Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Aug '09 17:13 / 1 edit
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8215504.stm

    Brazil's leader has called on US President Barack Obama to meet South American leaders to calm fears about the US military presence in Colombia

    Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his concerns in a phone call to President Obama, Brazil's foreign minister said.
    He wants guarantees that US troops will be restricted to fighting drugs and terrorists within Colombia only.


    but I wonder, why exactly is he doing this? what benefit would come out of it? Why is Lula interfering with something that concerns only Colombia and the US?

    Venezuela and Ecuador had expressed fears the move amounted to preparation for an invasion of their countries by US forces

    yeah, like that isn't a serious case of paranoia.
    but I understand their fear, after all, the left-wing caudillos that run both countries have been supporting the FARC.

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned that "the winds of war were beginning to blow" across the region.

    which is strange coming from him, who often threatens to start a war with colombia and also claims he'll invade Bolivia in case the "elite" overthrows his little pal morales.
    If there are indeed "winds of war" blowing in the region the only person to blame is himself.
  2. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    22 Aug '09 17:45
    You're the most stupid and unoriginal user in this whole site.

    Do yourself a favor and finish with a bullet the task your mom failed at when choosing the abortion clinic.
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    22 Aug '09 18:05
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8215504.stm

    [b]Brazil's leader has called on US President Barack Obama to meet South American leaders to calm fears about the US military presence in Colombia


    [i]Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his concerns in a phone call to President Obama, Brazil's foreign minister said.
    He wants guarantees t ...[text shortened]... e are indeed "winds of war" blowing in the region the only person to blame is himself.[/b]
    I've never understood why America feels the need to have so many bases overseas. The United States seems to want to play world policeman.
  4. 22 Aug '09 18:07
    Originally posted by Seitse
    You're the most stupid and unoriginal user in this whole site.

    Do yourself a favor and finish with a bullet the task your mom failed at when choosing the abortion clinic.
    You're the most stupid and unoriginal user in this whole site.

    is this a self-description? its pretty good, except you forgot to mention the silly mexican stereotypes and the constant 10-yr-old name-calling.



    and as usual the imature attention-seeking a-hole (aka seitse) has no point to make, instead he tries to hijack this thread with his unbecoming outburts.
    nice try, next time you should try something in spanish, so that it goes with your forced steretype.
  5. 22 Aug '09 18:08
    Originally posted by bill718
    I've never understood why America feels the need to have so many bases overseas. The United States seems to want to play world policeman.
    that may be true, but still, this doesn't concern Lula, or chavez.
  6. 23 Aug '09 19:24
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8215504.stm

    [b]Brazil's leader has called on US President Barack Obama to meet South American leaders to calm fears about the US military presence in Colombia


    [i]Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his concerns in a phone call to President Obama, Brazil's foreign minister said.
    He wants guarantees t ...[text shortened]... e are indeed "winds of war" blowing in the region the only person to blame is himself.[/b]
    It's true that the Venezuelan regime has been pushing for opportunities to start wars, only he may already be too late to fool himself much longer with the dramatic fall in the price of oil.

    He was trying to provoke a war against Columbia due to some attacks launched against rebels protected within their territory. Most Latin American countries condemned Columbia's action but did not back Venezuela's war push, which I think is a diplomatic way of letting the child chavez vent that he was right whie standing firmly for peace against the wannabe mussolini.

    The same thing is happening again. Columbia is fighting rebels within its own territory this time, and cooperating with the US within Columbian territory. Now Chavez wants to call this war moves? He's the one buying up Russian arms over the last decade and trying to build up his milliatry. He's the one who idolizes millitary latina american figures like simon bolivar who found for independence for many regions in latin america, including regions that Chavez wants to ally to himself with free trade accords. He names his movements after Bolivar. He provokes war with Columbia to push such millitary campaining dreams.

    Although Chavez may be able to take Columbia without any outside peacekeeping parties involved, he cannot win wars without the support of governments which hold the balance of power in Latin America, and those remain the ABC (Argentina, Brazil, Chile) powers and Mexico. None of them seem interested in war and often continue the same strategy as last time, which is to condemn the actions that against outrage Chavez so much, but to stand for peace. Brazil seems to be saying, yeah US, let's clarify, you don't want to attack Chave, right, so now we don't have a reason to go against you.

    Chavez appears to be showing cracks and beginning the process of crumbling... and at only 10 years of age... what a sad, sad little socialist.
  7. 23 Aug '09 20:09
    If Brazil and Argentina do not do enough to keep Chavez from starting wars, they may go down in history as the countries that most enabled the next little tyrant to run deadly and costly wars on Latin America, since Paraguay's leader fought Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay in the War of the tripple aliance.

    Chavez is exactly that type of egocentric magalomaniac that would make Napoleon or Hitler proud.
  8. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    24 Aug '09 01:22
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    that may be true, but still, this doesn't concern Lula, or chavez.
    U.S. bases in columbia don't concern chavez -- when chavez has been saber rattling with columbia?

    I don't understand your point, at all.
  9. 24 Aug '09 16:22
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    If Brazil and Argentina do not do enough to keep Chavez from starting wars, they may go down in history as the countries that most enabled the next little tyrant to run deadly and costly wars on Latin America, since Paraguay's leader fought Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay in the War of the tripple aliance.

    Chavez is exactly that type of egocentric magalomaniac that would make Napoleon or Hitler proud.
    I think its pointless to hope argentina or brazil will do something, since Mr. squid considers chavez an ideological ally.
    Lets not forget there were rumors about mrs.kircherner receiving money from the venezuelans, and also, that both countries have always been either friendly or indifferent to each other.
  10. 24 Aug '09 16:24
    Originally posted by joneschr
    U.S. bases in columbia don't concern chavez -- when chavez has been saber rattling with columbia?

    I don't understand your point, at all.
    when chavez has been saber rattling with columbia?

    all the time.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia-Venezuela_relations
  11. 25 Aug '09 04:43
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    I think its pointless to hope argentina or brazil will do something, since Mr. squid considers chavez an ideological ally.
    Lets not forget there were rumors about mrs.kircherner receiving money from the venezuelans, and also, that both countries have always been either friendly or indifferent to each other.
    Yes, he may be able to start a war while Brazil and Argentina look away twidling their thumbs with a look of fear in their eyes.

    However, even if they don't stop him directly, they may do enough by undermining him rather than appeasing him.

    There should definitely be a peace block in Latin America that can move faster than the United Nations to stop wars of agression, like NATO kicking Sadam Hussein out of Iraq. The ABC powers and Mexico can pretty much tell the rest of Latin America to behave or else... if they really want to. I'm sure regional mini-powers like Columbia and Costa Rica would be interested in supporting such a force. I doubt that any of Chavez's allies would be stupid enough to start or support wars of agressions when they are opposed by the ABC powers and Mexico, even if they thought they could take Columbia (and maybe combined they might be able to with Chavez's new millitary weaponry). Then again, it wouldn't be wise to underestimate a country like Columbia's ability to repel a mini power like Venezuela from its home soil. Still, a quicker end to agression with the powers that be standing for peace and stability in the region.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Aug '09 06:24
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    There should definitely be a peace block in Latin America that can move faster than the United Nations to stop wars of agression, like NATO kicking Sadam Hussein out of Iraq.
    NATO invaded Iraq? How do you figure that? And what "war of aggession" did the attack on Iraq stop?
  13. 25 Aug '09 14:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    NATO invaded Iraq? How do you figure that? And what "war of aggession" did the attack on Iraq stop?
    1991 also known as the Gulf War, most forces contributed were from NATO countries.
    EDIT: I see the confusion, make that kicking Sadam Hussein out of "Kuwait" (ending Hussein's war of agression)
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Aug '09 14:23
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    1991 also known as the Gulf War, most forces contributed were from NATO countries.
    So you are under the impression that the 1991 Gulf War was a NATO operation?
  15. 26 Aug '09 03:07
    Originally posted by FMF
    So you are under the impression that the 1991 Gulf War was a NATO operation?
    Oh please, don't tell me because the UN was involved, that you give more credit to the UN than to NATO which supplied the majority of arms and was quicker moving.

    Bush Senior was wise enough to gather a coalition to stop a war of agression. He could have done it with NATO forces, but he also wisely made it a worldwide cooperation in official name... if not in practical brute force.

    Show me the prove that you offer that it was not primarily and principally NATO millitary forces involved and quit wasting time with nonsense.