Originally posted by FMF
There is no confusion whatsoever about the comparison you made.
Do you think U.S. boots on the gound in Latin America - a la Colombia, and then perhaps in several countries - is the right way forward - strategically, for the region?
For Columbia, at least, I think so only because Chavez continuously forces the Columbians to fear for their safety and to plan to defend themselves from acts of aggression or preemptive strikes.
'CARACAS – Opposition Metropolitan Mayor Antonio Ledezma warned that President Hugo Chávez was “irresponsibly playing with a war against Colombia – and trying to use the occasion of the Union of Southern Nations (Unasur) summit as a “trench or a tribune” in his so far verbal battle with Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe.
In this, Ledezma was reflecting what appears to be a cause of concern in some quarters – namely, that Chávez’s warlike rhetoric could somehow slip into the real thing. Or as one worried citizen in Chacao recently put it, “talking himself into an accident waiting to happen”.
Ledezma has been on a foreign tour trying to get his view of developments in Venezuela across to foreign onlookers whom he and his sympathizers suspect do not understand the true nature of Chávez’s authoritarian, populist approach to politics.'
...
' In the United States, Congressman Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, disagreed with Chavez about the agreement:
“In spite of reports to the contrary, this bilateral agreement only regularizes cooperation between the U.S. and Colombia," said Engel. "It envisions no permanent U.S. bases or increased military deployments." '