War in South America?
by
Ted Slater
on Mar 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
A little over a year ago I included Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez among Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, North Korea's Kim Jong-il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an example of a leader who doesn't serve his country or his neighbors in the global community well.
Within a couple of comments, readers came to the defense of Chavez.
Turns out I was probably right to see Chavez as an unstable troublemaker. It looks like he may be preparing to join the Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in a war against Colombia.
According to Spanish language site noticias24, there's new evidence directly linking Chavez with FARC, a narco terrorist organization bent on the overthrow of the Colombian government. According to these documents, pulled from one of the FARC rebels' computers, Venezuela has given some $300 million to this Marxist organization, along with promises of weaponry, 50 Kg. of Uranium, and a number of other things.
According to a Washington Times story today, "Chavez threatened to join the rebels in a war to overthrow hard-line Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a key ally of the United States, deploying tanks, fighter jets and thousands of troops along the Colombian border." I'm not aware of anything like this happening in South America in decades.
Chavez went on to demonize the President of Colombia as a criminal and his government as a "terrorist" state. Predictably, Chavez placed the blame on their association with the United States, saying, "We don't want war, but we aren't going to permit the U.S. empire, which is the master ... to come divide us."
I've spent a couple of months in Colombia, and found the people to be warm and gracious. It's a wonderfully diverse country, and I hate to see it battered by violence internal and external. If you're internationally minded, maybe pray that the Lord would bring about a surprising peace for our friends to the south. And then say a word for those in Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran as well.
1. Leah had the following to say on Mar 3 at 4:41 PM:
If I remember correctly, nobody "came to the defense" of Chavez. Most everybody agreed he was a terrible ruler. They just didn't think he was an equivalent to Mugabe and Jong-il.
I don't really know an awful lot about the situation in South America anyway... I'm more interested in the African situation (ie. South Africa, Zimbabwe etc).
2. BDB had the following to say on Mar 3 at 5:04 PM:
Hmmm...not much need for aircraft in Iraq these days. Maybe we should send an aircraft carrier on a "goodwill" tour of South America...
3. Jacob Douvier had the following to say on Mar 3 at 5:33 PM:
Chavez is a thug.
4. Holly had the following to say on Mar 3 at 6:20 PM:
Ted, I think you're totally right about Chavez. He's an awfully popular terrible leader.
Have you considered, really, what part American hedgemony and the "war on drugs" plays in the Colombian conflict, though? The US government pretty much sponsors the Colombian government, to the tune of millions of dollars annually. So that's for military stuff, coca spraying stuff and some infrastructure stuff. But then our national drug habit sponsors the other side -- the FARC produces most of the world's cocaine, and United Statesians consume most of it, again to the tune of millions of dollars annually.
Just thinking, but what if somehow cocaine wasn't illegal? Would the loss of the huge huge street profits cripple the FARC? Could we stop subsidizing both sides of the Colombian conflict?
I know that's probably an unpopular thought, but consider it for just a minute. Drugs wouldn't be illegal (or at least not AS illegal), so the dealers wouldn't be in jail (saving millions of tax dollars a year), there wouldn't be turf wars about where dealers could deal (saving hundreds of lives), druggies wouldn't have to pay street prices (leading maybe to less crimes of theft?, and therefore less folks in jail), and we wouldn't be funding the doggone FARC (saving lives again, but this time Colombians).
I guess I'll be surprised if this is posted, but I really mean for it to be a thoughtful question.
5. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 3 at 6:36 PM:
As an American of Kurdish-Iranian heritage, allow me to opine on Iran a bit...
While the Iranian people generally hate their government, the last thing they want is the United States giving them regime change.
After all, each of their previous two regime changes--wherein the Shah came to power in 1953 and the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979--were the result of U.S. intervention in Iranian affairs.
In the first instance, our CIA (under Eisenhower) undermined a legitimate democratically-elected President (Nohammed Mossadegh). In the second, our CIA (under Carter) undermined the Shah and serenaded the Ayatollah into Tehran out of France. (He turned on us as soon as he got there.)
So, to make a long story short:
(1) We have established that the U.S. will undermine democracies when it suits their purposes.
(2) The last time the Iranians had a revolution that the U.S. supported, they got what they have now.
(3) American meddling in Iran has been a bipartisan disaster.
Ergo, one can understand why the Iranians--while harboring no hatred for Americans--aren't all that high on the idea of having another revolution that is backed by the United States.
6. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 3 at 6:45 PM:
Holly: As a libertarian, I concur with your sentiments about legalization (or, at the very least, decriminalization).
Right now, cartels are successful because the marginal benefits to them exceed the risks. Legalization (or decriminalization) would arguably cut into that margin.
In addition, it is fair to question the marginal benefit we have realized in our "war on drugs", versus the marginal cost in (a) dollars, (b) the expansion of the federal government, and (c) the commitment of law enforcement away from enforcing more serious offenses.
I mean good grief...this has devolved into schools implementing "zero tolerance" policies by which honors students who bring Advil to school are getting suspended.
7. Chris had the following to say on Mar 3 at 6:56 PM:
Holly writes:
I know that's probably an unpopular thought, but consider it for just a minute.
It's not as unpopular as you think. If we decriminalized drug possession, regulated and taxed it, took a mere fraction of the money we spend on the war on drugs and put it towards addiction treatment, and stopped mucking around in other countries' business, FARC and these other groups would find their funding dry up real fast.
That being said, Chavez in an egotistical goon. He also knows where his money comes from. He won't start a war in which the US will be involved directly or indirectly. Oil accounts for 50% of government revenue. The US itself takes 60% of Venezuela's oil (mainly because the US is one of the few countries that can refine a lot of the stuff that comes from Venezuela). He knows not to bite the hand that feeds him. He may be a socialist tyrant, but he's not dumb. (I hope.)
8. Michael had the following to say on Mar 3 at 7:00 PM:
@BDB
Not much need for aircraft in Iraq? Where would you get such an idea? We are constantly using them to support our ground troops (Close Air Support), on the constant lookout for IEDs, and being the "eyes in the sky" for our commanders and ground troops.
9. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 3 at 7:13 PM:
Do you apply the Chavez standard to Reagan for funding the Contras in Nicaragua? Was Reagan an unstable troublemaker?
ps I am not defending the funding of FARC here, just wondering if the same standard applies to all leaders?
10. BDB had the following to say on Mar 3 at 7:55 PM:
Holly (#4) wrote:
>>Would the loss of the huge huge street profits cripple the FARC? <<
Well, guns are legal to purchase in the U.S., and it does nothing to stop black-market gun traffiking. Alcohol is legal in the U.S. But that just means that someone purchases it at legal lower cost then puts on a party or "Rave" for under-age people who pay a lot more. It's not like the 21 age limit keeps college students from getting alcohol, just like restrictions on gun ownership don't prevent criminals from buying guns on the black market.
So, no, it seems quite unlikely that legalizing cocaine will remove black-market profits. But legalizing it will destroy many families and people turn from other drugs (like alcohol) to that one.
Ask someone whose grown up with an alcoholic...
11. John had the following to say on Mar 3 at 8:12 PM:
Holly has a point.
The so called drug "war" is a joke.
Any 14 year old can get any supposed to be illegal drug within 10 min to a day depending how expensive.
Chavez is a nutjob.
Surely our liberal friends who post here can see how Venezuela is an outstanding example of how socialism destroys a country.
Lesser miracles have occured.
Simón Bolivar must be turning over in his grave.
12. Jordan Peacock had the following to say on Mar 3 at 8:13 PM:
I don't mind reading Boundless, despite the one-sidedness of many posters (and the opposite one-sidedness of many of the commentators). I appreciate the perspective.
Like Holly says though, it's not a simple black/white I'm right you're wrong. That goes for many of Boundless' critics as well.
An openness to understanding is critical. In this case, it's understanding that the politics (U.S./Columbia, Columbia/Venezuala, Venezuala/U.S.) are ALL incredibly perverse and corrupt, and it's not a recent thing either.
There are exceptions to this rule, and anyone can point out to 'good' things that have occurred directly or indirectly due to the current leaders in these three countries.
But don't let that blind you. As for the U.S., while it is far from the worst offender in many international situations, it is also the one that holds many of the cards and as such, controls the way the hand is played (and who plays the hand). Understanding the systemic issues that occur due to that power struggle is crucial, and when coupled with the States' self-imposed idea of being the 'good guy' in all situations you have a heresy that needs to be fought constantly.
On the flip side, that cannot blind you to the true evil that is being perpetuated around the globe. The idiocy of someone who, out of righteous anger at the 13-year bombing of Iraq and the death of 500,000 children due to U.S.-led engagement and sanctions then going to defend Saddam Hussein's tortuous policies and heinous political career is ludicrous.
Therefore let the same caution and balance be exercised here. Peace to you, I pray I have not offended.
13. John had the following to say on Mar 3 at 8:26 PM:
Drug legalization is a very interesting proposal. I don't use any substances at all (save a little caffeine), but I do find it interesting that the government says things like alcohol, cigarettes, and even salvia divinorum are OK, but says countless others are not.
If some more substances were legalized, and heavy taxes placed on them, maybe we could lower the income tax. I feel the same way about cigarettes... I would never use them, but I'm glad they are heavily taxed - it saves me from having to fund that part of the government's budget.
Chavez... I will celebrate on the day he is thrown from power. High oil prices are the only reason he has been able to maintain his popularity, even though his destructive policies have hurt Venezuela's production levels. If oil prices fall, he's gone.
14. Patricia had the following to say on Mar 3 at 10:21 PM:
Eh, I'm not a fan of Chavez but I'm not sure he solely to blame for stirring up conflict in the region. I was listening to a special on NPR the other week about Chavez that was talking about the complexity of the situation in Venezuela. Also, I think it's a stretch to compare Chavez to rulers such as Kim Jong-Il. Chavez, for all his parts, is a genuinely elected democratic leader...
15. Leah had the following to say on Mar 3 at 10:36 PM:
Holly,
legalising cocaine would not stop gang wars. Instead of having gangs producing cocaine for street sellers, you'd have them producing it for shops, and you would still have just as much antagonism between different manufacturers.
I also believe druggies would still be commiting crimes to afford their next hit. I don't like to generalise, but it's true- for the most part, druggies that dependent upong drugs like cocaine aren't terribly good at keeping well-paying jobs for a decent amount of time. They'll be on low-paying jobs, jumping from job to job, possibly even be jobless- but will still need their drug hit, and will still commit crimes for the money. Whether it's legal or not. Look at alcohol. It's legal, and there's plenty of crime happening so people can get access to their next drink.
You also have to look at this AWAY from the money side of things- drugs are bad for you. They kill you. Our governments are not here just to make money, they are here to run the country and protect the people. Legalising drugs like cocaine is pretty much killing your people, not protecting them.
16. David R. had the following to say on Mar 4 at 1:55 AM:
One interesting similarity between Mugabe, Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad and Chavez is that while they all have enjoyed forays into the international community (mainly to make a few jabs at the US), they are most focused on maintaining power at home. This is especially true with Kim Jung-Il, which controls his populace like no one else, however it can also be seen with the others. Leaders of all stripes love to take events like this and use them to distract their populace from more petty concerns like massive inflation and institutional corruption.
Chavez certainly has ideological sympathies for FARC and will likely support them at a distance, however he's no fool. Attacking Columbia would bring a swift response from the US and likely diminish Chavez's power at home, which is what he cares about the most. It is primarily for this reason a war between Columbia and Venezuela is highly, highly unlikely, however there are many other reasons. For one, South Americans have never been big fans of war. Fighting a war in the terrain along the borders of most countries is a logistical nightmare. We're talking about fighting deep in the rainforest, then transporting men and equipment over mountains using infrastructure which ranges from poor to non-existent. Secondly the fact is that these countries are not wealthy and have economies which are quite fragile; war is usually a rich man's game. I believe the last conflict of any significance in South America was the Cenepa War between Ecuador and Peru in 1995 (this was actually a continuation of a conflict which had simmered since 1941). This conflict was very minor in relative terms (estimates are ~500 casualties), however it was at least partly responsible for sending the Ecuadorian economy into a financial crisis.
In short, I predict plenty of sabre rattling but no real action.
17. Elle Rae had the following to say on Mar 4 at 6:50 AM:
I've never commented on here before, but I do read this because I find it interesting, even if I don't agree with a lot of the stuff.
Anyway, I wanted to comment now because I am currently studying abroad in Venezuela and this whole thing kind of scares me. Apparently Chavez (who gets a lot of really random ideas in his head, then has the power to enact them) got the idea in his head that he wanted conflict, and therefore chose Colombia.
When it comes to Chavez and FARC, I've heard that he's not in it because of the drugs but rather for something like power, recognition and money, as well as a desire to create conflict, and by joining up with FARC, he can really upset the Colombian government. If you ask people here, nobody wants to go to war.
When talking to the people here, many of the people in the city I live in really dislike Chavez, and it seems obvious, but if you go just a few miles out where there are a lot of farms, peoples opinions are completely different. Mainly because he has guaranteed them money and jobs if he became president, and he has helped them in a number of ways which has given him a good base for support. I've heard him be considered "a monkey with a gun" meaning he's so ridiculous at times that it's almost comical, but then he has power which can turn into something dangerous.
What worries me is that if there is a war, I might have to leave. That would really be disappointing for me, as I do want to stay here.
18. BB had the following to say on Mar 4 at 7:08 AM:
"Within a couple of comments, readers came to the defense of Chavez.
Turns out I was probably right to see Chavez as an unstable troublemaker."
Way to go! In case they didn't know they were wrong before, now it appears there is an entire article proving it. I hate it when I say something that people won't believe. It always makes me feel good to prove I was right all along.
19. Holly had the following to say on Mar 4 at 8:57 AM:
thanks for considering my thoughts, y'all. I sort of expected to get pounded.
BDB, do you think really that the regulation of alcohol makes a good parallel to the outright illegality of drugs? I know in college I never paid exorbitant prices for drinks... but really, even in the scenario you posed, where someone buys drugs at a normal (legal) price, and then puts on a rave for under-age folks, charging them lots more, the profits would go to that middle man, not the FARC. Right? So yes, you'd still have a domestic problem to some extent, but you wouldn't be funding an international problem in the same way. Just thinking...
And Leah, you may well be right about druggies still having the same problems, but I'm not too sure. Look at cigarettes, maybe? You don't see very many people losing jobs and being generally poor society members because of their nicotine addiction. Cocaine and other hard drugs are different than nicotine, yes, but I still submit to you that most of the crime (theft, violence) associated with drugs is because of their illegality and the high prices that follow. And I, for one, don't really want the government to make laws to "protect" me from making bad choices... that, dear friends, is a slippery slope indeed.
anyhoo, thanks for thinking with me.
20. xeres had the following to say on Mar 4 at 9:12 AM:
Holly,
Govt can be too purtaintical. However, I hope you are not saying that drug addiction is acceptable by all means. I would be very concerned. Everytime I hear arguments for legalizing drugs, it seems that the people who support it often don't know what it's like to have a loved one who is chronic drug addict. Drug addiction is a terrible thing, especially when it degrades the human body and mind.
21. Ted Slater had the following to say on Mar 4 at 9:51 AM:
Latest news, from El Tiempo:
Colombian President Álvaro Uribe said, "nuestro embajador en Naciones Unidas anunciará que Colombia se propone en la Corte Penal Internacional denunciar a Hugo Chávez, presidente de Venezuela, por patrocinio y financiación de genocidas."
Essentially, Colombia is asking the International Criminal Court to bring up charges against Chavez for "sponsoring and financing genocide."
Serious things going on down there....
22. John had the following to say on Mar 4 at 10:12 AM:
#7 said it best. Decriminalize, not legalize. There's a difference.
It doesn't work people. We tried it with alcohol, did you see what happened with that.
Thanks to prohibition, we got Capone.
That's exactly what we have today. Only they're far more dangerous than Capone ever was.
Anywho, Chavez is the typical socialist leader. The masses love him all the way down the toilet bowl that he's taking the country.
Venezuela and Colombia are beautiful countries. It's a shame they're being destroyed by lunatics.
23. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 4 at 2:07 PM:
Chavez can't be charged before the ICC. First, Venezuela is not a signatory to the Rome Statute (don't yell too loudly, neither is the US). Second, Chavez is an incumbent Head of State and has absolute immunity for his actions. Third, and most importantly (morally if not legally) the actions of FARC do not fall within the definition of genocide.
24. Leah had the following to say on Mar 4 at 6:21 PM:
Holly, there are different levels of protection. Protecting your people against killing themselves is one thing. Protecting them against making unwise decisions is quite another. I think it's completely allowable for a government to take steps to prevent access to things- like drugs- which will do nothing but kill you. (ie. alcohol, guns, etc etc can do things other than kill you so it's ok for them to be legal).
Also, cigarettes, while being addictive, don't give the same high that hard drugs do (from what I have heard and read). I think people would go to lesser lengths to get their next nicotine hit as opposed to their next heroine or cocaine hit. Think about it-heroine, cocaine, alcohol etc change your perception of reality. They take you out of reality, make the world all ok, even if it's not. Nicotine doesn't do that. It's addictive, but not as mentally affecting. It's that drive for the change of reality that drives people to commit such crimes to afford their next hit. (This is what I've read in books written by ex-drug addicts). That's why I don't think cigarette addicts would ever go to such lengths as hard drug, or even alcohol, users. So I don't think you can ever compare the legalisation and crime associated with hard drugs to that of cigarettes.
Also, when it comes to holding down jobs and being decent members of society etc etc, it's that same mental affliction which makes cigarette users much better at it than hard drug users. Cigarettes don't mess up your mind like hard drugs do.
25. BDB had the following to say on Mar 4 at 6:45 PM:
Michael (#8) wrote:
>>Not much need for aircraft in Iraq? Where would you get such an idea? <<
Honestly? I did an Air Force citizen's leadership tour and they walked us through when they needed to call up reserves and when they didn't. Frankly, the AF combat portion was over in about 60 days; the operating tempo reduced a lot. For example, there's no need for three carriers in the Persian Gulf and one in the Red Sea under normal circumstances.
More and more of the daily surveilance can be done with Predator and Global Hawk drones; flights of F/A-18's are not needed every day. Close air support can be provided by F-16's and A-10's, not to mention rotary wing aircraft based closer. It's not like there's a sophisticated air defense network requiring Stealth aircraft over Iraq. We control air defense at this time.
We have 12 Nimitz-class carriers; just send one to "visit" Mr. Chavez. What's the Atlantic fleet up to these days, anyway?
26. BDB had the following to say on Mar 4 at 7:06 PM:
Holly (#19) wrote:
>>BDB, do you think really that the regulation of alcohol makes a good parallel to the outright illegality of drugs?<<
Absolutely.
Alcohol prohibition in the U.S. was driven by moral outrage at the way alcoholics were unable to support their families. The solution was to eliminate alcohol to protect families. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and created NASCAR. (Ok, it created people making alcohol in their own stills and smuggling it around, not to mention gangsters like Al Capone who profited by smuggling alcohol.)
Like harder drugs, Alcohol kills people who use it. It's far more dangerous to your health than guns. Ask anyone who's lost a relative to a drunk driver. If we were to base legislation based on deaths caused, alcohol should be banned and guns should be available in vending machines, like cigaretes used to be.
There are huge, huge secondary costs to drug use. Even if pot smokers are nonviolent, they are not contributing members of society. Why should any of my money, or God's money, go to support someone who wants to spend their life in a drugged stupor? If they can't work, should anyone be providing them food?
The reality is that the only people who can use drugs without impacting the lives of others are individuals who are independently wealthy with no family. How many people like that are there? Everyone else who uses drugs is negatively impacting the lives of others without their consent. And THAT is why drugs are illegal.
It is somewhat easier for an alcoholic to be "functioning" and hold a job, but it can still devastate their family. And the attempt at alcohol prohibition was driven heavily by the negative impacts on families by users who failed to fulfill their responsibilities.
There are those in the world who think America is much too tolerant with those who possess and use drugs. Just this past weekend my pastor was mentioning a sign he saw getting off the plane in Singapore. It was a noose with words that said: No Drugs - Death Penalty.
27. Tom Neven had the following to say on Mar 4 at 9:51 PM:
BDB (#25)
Umm, not to put this too bluntly, but you have no idea what you're talking about. First, the F/A-18 is a Navy-Marine Corps aircraft, not Air Force.
Rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters to the uninitiated) cannot deliver precision-guided bombs such as the JDAM, nor can they fly as fast or as high as needed for certain types of missions. And that's without mentioning their limited range, relatively slow speed, and vulnerability to ground fire.
We have no carriers in the Red Sea. You probably mean the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf. Between them, they can pretty easily cover most of the MIddle East.
Finally, you never send "just enough." You always send overwhelming force to discourage a fight in the first place. That was the classic error in the post-Iraq War phase; we had "just enough" troops and not the overwhelming force that some generals had recommended in order to maintain order. That fatal miscalculation (among many) probably led to the initial stages of the insurgency that we're only now quelling.
28. Nate had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:22 AM:
I have spent many years living in Venezuela, a country which I love and call home. Currently, however, I am not living there b/c of the political situation. It breaks my heart to see the suffering of the Venezuelan and Colombian people as a result of Chavez's regime.
First, I would like to point out that Chavez is a dictator of the worst kind. For those who are left of center on the political spectrum and feel obligated to defend any cause labeled "leftist" by the media, don't believe all the propaganda about Chavez being a socialist. Socialists have an ideology; Chavez does not. His only goal is make himself as rich and as powerful as possible while effectively making life for the poor even more miserable than before. He is essentially sending the Venezuelan economy into a tail spin. Basic food staples that were once plentiful are now scarce or impossible to find. Crime has jumped exponentially. I have friends who live in the slums of Caracas who are now living in worse conditions than before as a result of this "administration." Chavez is an incompetent thug who likes to intimidate people into submission. In essence, "a clown with a beret." This latest tactic is designed to distract the average Venezuelan's attention from the terrible conditions at home. It is just one more manipulation.
Also, I would like to address those posts that indicate some people believe the FARC is an "insurgent" group rather than a terrorist organization. The FARC is currently holding many hundreds of people against their will in primitive conditions that most humanitarian organizations would probably classify as torture. They have systematically intimidated, displaced, tortured, raped, and killed poor Colobian farmers who are just trying to make enough money to feed their families. Why? For some lofty dream of creating an egalitarian utopia where the peasants who they are currently mistreating can be treated well? The answer is absolutely no. The first generation of Colombian guerillas may have had an ideology. The current generation is fighting for control of land that they can use to grow cocaine. The term "narcoterrorism" best describes their activities. Anyone who is familiar with the situation knows that the FARC today is fighting for money and power, not for Marxist ideals. Like Chavez, they are in it for themselves.
It saddens me that most people are truly in the dark about international affairs. It also saddens me that people so swiftly stand up to defend hideous organizations like the FARC just b/c they are ignorant of the facts. For those socialists out there: Do you really think you can vehemently oppose "torture" in Guantanamo and then turn a blind eye to outright genocide and expect people to take you seriously? If you truly want to defend the rights of the oppressed and be a voice for justice in the world, have you raised your voice on behalf the Colombian peasants who are being massarced? Have you denounced the FARC as vehemently as you denounce other human rights abuses? I am in favor of fighting for human rights. Before you speak in favor of human rights, however, you must be free from hypocrisy.
29. Nate had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:34 AM:
A side note. For those of you who think decriminalizing drugs would be a good thing, check out a very real example from history. Back when the British were still calling the shots in the Orient, they forced China to legalize opium. The results speak for themselves. Addiction sky-rocketed. Men spent all of their time in opium dens, while women and children were left at home, starving to death. These same children grew up to become addicts themselves. Legalizing drugs undermined the family, causing societal chaos.
On a personal level, I agree with what xeres (20) had to say: "Everytime I hear arguments for legalizing drugs, it seems that the people who support it often don't know what it's like to have a loved one who is chronic drug addict." One of my friends died from a drug overdose. He was a Christian and I'm sure God was planning to use him to bless many people. He was tempted and succumbed. Drug addiction is not logical and it takes no prisoners. It is Satan's tool to destroy the those for whom Christ died.
30. obewan had the following to say on Mar 5 at 7:38 AM:
Does this mean we should boycott Chevron gas since Chevez owns most of the company? There have been several emails circulating telling people that their Chevron gas money funds that bad guys. I forget once and awhile and buy Chevron anyway. It is the closest station to my house.
31. T. Suarez had the following to say on Mar 5 at 9:19 AM:
Venezuela own Citgo, not Chevron. Please don't take it out on the poor Chevron owners.
I cut my Citgo card in half and sent it back to the company saying that as long as Chavez was in power, I would never buy there again.
32. John had the following to say on Mar 5 at 10:57 AM:
"Socialists have an ideology; Chavez does not. His only goal is make himself as rich and as powerful as possible while effectively making life for the poor even more miserable than before."
Umm, that's exactly the ideology of socialism. Pretend to help the poor, while actually making life worse for them and everyone else. Chavez is the perfect example of a socialist.
"Anyone who is familiar with the situation knows that the FARC today is fighting for money and power, not for Marxist ideals. Like Chavez, they are in it for themselves."
Those ARE Marxist ideals. Man, you were going well until here. FARC are terrorist cowards. Just like any good communist, they are trying to overthrow law and order to gain control for their selves.
You all need to read Animal Farm.
Decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing. You don't have to legalize something, neither should you create an artificial market for it.
Has the war on drugs worked? No
Did prohibition work? No
The laws make it lucrative to be involved in drug selling.
Things have to change, or the FARC will simply continue doing what it does, with the help of Chavez.
Venezuela is a socialist's nightmare, but also the reality of a socialist's dreams.
33. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 5 at 11:23 AM:
John:
I agree. Animal Farm and 1984 are two of the most important modern classics. I read both in 9th grade, and have re-read them many times over.
Orwell himself had an overly romanticized view of Leninism--sadly, he was idealist with respect to communism while rightly critical of Stalinism--but 1984 was remarkably on the money with respect to totalitarian government as a whole.
Whether we want to admit it or not, both political parties are advancing us in that direction.
34. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:21 PM:
Amir,
My personal favorites on social issues were Brave New World and Tess of the D'Ubervilles.
Yeah...I'm way off topic...
35. BDB had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:39 PM:
Tom (#27) wrote:
>>Umm, not to put this too bluntly, but you have no idea what you're talking about. First, the F/A-18 is a Navy-Marine Corps aircraft, not Air Force. <<
OK dude, let's play. If you re-read my original post, I said that there was no need for F/A-18s because there were air force planes who could handle the same missions. With bases availabe in Iraq, you can use an F-16 to handle any mission an F/A 18 can do, except land on a carrier.
I got my information from a 4-star general at Patterson AFB. Who are you getting yours from? Granted, I was on the "unclassified" tour, maybe you have access to classified information I don't.
JDAMs are good if you have a target list, but once all the fixed targets are gone, you need a lot less of them. You certainly don't need four aircraft carriers in theater; you need a few B-1's available with 16 in the bay; they can stay available and drop one when needed. You can also use B-52's armed with JDAMs, which are probably less expensive than a carrier strike group.
But JDAMs are really too big for light infantry targets, which is what we have in Iraq. You don't need a 1000-lb warhead to take out a sniper. If they had a 250-lb one, that would work a lot better for close air support, but they don't. Mavericks carried on a Predator drone are much more effective for this - that's the way to take out a Toyota pickup with an RPG in the back - especially if you don't want to blow up the whole neighborhood.
>>We have no carriers in the Red Sea.<<
Correct - we had one carrier group there for Gulf War I to hit targets in Western Iraq. You're proving my point - there's less need for carriers at this time. Neither the B-1 nor the B-2 were operational in the first war. JDAMs were pretty new then, too.
Army rotary-wing aircraft are designed for close air support - they use precision laser-guided and heat-guided missles. Yes they are more vulnerable than an F/A-18 and 30,000 feet. But they are also a lot more accurate with less collateral damage. F/A-18s and F-16s are too fast to be effective against light infantry - something the Army folks on the ground keep saying. But the Air Force is still deeply affected by pilots taken as prisoners in Vietnam, so they're still managing the force structure to avoid losing pilots.
The best fixed-wing aircraft for close air support is the A-10 Warthog. They are vulnerable to sophisticated air defense missles, but quite resistant to anything light infantry can throw at them. If the Army were not prohibited by law from operating fixed-wing aircraft, they'd love to take the A-10 from the Air Force and keep operating it. But they are not carrier-based aircraft, so again, no need for multiple carriers.
Frankly, the Persian Gulf would probably be fine without any carriers right now. As they've done before, they can base an equivalent number of air force tactical aircraft in the theater to fly around and do nothing. Carriers are tools of foriegn policy.
The purpose behind the air force's growing drone attack aircraft progam is to solve some of the close air support problems without putting pilots at risk. It doesn't make the Army guys on the ground feel that much better since they are still at risk. The Air Force is right - no bombs have fallen on American troops since WWII. But once there is no opposing air force, and there is no surface-to-air missle system to contend with, then the remaining close air suppor needs are not best served by fast tactical aircraft at high altitude.
36. BDB had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:59 PM:
I think this is the best line I've heard on the CITGO thing:
"(not least of which is the notion that threatening not to buy gasoline from someone who is threatening not to sell it to you doesn't sound like an effective ploy for either side)."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/citgo.asp
Chevron is better for your engine anyway...
37. Jo had the following to say on Mar 5 at 2:10 PM:
"There are huge, huge secondary costs to drug use."
Like that the very first time you smoke a joint of cannibis, you increase your risk of psychotic breakdown eightfold. And cannibis isn't even a 'hard' drug, hehh.
#32, 33, 34...
I compared 1984 and Brave New World for my English Lit A-level. Very interesting books. Not much fun though.
38. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 5 at 2:49 PM:
John,
1984 is one of my favorite books and certainly a modern classic.
What you are doing though is merely caricaturing socialism.
Quote "... the ideology of socialism. Pretend to help the poor, while actually making life worse for them and everyone else"
I suggest perhaps you spend a bit of time to read the Communist Manifesto or another work on the communist/socialist ideal. If you did you would see that the aim is not pretending to help the poor while making life worse for them. The aim is to make life fairer and better for everyone. Now I'm not a socialist/communist but really, a little intellectual honesty from you wouldn't go astray. Certainly however, one can make a strong argument that socialism/communism has failed to meet its goals.
39. Tom Neven had the following to say on Mar 5 at 8:58 PM:
Except Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons, while fully carrier-capable, are land-based. They are also the close air support specialists, as are all Marine fast-mover pilots.
JDAMS are GPS-guided fin kits. All you need are GPS coordinates. I was able to pinpoint the map coordinates on a target down to six digits long before the days of GPS. (My secondary MOS was naval gunfire forward observer.) If I could do it with a map, compass and binoculars, surely they can do it with GPS. No, it’s not perfect for all situations, especially in a quick-call mission, since the coordinates have to be programmed in, but not nearly as impractical as you make it sound.
They’re not there just for Iraq. They’re also on a “presence” mission to show Iran we won’t let them intimidate merchant ships in the Persian Gulf, which they’ve done in the past.
Sure they do. The 250-pound JDAM is called the GBU-29. The 500-pounder is the GBU-30. But you’re right: if it’s a quick-call mission, a JDAM is not likely what you would call for. But if you’re going to move on a planned target (e.g., an IED “factory”) you’d have the coordinates beforehand.
No argument there.
Marine fast-movers don’t attack from 30,000 feet. They come in low and fast. The Marine Corps invented close air support. In my day, when we used A-4s and F-4s for CAS, they said that if you didn’t come back with twigs and leaves in your bomb racks, you were flying too high.
And yes, helicopters such as the Apache and the SuperCobra are designed for CAS. They’re just not capable of every mission. It’s not a matter of one being “better” than the other; it’s just that helicopters are not right for every mission, just as fixed-wing jets are not right for every mission.
You won’t hear Marines saying that, at least when it comes to working with Marine pilots.
Again, no argument. If the A-10 was carrier-capable, the Marines would have scarfed it up years ago. I worked with Air Force A-10s out of Nellis during a joint Marine Corps-Air Force training mission at Twentynine Palms in California. They are an awesome weapon. Their engines give off a very distinctive whining sound as they come in slow for the attack, and you wonder why they don’t fall out of the sky, they’re flying so slow. Iraqis were known to soil themselves just upon hearing that sound. It was/is by far the most feared weapon in the war.
Which is precisely why they’re in the Persian Gulf. It communicates volumes to Iran and reassures our allies.
40. John had the following to say on Mar 6 at 6:08 AM:
Jethro,
No caricaturing needed.
No path of good intentions was ever paved so well as that of socialism.
Yes, of course the motto is "fairer for everyone". The only problem is it's not!
Socialism simply does not work.
It's been tried and found wanting all over the world. It's flawed theoretically and failed empirically.
It's a utopian pipe dream. It assumes people are good and will always do the right thing. On top of that, it completely disregards the basic functions of fundamental economics (supply and demand and prices). Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons?
The only thing it is good for is for people like Chavez and Clinton to use it as a carrot to gain more power.
It was said, by a socialist/communist, that religion is the opium of the masses. They were right and that religion is socialism. Its idol: the state, its savior: the state.
By the way, I said read Animal Farm, not 1984, though both are great books and should be required reading, along with Brave New World.
41. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 6 at 10:44 AM:
John: That's correct. I mentioned 1984, but it was the same author.
The funny part was the hoopla over 1984 when I was in 11th grade. Which was...1984.
42. BDB had the following to say on Mar 7 at 3:06 PM:
Tom (#39):
>>Except Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons, while fully carrier-capable, are land-based.<<
So, again, you don't need the carrier in the Persian gulf...I think you agree with me on that, yes? We can redeploy them elsewhere...
>>Marine fast-movers don’t attack from 30,000 feet. They come in low and fast.<<
Until a few are shot down and their tactics are changed to high altitude, as happened in GW-I. That's why JDAMs were created - to allow high-altitude attacks with the same accuracy as low-altitude runs. They're still too big for clearing buildings in areas populated by civilians.
>>You won’t hear Marines saying that, at least when it comes to working with Marine pilots.<<
True...mostly you hear Marine and Army folks pointing out how the other service is using the wrong tactics on the ground. I don't think there are easy answers to that question.
I will admit that I haven't worked on the planes myself. But I do have my "coin" from the 4-star's PowerPoint presentation on close air support.
Leave a carrier in the Gulf for presence, and send one for joint exercises with Chile...
43. BDB had the following to say on Mar 8 at 1:03 AM:
More tactical info:
They didn't have JDAMs until after GW-I.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/jdam.html
(Note the part about the "250-lb" GBU-29. It seems that the contract was cancelled. But it looks like the USAF is using the GBU-38/B with a BLU-126/B warhead to achieve the same goal as a 250-lb warhead - to reduce collateral damage.)
(While I didn't have a MOS, since I left ROTC during my first year, I learned computer mapping from the same people who project-managed the defense mapping agency Iraq maps for GW-I. That's were they geocoded all the GPS coordinates for all the targets. That war didn't use JDAMs, but did use GPS coordinates for waypoints for aircraft with laser-guided ordnance. I'm sure those base maps are still in use with updates.)