Chavez moves troops to Columbian border

In response to the recent Columbian military incursion into Ecuador, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has mobilized 10 battalions of infantry and tanks to the Columbian border. The recent Columbian military incursion was the very raid which killed FARC leader Raul Reyes. In addition to moving the ground battalions, Chavez has announced intentions to mobilize the Air Force. Staff of the Columbian embassy have been removed from Venezuela. Chavez warned Columbian president Uribe that any similar incursions into Venezuela would be a"cause for war". Ecuador itself was irate at Uribe's incursion and has removed it's embassy in Columbia.

Your thoughts?

Links to story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7274038.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DF75F271-5419-4407-BF59-EBA124C79679.htm

Kudos to Chavez.

wtf???
the guys just looking for an enemy to reinforce his potition
it's just sad.

I think ball is in Uribe's court. As long as he doesn't find it necessary to move troops into Venezuela/Ecuador, this whole thing should simmer-down.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

I think ball is in Uribe's court. As long as he doesn't find it necessary to move troops into Venezuela/Ecuador, this whole thing should simmer-down.

well not really.
rebels tend to hide in neiburing cuntries and near the border
columbia will be forced to do some operations near borders.

mattabesta wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

I think ball is in Uribe's court. As long as he doesn't find it necessary to move troops into Venezuela/Ecuador, this whole thing should simmer-down.

well not really.
rebels tend to hide in neiburing cuntries and near the border
columbia will be forced to do some operations near borders.

No, Columbia can't just violate its neighbors' sovereignty like that.

mattabesta wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

I think ball is in Uribe's court. As long as he doesn't find it necessary to move troops into Venezuela/Ecuador, this whole thing should simmer-down.

well not really.
rebels tend to hide in neiburing cuntries and near the border
columbia will be forced to do some operations near borders.

Columbia can chase the rebels to the border, and in turn station troops on the border to prevent the rebels from coming back in. There is no legitimate reason for Columbia to send troops into Venezuela or Ecuador without the permission each of the countries.

Look, I'm no supporter of FARC, as far as I can tell almost everyone in Columbia is involved in the drug trade. But the Columbian government is no better than any of the guerrilla groups down there. Uribe is the type of leader who would use something like that as an excuse to fight his enemies. If Uribe feels he is justified in sending his military into other countries without their permission, then there will a genuine cause for Venezuela or Ecuador to defend their countries from invasion. Say what you will about Chavez, he is not threatening to Invade Columbia, only to defend Venezuela. Personally, that seems reasonable to me.

That rant said, I hope Uribe does not send troops into Venezuela or Ecuador and thus provoke a war.

I agree. I would also like to point at the likely outcome that Colombia is not planning to cross the border.

This all will settle down really fast.

That's true. Things will settle down really quick.

However Colombia has been already warned of the consequences of further actions of that nature. I guess what Chavez did was an effective amedrentation.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

That's true. Things will settle down really quick.

However Colombia has been already warned of the consequences of further actions of that nature. I guess what Chavez did was an effective amedrentation.

amedrentation?

sorry my english is bad what dose that mean?

mattabesta wrote:

amedrentation?

sorry my english is bad what dose that mean?

Is a way to say "intimidation".

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

amedrentation?

sorry my english is bad what dose that mean?

Is a way to say "intimidation".

oh tyvm

I say invaid em!

we need a non Iraq war for the world to get enjoyment from. Why not S. America... does anyone honestly care about S. America except Druglords and Old Hardcore Nazi's?

Diogritor wrote:

I say invaid em!

we need a non Iraq war for the world to get enjoyment from. Why not S. America... does anyone honestly care about S. America except Druglords and Old Hardcore Nazi's?

As a fascist,

don't you care about old hardcore nazi's?

Diogritor wrote:

I say invaid em!

we need a non Iraq war for the world to get enjoyment from. Why not S. America... does anyone honestly care about S. America except Druglords and Old Hardcore Nazi's?

lol columbia would win it has usa suport and will get wepons from them.

mattabesta wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

I say invaid em!

we need a non Iraq war for the world to get enjoyment from. Why not S. America... does anyone honestly care about S. America except Druglords and Old Hardcore Nazi's?

lol columbia would win it has usa suport and will get wepons from them.

Russia would support Chavez out of spite.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

I say invaid em!

we need a non Iraq war for the world to get enjoyment from. Why not S. America... does anyone honestly care about S. America except Druglords and Old Hardcore Nazi's?

As a fascist,

don't you care about old hardcore nazi's?

Fascism =/= Nazism.
I actually hate the nazis. Religion should NEVER play apart in politics for one. and another just look what they did for the image of the system.

oligarch wrote:

Russia would support Chavez out of spite.

Just as they're doing right now.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Russia would support Chavez out of spite.

Just as they're doing right now.

they do?
I thought russia gave up on socalism.

Diogritor wrote:

Religion should NEVER play apart in politics for one.

lol, tell that to the US candidates and political system. :3

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Religion should NEVER play apart in politics for one.

lol, tell that to the US candidates and political system. :3

well they are evry religon.

I am an athist-clinton.
I am a cristiAN-CLINTON

mattabesta wrote:

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Religion should NEVER play apart in politics for one.

lol, tell that to the US candidates and political system. :3

well they are evry religon.

I am an athist-clinton.
I am a cristiAN-CLINTON

Are you an atheist or a chrsition? In any case, you're a clintonista which is bad.

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Religion should NEVER play apart in politics for one.

lol, tell that to the US candidates and political system. :3

well they are evry religon.

I am an athist-clinton.
I am a cristiAN-CLINTON

Are you an atheist or a chrsition? In any case, you're a clintonista which is bad.

I am a cristian.

mattabesta wrote:

oligarch wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Religion should NEVER play apart in politics for one.

lol, tell that to the US candidates and political system. :3

well they are evry religon.

I am an athist-clinton.
I am a cristiAN-CLINTON

Are you an atheist or a chrsition? In any case, you're a clintonista which is bad.

I am a cristian.

*Christian

mattabesta wrote:

they do?
I thought russia gave up on socalism.

They never tried, anyway. This is just a business more, a good business.