belief, educated them, fed them, clothed them, housed them, and tried to integrate them. Sound familiar?
See, us Éuropeans aren´t that bad after all.
Except the French, Germans, Italians and Belgians. Oh, I forgot to mention our latest additions from the old Soviet Pact, and Turkey (which isn´t even in Europe and is prodominantly Muslim). Told you Europe was PC.
Pedro is right though. It´s seen as a moral question, which grates at the nerves a bit. It´s seen as the US overstepping the mark - nice big brother turning bully. You gotta have international support first.
And just to justify so much ´Off Topic´ stuff, don´t you think that Chaves and Hitler have a lot of similarities? Paranoia. Creating the Common Enemy, etc
