A01913
Articles : GovernmentSpanish Arms Sale to Chávez
This fall has been a trying time for the Bush administration, both at home and around the world, but in no arena is its reputation more compromised or the contempt with which it is held is greater than throughout Latin America. In the midst of the most vulnerable period for the Bush Administration to date, a fire-tongued South American leader has dared to step up and publicly and repeatedly blast Washington. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez Frías capitalized on November’s Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina to bash President Bush and his shortsighted policies for the Western Hemisphere, and has continued his criticism of Bush’s domestic and international policies, particularly when it comes to Washington’s arrogance of power and the White House’s one-sided trade policy for the region.
Chávez also has been an indefatigable booster of the expansion of Mercosur, and the strong possibility that in the future Latin America will have its principal trade ties with the EU rather than the U.S. While the sour relations between Chávez and Bush are nothing new, what has gone largely unexamined during the latest spat between the White House and Venezuela’s radical president is the underlying significance of the caustic relations between the U.S. and one of its largest foreign oil suppliers, and perhaps even more importantly, is conflict between them inevitable?
Furthermore, is the Spanish sale of equipment which, Caracas insists, will be utilized in the war against drugs, any more menacing than the $500 million sale of U.S. F-16s to Chile, which demonstrably has the potential to trigger an arms race with Peru and Argentina? Ironically, the chief Lockheed lobbyist for the sale of F-16s to Chile was Otto Reich, who later became one of Venezuela’s most bitter, if not most controversial, critics. After he joined the Bush administration as its assistant secretary of state for western hemispheric affairs and later as a White House advisor, Reich became privy to a planned 2002 coup to overthrow the Chávez government and then enormously embarrassed the Bush administration by allowing it to be one of the first hemispheric governments to recognize the coup regime for the 48 hours that it was in power. It is clear that the U.S.’ protestations are not based on any fact, but rather the blind odium that guides the Bush administration when dealing with the Caribbean.
Two Strikes Against Chávez
The Bush administration repeatedly has denounced Chávez as a socialist doctrinaire of the mold of his close friend Fidel Castro. Washington also names Caracas as having a wild-eyed agenda bent on “destabilizing” Latin America. Chávez, on the other hand, often refers to Bush as “Mr. Danger” and often derisively critiques White House hemispheric policies. While on the surface the conflict can be viewed as a mere difference in style, in reality, it symbolizes a profound clash of political cultures, values and ideology. The U.S. feels genuinely, if erroneously, threatened not simply by Chávez’s braggadocio, but by what he stands for and what he increasingly represents for the rest of Latin America – its Ariel in contrast to Bush’s Caliban. Chávez, and his unrestrained contempt for the nation whose unending desire for Venezuela’s oil helps bankroll his “Bolivarian Revolution,” symbolizes Latin America’s mounting discontent with Washington’s policies directed towards the region. More often than not these serve the narrowly defined self interest of the latter, but rarely those of the region.
The Nature of the Initiative
Chávez has come to epitomize the region’s discontent with Washington’s non-productive Latin American policies, and the hectoring that the region feels that it is subjected to by the U.S.-dominated international lending institutions. Representing a counterattack and with oil as his leverage, Chávez has unabashedly sought external partners for trade, military procurement and goodwill. This has included highly visible arms deals with Russia and Spain; plans for constructing oil pipelines to access Pacific Ocean ports in order to diversify clients for Venezuela’s huge oil reserves, now tilting access in favor of China and away from its current near-total dependence on the U.S. Chávez also is striving to manumit the region from its psychological and tangible dependency on the U.S. by initiating diplomatic initiatives involving such White House blacklisted countries as Iraq, Iran and Libya.
From the White House’s perspective, Chávez’s deeply suspect infamous relationship with Fidel Castro, which includes Venezuela essentially giving oil to Cuba on a subsidized barter arrangement, only heightens State Department paranoia fueled by right-wing Miami exiles since Chávez is providing Castro a means to survive the U.S. administration’s policy of economic asphyxiation. U.S. policymakers have reacted to Venezuela’s rancorous initiatives with anything but a steady hand, but with undisciplined fulminations before Congressional sub-committees and the press, covert funding of opposition groups in the country and the CIA’s undoubted complicity in the failed 2002 coup that managed to depose Chávez for a matter of hours until he was returned to power by a group of loyal palace guards and the wrath emerging from the popular barrios.
A Daring Initiative
The ongoing Bush-Chávez confrontation has escalated since Venezuela’s recent decision to subsidize heating oil for low-income Boston-area homes through Citgo, the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). The deal was conspicuously brokered by Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA) who with brilliance has proven himself to be a rare progressive voice for an enlightened U.S.-Latin American policy in the Congress. At a time when Bush’s approval ratings are at the lowest of his presidency, Chávez’s ability to aid poor people in the U.S. only rubs salt in the U.S. president’s many political lesions.
Levels of concern in Washington have now surpassed all bounds, as an apoplectic White House turns its rhetorical howitzer on the $1.56bn (€1.3bn) arms deal that Venezuela and Spain are on the verge of completing that would send planes and patrol boats to Caracas, that Chávez insists will be used in his country’s anti-drug war. Earlier this month, the U.S. blocked an Israeli attempt to update Venezuela’s fleet of F-16 fighter jets because parts that the Israeli suppliers would be providing included American components and would require U.S. authorization for such a sale. The Bush administration is currently examining whether or not it has comparable grounds to block the Spain-Venezuela deal, which already has de facto EU permission, after the EU Parliament refused to honor the request of one of its members that the body investigate the deal to ensure it complies with all European arms export codes.
Where’s the Beef?
Despite repeated warnings from Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld and the president that Chávez is attempting to “destabilize” the region, the Bush administration has yet to present a single piece of evidence that Venezuela has outrightly threatened – physically or economically – any country in the region, and it is notable that no Latin American leader has echoed Washington’s allegations. With this in mind, the U.S. might want to reconsider the bully-boy diplomacy it habitually has used with respect to Venezuela since Bush took office in 2001. It might want to convert what essentially is an amateur diplomacy of a most rank nature into a relationship that seeks constructive engagement with Caracas, which reflects an honest attempt to work out differences with the democratically-elected and constitutionally-guided Venezuelan government. Washington’s current policy towards Venezuela only serves to further isolate the U.S. in the region, and a continuation of such baseless accusations and obviously propagandistic condemnations against Chávez will only exacerbate a situation that will further tarnish Washington’s standing in the region. Considering the monumental importance that Venezuelan oil has in the American economy, now is the time for the Bush administration to take its rarely-worn “nice guy” garb out of the closet – before this country gets left out in the cold.
This analysis was prepared by Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) Director Larry Birns and Research Associate Julian Armington, along with COHA’s research group. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization.
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
RELATED ITEMS
- US behind Bolivia crisis - Chavez
Posted by alpinestar on Tuesday, June 14th 2005 - Hugo Chavez
Posted by Maybe_Meme on Monday, September 19th 2005 - Venezuela's Chavez Warns Against US Invasion
Posted by Gregoire on Tuesday, August 9th 2005
I think you mean “bad”? Venezuelan F-16s dad; Chilean F-16s good
no?
You leftists kill me.
You sound like a wrestling shtick on WWE, hyping a hatred two people have for each other.
All chevez stories have 3 main elements.
1. Chavez is important.
2. Chavez represents a permanent trend in South America
3. The US is worried about Chavez and the danger he represents to the US Administration.
All these elements are hyped to an almost dazzling display of fireworks, cheering, signs, girls in bikinis and hyped up jocks in the audience screaming some indiscernable concern and loyalty to something. Yet I can’t for the life me figure out what this is all about, except to say, it appears the left feels that they need to open up more fronts in their war against the modern world. And by golly, they won’t let this chavez thing go without being noticed.
Look guys, chavez is a retard, an embarrassment. He is a South American Idi Amin Dada. He always has an attention grabbing antic. WWE should really think about hiring this chavez character, for a career after he gets deposed.
IsraelForever2,
First, I’m not a leftist. Second, I’m glad you are practicing your typing. Thirdly, many of the Chavez articles and blogs question how long Chavez can stave off grave dangers. 4th, criticizing something as hype while you reference WWE and fireworks is hypocritical if not oxymoronic.
enough said
“First, I’m not a leftist.”
begsmack, I was thinking more of anthony, not you. If you are not a leftist, good for you, join the club.
“Second, I’m glad you are practicing your typing. “
good, thanks, glad that you are …..um….eating your vegetables.
“Thirdly, many of the Chavez articles and blogs question how long Chavez can stave off grave dangers. “
Danger, you mean the danger to himself, that some Schaffenberg type might take him out. Great, I hope someone does.
“4th, criticizing something as hype while you reference WWE and fireworks is hypocritical if not oxymoronic.”
I don’t understand your problem. I said that the Chavez hype reminds me of a WWE act.
Ben, Well done.
IF2 probably didn’t read past the headline anyway (and the ironic typo). IF2 should realize that Chavez is important. He controls the supply of gas that fuels your car, heats your home and produces the fertilizer that helps feed you. If Chavez wasn’t sitting on heaps of oil and natural gas, you wouldn’t know the first thing about him. But as Venezeula is the America’s third largest energy supplier, the dude is coup worthy.
Is Chavez a publicity whore? Absolutely, but so is your sitting prez. Flying onto an aircraft carrier and having the event televised is showmanship to the extreme.
Oh and Citigo making deals with Democratic representatives to supply cheap heating fuel is probably the best PR move by a foreign leader that I can think of.
Does Chavez represent a permanent trend in Latin America? That’s a tougher question but if you look at recent continental and international trade talks, after NAFTA (and maybe Cafta), Latin America as a whole has blocked all American proposed Free Trade agreements.
The upcoming WTO doha round talks will shed some more light on this matter.
IF2 doesn’t appear to realize Anthony didn’t write this article but posted it. Reading comprehension is so different from promouncing words in one’s head. I’m reminded of starwars I, not the Reagan military waste of money but the movie, “just becuase you speak doen’t make you intelligent.”
Alias, agree with your sentiment on Chavez working the media, that is his strongest defense, because as you note, he is coup worthy.
“IF2 should realize that Chavez is important. He controls the supply of gas that fuels your car, heats your home and produces the fertilizer that helps feed you. If Chavez wasn’t sitting on heaps of oil and natural gas, you wouldn’t know the first thing about him. “
Oh dear me, I am talking to ignorant people. Such ignorant people. Now follow along carefully.
Oil is bought and sold on international markets. The US can buy oil from Nigeria, Indonesia or any country that sells oil. Chavez can do what he likes with his country’s oil. He can’t live without the revenues of course. The oil is bought by private firms, shipped by private firms and goes into refineries without Chavez knowing or caring.
What I would like, personally, is if OPEC shut down completely, and we went on a serious campaign to cut fuel consumption drastically. Let the price of oil go to $10 a gallon as far as I care. However, such will not be the case. People will buy fuel as long as it is cheap and our government will do nothing to prepare the economy before market forces kick in. However, governments, like people, have a heirarchy of needs, and the Adminitsration with 3 years left on its mandate wants economic peace and stability. It will be for a future President to try and deal with our energy problems. However I doubt very much whether the Adminstration cares for the antics of Chavez. And CAFTA is a ‘nice to have’ for his legacy that probably will happen, however if it doesn’t happen, I doubt if he will loose sleep. Bush’s legacy is pretty much set with his fervant push for democracy in the Middle East and his defeat of the Islamo-fascists.
This moronic claim by leftists that Chavez is important and somehow a thorn in the Presidents side is as moronic as another popular leftist claim, that Iran is going to buy and sell oil in Euros. Ya, that’ll teach the Americans.
The bottom line is that the Administration really doesn’t care much for Venezuela. There is nothing that that little silly man Chavez can do. he is a loud mouthed fool. His fans are the far left. he is the Idi Amin of South America, there is no better way to describe him.
And I am sure the people in New England are so stupid that if Citgo gives them cheap oil, they will support Chavez.
If Chavez is someone not to lose sleep over, why all the worry and rhetoric from BushCo.? Why the attempted coup? Either he’s a thorn in their side or he isn’t. No one pays any mind while you talk out of both sides of your ass except for a good laugh. It takes oil 6 weeks to reach you from the Middle East, yet only 4 days from Venezuela.
I sure am glad IF2 is here to show all us ignoramuses the way because, gosh I mean, what would we do left to our own devices? As for democracy in the Middle East and the defeat of the Islamofascists, the jury is still out on those. Sounds like you’re reading straight from the Administrations talking points memo.
“And I am sure the people in New England are so stupid that if Citgo gives them cheap oil, they will support Chavez.”
—This is a problem for you why?
Thanks for the oil market primer. While the actual barrells are bought in markets, if you went to your nearest oil refienery and asked which crudes are processed there, you’d find that there would be a whole lot of Canadian crude, and about equal parts Arab Light and Tia Juana Light. The four largest suppliers of crude oil to the U.S.A. are 1. Canada 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Venezuela 4. Mexico. Why do you think American companies buy more oil from these four countries, if all oil is regulated through markets and depending on the quality is priced accordingly? I’ll leave you that puzzle.
“The oil is bought by private firms, shipped by private firms and goes into refineries without Chavez knowing or caring.”
But I thought Chavez’ good friend Castro gets cheap oil? Wouldn’t that would imply some sort of meddling in the sale of oil from Venezuela by its leader? Oh wait, Venezuela has a state owned oil company that supplies oil at discounted rates to other Carribean and South American countries under Chavez’ ”Petrocaribbean” and “Petrosur” programs. These programs were created by Chavez. Same with the Citigo natural gas sales to poor Americans.
I have no problem with you calling me ignorant but you might want to do a little research before throwing yourself out there.
“It will be for a future President to try and deal with our energy problems”
So perfect. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“And I am sure the people in New England are so stupid that if Citgo gives them cheap oil, they will support Chavez”
What happened to America? The home of the brave can’t take care of its own citizens’ needs. How embarrasing for the world’s strongest country to have to take charity from “the Idi Amin of South America”.
But I thought Chavez’ good friend Castro gets cheap oil? Wouldn’t that would imply some sort of meddling in the sale of oil from Venezuela by its leader? Oh wait, Venezuela has a state owned oil company that supplies oil at discounted rates to other Carribean and South American countries under Chavez’ ”Petrocaribbean” and “Petrosur” programs. These programs were created by Chavez. Same with the Citigo natural gas sales to poor Americans.
I have no problem with you calling me ignorant but you might want to do a little research before throwing yourself out there.
LOL
You make it sound like you got me, and proven me wrong. I said that oil is bought and sold internationally by world markets. I didn’t say idiot demogogues from the far left can’t sell oil at discounted rates to their friends, or at least people who are his friends when he gives away oil. Better these friends get cheap oil then chavez spend it on terrorist geurilla armies in his neighboring countries.
I have no idea how Venezuala sells its oil and couldn’t care less. If he wants to sell below market prices for moral reasons, good on him. I would think that he has a base of support in Massechusetts, why with the Kennedies and all the left wing crackpots coming out of Boston, nothing surprises me.
I am glad he is selling discounted oil to his friends. We wouldn’t want all the money to fall into the hands of one madman.
In the same paper where I read about the Spanish arms deal, while flying back from Caracas, there was an editorial promoting the need for Chile, and perhaps Paraguay, to help the U.S. invade the “failed nation of Bolivia” to “restore order”, should they happen to elect the “wrong” president. F-16’s for Chile and U.S. troops in Paraguay good. Independence and democracy exercised in Bolivia and Venezuela bad. I think it was the Miami Harold.
Alexander,
your journals were awesome reading and I’m sure the experience was memorable.
Thanks Alias. What I was thinking of doing was combining them into a single well edited feature article on the Bolivarian revolution. Well some form of article will come out of them, whether that, dispatches, or otherwise :). It was a lot of fun and a very educational experiance.
“I would think that he has a base of support in Massechusetts, why with the Kennedies and all the left wing crackpots coming out of Boston, nothing surprises me.”
This country was founded on a leftist guerilla movement originating in Boston.
I can see the resemblene. Teddy Kennedy does look like a gorilla, well, a drunken gorilla.
“Venezuelan F-16s bad; Chilean F-16s good”
Chile is an ally and friend, chavez is not.
ISRAEL FOREVER 2 is the type of person who thinks it’s OK for one nation to assainate another nation’s legitamate leader. Chavez is indeed not our ally, because America is the the historical enemy of freedom, liberty, justice, all that crap, ESPECIALLY in Latin America. The U.S. is allied to poverty and slave-wage exploitation and environmental degredation.
Israel Forever 2 is the type of person who probably thinks it’s OK to kill ten Palestinian chilfdren if it saves one Israeli. In short, he’s (she’s) concerned only for his/her own ass, and could give a shit about the rest of CREATION.
Any time anyone shows any compassion to others, or shows concern for others suffering injustice even though they themselves benefit, they are called LEFTIST in a dirty tone. The White House doesn’t like Chavez because the White House thinks “Poverty Reduction is Anti-Western”, while I think it’s OK to sacrifice some Materialistic Luxuries if it means the the poorest of the poor are better off.
I am a Communist.
A general today said about Iraq (paraphrase)“Victory is the only option. We can’t pull out now because these barbarians want to destroy our lifestyle.” How funny, so do I.
The biggest threat to the American way of life is the American Lifestyle.
“This country was founded on a leftist guerilla movement originating in Boston.”
You’re either WITH us or you’re with the Crown….. A Loyalist. A Terrorist.
“Israel Forever 2 is the type of person who probably thinks it’s OK to kill ten Palestinian chilfdren if it saves one Israeli. “
Absolutely, if the Palestinian children are the assailants. Palestinian parents send their children to attack innocent Israeli civilians all the time. There is a principle in law that says, the victim has the right to protect himself regardless of how many assailants he must kill.
Palestine, for all intents and purposes, has given up its depraved war of violence on the Jews of Israel. This is not because the Palestinians have seen the light of the modern world. This is because Israel is kicked their butt and they see the hopelessness of sacrificing themselves against people like the Israelis who cannot be intimidated and bullied, not by the Arabs and not by the world.
“The White House doesn’t like Chavez because the White House thinks “Poverty Reduction is Anti-Western”, while I think it’s OK to sacrifice some Materialistic Luxuries if it means the the poorest of the poor are better off. “
That is not why the White House doesn’t like Chavez. The White House doesn’t like Chavez because he is a pompous clown and he sends arms to leftist gueurillas in neighboring countries.
“This is because Israel is kicked their butt and they see the hopelessness of sacrificing themselves against people like the Israelis who cannot be intimidated and bullied, not by the Arabs and not by the world.”
Ohh yeah, The High And Mighty Israel who cant be intimidated and bullied by the Arabs or the World with Weapons that still have the “Made in the U.S.A.” stickers on it
Take those United States backed weapons out of the hands of the Occupiers and the War in the Middle East would have a whole different outcome.
“Ohh yeah, The High And Mighty Israel who cant be intimidated and bullied by the Arabs or the World with Weapons that still have the “Made in the U.S.A.” stickers on it”
It is not where they are made. It is who uses them. The US arsenal of democracy is limitless, so long as the weapons are used efficiently in defense of freedom.
“Take those United States backed weapons out of the hands of the Occupiers and the War in the Middle East would have a whole different outcome.
“
If me granda had balls, she’d be my grandfather, yes.
If the Arabs didn’t have the world’s biggest supply of oil. If the Europeans weren’t so scared of upsetting Arab immigrants. If the Russians didn’t happen to be a Cold War and needed allies in the Middle East. If Arabs weren’t so poor and backward that caused a poulation explosion, had Hitler decided to allow Jews to escape to the Middle East. Had the October Revolution of 1917, allowed the 5 million Soviet Jews to flee in 1918-1922. Had the British honored the Balfour Declaration instead of favoring the Arabs during the Mandate period. There are many ifs in history.
What matters is the here and now.
When you take pride in the continued occupation of territory, shooting and torturing small children after you kicked their parents and grandparents out of their own land, you really are a giant pussy. The IDF can abuse generations of people in refugee camps because it’s easy. Sending troops to a dangerous country in support of their good friends the United States, they can only offer feeble excuses as to why they can’t. Guess enemies who shoot back and aren’t confined to cages present a bit more of a challenge than the ruling WarKikes in Israel like to deal with.
What matters is that IsraelForever2 get’s his precious attention, along with his buddy AreolaSharon2, which is actually probably the same dumb ass who sits at GNN and masterbates to the amount of responses they receive for their always high on provocation and low on intelligence statements.
One thing is for sure: IsraelForever2 would never do the dirty work that he supports, but he will gladly type a lot about it. Bravo IsraelForever2, you are a mega-pussy.
How come you haven’t joined up IsraelForever? Since you feel so strongly about these issues.
“The IDF can abuse generations of people in refugee camps because it’s easy. “
They can also swat aside Egypt’s and Syria’s finest all decked out in the latest Soviet hardware. Anf throw Iraq’s nuke weapons program into the mix.
“One thing is for sure: IsraelForever2 would never do the dirty work that he supports, but he will gladly type a lot about it. Bravo IsraelForever2, you are a mega-pussy.”
Just like you who isn’t blowing up shiite worshippers in Iraq. You can talk the talk but ca’t walk the walk. LOL.
“How come you haven’t joined up IsraelForever? Since you feel so strongly about these issues.”
If everyone who supported his country in the United States signed up fir Iraq there would be 100 million men fighting in Iraq. For efficiency sake we let our heroes do the job. We only need about 140,000 of them.
“If everyone who supported his country in the United States signed up fir Iraq there would be 100 million men fighting in Iraq. For efficiency sake we let our heroes do the job. We only need about 140,000 of them.”
Or it’s because you’re full of shit.
By the way, what makes them heroes? And has anything in Iraq given the indication of efficiency?
As much as I hate to agree with someone rabid as IF2, the troops in Iraq are by definition heroes.
“A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.” -Dictionary.com
I dont know about nobility of purpose (I guess that depends on the person) but I would say given the amount of organized resistance, and the amount of casualties these men and women have commited feats of courage. I personally detest the war and believe I understand the real reasons why we are there. And I try to understand why most of the soldiers are there too.
Fact is, most enlisted soldiers of the US of A come from working poor families and these men and women signed up for a chance to break out of the poverty they grew up in. Why else would the armed forces constantly drone about college? Yes, im quite sure more than a few buy the drivel that is constantly spewed by the administration and its cohorts, but that does not mean it is the reason they enlisted.
IsraelForever2 I am a leftist. In fact, im a socialist and every day I become more and more commited to it. Your arguments throughout this site has done nothing but reinforce my (and I would think most other people too) beliefs that there is something terribly wrong with most of those on the right side of the spectrum. Instead of logical counter arguments you demonize those who are speaking contrary to your views. Even though I am a “pinko” leftist I still try to be objective and not swallow whole anything thats tossed my way because its opposed to the right. Maybe the right should try the same tactic…...
Nazual, the left really knows how to pick winners.
I know that the fundamental basis of socialism in today’s context is that the US is a capitalist imperialist state who are controlled by Corporate elites who only act out of greed and furthermore, all resistance movements in the third world by definiation are noble and fighting for social justice (I block my nose as as I say that)
So given all that the left had a choice, and they choose the terror gangs over the Democratic Iraqi revolution lead by the US and the UN. You people made that choice. No-one forced you.
I don’t demonize the left because they have a bizarre and false view of the world. I don’t demonize them just because they are morons. I make fun of them for being morons but I do not demonize them for it. No, I demonize the left for providing moral supporting to terror gangs.
There is no other side to choose from. Not for me, or any sane person. The other side are terrorists. They are evil scum. The only thing to be done with terrorists is to kill them. That is what our heroes are doing in Iraq.
You assume if we don’t side with the U.S. that we must side with ‘terror gangs’. This is false. As I am against terrorism I am against the actions of the United States and what you call ‘terror gangs’. Terrorism is defined as: the use of violence and intimidation for political aims. War is terror, dead broke with molotov cocktails or with a $420 billion dollar budget. While the soldiers and insurgents both fit the bill of having courage, they both kill people for a paycheck. This is not very heroic.
I wonder how many so called right wingers would turn into ‘terror gangs’ themselves if the situation was reversed and a wall was built in your backyard, your favorite bar was destroyed, you had no electricity, you can’t go outside because of a curfew, the neighborhood smells like explosives and corpses, your door is kicked down in the middle of the night by men with guns speaking a foreign language and your friend has been maimed or killed.
“You assume if we don’t side with the U.S. that we must side with ‘terror gangs’.”
No, where did I say that? If you support, sympathize or even minimize their depravity or deny their behavior, you are making cause with them.
If you criticize the US, you criticize the US. You can condemn the US for its policies and not sympathize with terror gangs.
“War is terror, ...”
Do you not see how this statement trivializes the terrorists. The US is in Iraq to stop the terrorists. They are not there to kill civilians. What leftists do is that they prey on the circumstance where civilains have been killed in the fighting, and use that as the basis to say the US is just like the terrorists. This trivializes why we are there and it trivializes the evil of the terrorists.
It is all a smoke screen to cover the real left wing shame of this conflict.
The simple reality, in its most basic form is that US, the UN, and many nations and the Iraq government and the many brave Iraqi poltiicians who have stood up in face of the terrorists, are all trying to create a democracy. The terrorists are trying to stop the democracy from forming. There primary tactic is brutal intimidation. Actually it is the only tactic available to them.
The left denies that reality, and in its stead, claims the the US is not there to help build a democracy, the government in Iraq is a sham, the UN effort is a sham. And that the terrorists, who brutally murder for no other reason than to instill fear, are somehow elevated to the role of brave freedom fighter fighting for the rights of Iraqis.
Not only are the facts against the far left. It goes counter to everything the left stood for in the past. It only has been adopted by the far left because the reality of Iraq conflicted with the basic principle of the far left.
The Far left fundamental principle simply stated: “The US is a society controlled by, and for the benefit of, Corporate interests and the rich. That to acheive that aim the US governemnet must dominate and exploit third world nations, and that any conflict involving the US must be for that purpose. Furthermore any resistence in the third world must be the reflection of the brave people of those countries to resist said domination.