|
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:27 PM by Peace Patriot
--against Venezuela and the other Andes democracies (rich in oil, gas, minerals and other resources), in his 'retirement.'
Didn't I call it? Didn't I? Yup. I did!
Wish I could find those posts. But no matter. He's out of the closet now.
People, we have not been posting passionately, and trading info, and battling trolls, over some minor, off the radar side-issue in U.S. politics--obscure countries in South America and their political troubles and U.S. foreign policy. Venezuela is CENTER STAGE in a WAR PLAN.
And we need to grok this fast. I thought this was a spoof when I first started reading it Truly. A joke. But it isn't. And I had put the matter in a file drawer myself, after I put my 'conspiracy theory' out there, about Rumsfeld's next move--thinking it was a long term plan. But now my brain is busy with it again, and some of the things Rumsfeld says in this op-ed indicate that the plan could be in motion NOW--not later.
It could be just a Bushite tactic to scare Venezuelan voters--typical terrorist instincts of the Bushites. But let's consider it as a serious plan--
"...we face a moment when swift decisions by the United States and like-thinking nations could dramatically help, supporting friends and allies with the courage to oppose an aspiring dictator with regional ambitions." --Rumsfeld
This indicates that they DO have a coup plan, and they ARE going to--or at least have plans drawn up to--provide U.S. military support of it. What else can "swift decisions" mean?
"Like-thinking nations"?
Is there anybody else in the world right now who could be described as "like-thinking nations" with Rumsfeld and the Bushites?
It's hard to come up with any candidates. The last of the Iraq "coalition" partners (or pretty much the last of them) have recently changed governments and are withdrawing their troops (Australia, the UK). Others long ago pulled out, and there is high hostility to the U.S. everywhere else. Russia, China and India and a number of other countries may be actively participating in a plan to CURTAIL the outlaw Bush regime. Who would cooperate with Rumsfeld in a military assault on the Bolivarian countries?
In South America...
Obviously Colombia. A Bush 'client state.' But who else? There are few countries left in South America that are not Chavez allies, with many leaders having gone out of their way to support him and fend off U.S. interference. One of them, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, has pledged NOT to renew the U.S. military base lease in Ecuador--but that won't expire for a year or so. So there may be some urgency to this Rumsfeld plan. (Ecuador borders Colombia, with Venezuela on the other side (NE) of Colombia.)
They've also beefed up the U.S. air base in Paraguay--which has about 500 U.S. troops (I think--trying to remember the details of all this), near a big chunk of land--200,000 acres?--on a major aquifer, that the Bush Cartel is rumored to have purchased. Paraguay may well go leftist in this year's election. (The highly revered and popular "bishop of the poor," Fernando Lugo, is running for president.) So time may be running out in Paraguay as well, as a useful launching pad for Oil War II (with no trouble from the gov't). Paraguay borders Bolivia (Chavez ally), also with big gas/oil reserves and other resources, and on-going destabilization efforts by the U.S. And, militarily, it would make sense to attack these two allies (Venezuela, Bolivia) simultaneously, so they can't help each other.
Ecuador (Bolivarian) and Peru (Bush-friendly, "free trade" zone) would be caught in the middle, of a simultaneous attack on Venezuela and Bolivia. Peru's president, Allen Garcia, is "bought and paid for," and likely would permit U.S. boots on the ground (or Blackwater boots) if Rafael Correa made some move to hamper the U.S. military in Ecuador. I should also mention the indigenous tribes mostly in mountainous areas, within and on the borders of all of these countries. Some of them are very activist and courageous people, who have been struggling against Corporate's pollution and destruction of their environments for decades. And those in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are allied with the Bolivarian governments and their leaders. (In fact, I think Evo Morales in Bolivia may have an indigenous presidential guard.)
But Colombia of course is wide open to the U.S. military and anything Donald Rumsfeld wants to do. I have been watching this FARC hostage negotiation thing in the news pretty closely, as I feared that it might be a trap for Chavez. Rumsfeld's disinformation about it is, of course, shameless.
Uribe (president of Colombia, Bush buddy) INVITED Hugo Chavez to try to negotiate a hostage release. He then, a few days ago, abruptly withdrew that request--after Chavez had made some progress on 'proof of life' issues. And the Colombian senator who was working with Chavez has been jailed--or charged with something.
Uribe's excuse for cutting off the negotiation was that Chavez had called a top general in the Colombia military. It was actually the senator who made the phone call; it was very short, and it was to verify the number of Colombian soldiers that FARC had kidnapped. And also, I suspect that Chavez needed direct assurance from the Colombian military that they could control their members and paramilitaries, who might use a negotiation to kill FARC leaders (and perhaps endanger Chavez himself). Uribe says Chavez broke the rules--called the military. (Why this was a rule--or if it really was--I don't know.) That is the excuse Uribe used to stop the negotiation--an odd excuse.
Now, some FARC members have been arrested (by Colombia) who were carrying the 'proof of life' documentation. Hostage families have rejoiced at the 'proof of life,' and have credited Chavez.
You have to wonder about the bad faith of arresting FARC members who may have been traveling to or from a negotiation site, and probably don't often get caught that way--don't travel in dangerous areas, where the Colombian military is in control.
What may have been going on with this--in the White House basement, Rumsfeld's hole in the Pentagon, and between the Bush Junta and Uribe? Could they have planned something, Chavez got onto it, and they aborted the plan? (Thus Uribe comes out and breaks off the negotiation, with some lame excuse.) Could the Colombian general have warned Chavez of something? If the plan was, say, to kill Chavez in the crossfire of some confused black ops scene, Rumsfeld & co. must be mighty disappointed about it. Thus he comes out with an op-ed virtually declaring war on Venezuela--possibly just to scare Venezuelan voters, but we don't know.
(There may have been a dress rehearsal, when some hostages were killed by the rightwing paramilitaries, recently. They apparently just sneaked up on the scene--a FARC camp--and started shooting, with no effort to protect the hostages. Confusion about it in the news went on for days. But finally somebody speaking for FARC said something like: why would we shoot our own hostages? We didn't do it. The attackers just started shooting and killed the hostages. (It wasn't crossfire. It was murder.) I wondered about this incident. Put in the present context, it makes sense as a rehearsal (which also include rehearsals of how things are to be played in the corporate media). Also, nobody knew who the attackers were. (Blackwater?)
Anyway, it's easy to believe that Colombia would collude with Rumsfeld/Bush on a war plan.
And I cannot think of another candidate country in South America who would do such a thing. Central America is another matter, though.
Mexico? Rightwing government (stolen election), big "war on drugs" military boondoggle, and a vast poor, discontented, activist, leftist population, which almost won the last election.
Guatemala? Cross-roads of drug/weapons traffic, very violent political scene, with horrendous U.S.-supported slaughter in the 1980s. But they just elected a progressive government--their first ever. President who opposes a police state and supports human rights. Not leftist/Bolivarian, as far as I know. Probably couldn't do much about U.S. military intervention.
Honduras? Extremely poor, corrupt rightwing gov't. Past launching pad for U.S. illegal wars (in Nicaragua, El Salvador). Nicaragua would probably resist U.S. Not sure of El Salvador (fairly rightwing, still). Panama, pretty much a U.S. 'client state.' Costa Rica would be very upset, but couldn't do much. Cuba? Who knows what Cuba would do? But the Bush Junta would nuke them without a thought, if they could find an excuse to do it.
And in the wider world?
Spain? Chavez obviously suspects them of something. Hard to say. It's supposed to have a socialist government.
EU? Complicity of some, possibly--but not openly. (Rich investors, banks, corps hurting from not being able rob the poor so much any more, via World Bank/IMF usury, and rip off their resources. Bolivarianism catching on all over the S/A continent.)
And don't forget Poland.
Some things that put this Rumsfeld war plan into the realm of the fantastic...
In Bush's visit to Latin America last spring, the president of Mexico (rightwing pal) publicly lectured Bush on the SOVEREIGNTY of Latin American countries, and mentioned Venezuela as an example! Figure THAT out. Would Calderon support U.S. military action against Venezuela and Bolivia? He'd have a general uprising on his hands if he did, I think.
Arrayed against Generalisimo Rumsfeld: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua, probably Chile, with some, like Paraguay, Peru, Mexico and others, possibly trying to be neutral, so as not to ignite revolution in their own countries.
It could possibly mean the END of U.S./Latin American relations. Break-off of diplomatic relations by many countries. Success of Nicaragua's recent proposal to create an OAS without the U.S. as a member. Quicker formation of a South American "Common Market" and common currency (to get off the dollar).
A diplomatic and economic disaster for the U.S.--akin to Iraq.
Not that that would stop Rumsfeld.
We need to consider a sneakier Rumsfeld war plan, which I will do in a moment. Also, the ECONOMIC war plan, the main overt thrust of this article.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
