Pres. Hillary will be Bush Lite?

[ngant17]

Here is Hillary's recent statement wrt the blitzkreig attack by Columbia into Ecuador to kill the FARC guerrillas:

“Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.”

Sounds to me like she is ready to sink her teeth into another war. This was not an act of defense. It's a Hitlerian defense.

Correct me if I am wrong, those American citizens were essentially doing what Eugene V. Hasenfus did, the mercenary who spent three months in a Nicaraguan jail after his contra supply plane was shot down. They were hardly innocent tourists hiking in the jungle.

As for Obama, he didn't sound much better, but he was far more impartial and fair in describing the event than Hillary was.

[magbana]

1. OAS - A Colonial Ministry

It's unfortunate, but predictable that Clinton would take this public stance. I am copying here a post I put on another item on this topic so apologies if folks have read it already. Clinton's statement only further bears out what Fidel Castro called
the OAS: a colonial ministry.

Thanks for posting her statement.

It is always best to consider things in context. Venezuela did not lose anything at the OAS meeting. If anything, a resolution stating that Colombia violated Ecuador's sovereignty suggests that if Colombia tries something similar in Venezuela it would be deemed a violation of sovereignty as well. No one expected the OAS to "condemn" Colombia because it is a client state of the US and the US controls the OAS almost as much as it controls the UN Security Council.

The US is the missing piece of context in this discussion.

Now, why would Venezuela send troops to its border? A thousand reasons, but here are a few. The US takes its jabs at Venezuela through Colombia (and the threat of a US-armed military force) and has been doing so for a very long time. Plus, the US has operatives crawling all over Colombia under various covers and fronts such as: contractors, diplomats, NGO workers, and missionaries. So a cross-border attack by Colombia into Venezuela could escalate rapidly into confrontation with the US. All Colombia would have to do, under direction of the US, is engineer some incident between a couple of American "missionaries" and Venezuelan military. Wilder schemes have been used --don't forget the US invasion of Grenada based on protecting US students who said they didn't need protecting.

I also think that Venezuelan intelligence services have plenty of information about a variety of US-Colombian traps and schemes in the works. Don't forget that Venezuela gets a lot of help on intelligence from one of the best in the world – Cuba. I'm sure Fidel can testify to this.

Finally, the Venezuela-Colombia border is three quarters the length of the US-Mexico frontier, making it one of the longest common borders in the hemisphere. Chavez would be endangering the people of Venezuela if he did not secure this border given the long history of US-Colombian provocation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x2429#2457

[Bacchus39]

2. Colombia will be the strongest ally in the coming Democratic administration

that will not change, nor will animosity from Hugo.

[ngant17]

3. other than being a client state like Israel

I see no strategic value in Colombia, except for the facilities in transport and export of cocaine which I assume the former narcotrafficer Uribe is controlling (Uribe had been on the DEA’s "most wanted" list, and the Uribe trafficker-industrialist clique in Bogotá incorporates the paramilitaries directly into its 'democratic' police state).

Correct me if I'm wrong, according to Noam Chomsky, Colombia has been right behind Israel in terms of foreign/military aid from USA, their defense budget is 5 billion dollars?? That's a lot of bananas (or processed coca leaves) to export. That kind of expenditure is way out of proportion to the size of that country.

Maybe I'm wrong about Obama, but if Caroline thinks he's going to be a lot like JFK when elected, Uribe probably should be worried with a Pres. Obama after Nov. elections in US.

With a Hillary or a McCain, Colombia might feel confident enough to widen a war over there. I don't see the US staying afloat trying to handle Iraq and Afghanistan while a widening war in South America starts to brew. That's a lot of jungle to patrol, bigger and swampier than Viet Nam.

[Bacchus39]

4. no, I don't agree with that characterization

I see little evidence that Colombia would be marginalized while Obama or any other new president makes overtures towards Venezuela. I don't see it. and I don't see an impending war looming as some seem to be almost hoping for.

p.s. jungles aren't necessarily swampy.

[EFerrari]

5. It's so depressing to hear either of them talk about Latin America.

Dennis wouldn't have sounded like that, that's for sure.