Political Attack on Chavez Proof War on Terror = War for Oil

[berni_mccoy]

When this Chavez incident with Robertson came up, I have to admit, I wasn't well informed about Chavez. So I did my research (starting with Wikipedia).

I discovered that Chavez did attempt a military coup in 1992 but afterward was elected in 1998 and now enjoys 70% support of the population (unlike Bush's 30-40% approval rating) due to his many popular socialistic programs. In 2002, there was an attempt to take out Chavez by part of the Venezuelan military and the Bush administration, knowing this, kept quiet (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1018452). Rumors of Bush admin involvement in the failed take-out of Chavez abound. This rumor is fueled by Robertson's recent comments and Secretary of State Rice's response to bi-partisan legislatures to reach out to Chavez, "We just don't like him very much."

Since Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez, there has been much talk in the media about Chavez and his evil dictatorship. It's clear now that while Robertson was calling for the actual assassination of Chavez, he was in reality, effecting Chavez's political assassination.

But it looks like this extreme right-wingnut attempt to discredit Chavez has backfired (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1732687 ) and it exposes the truth behind the aggressive nature of this corrupt administration: take out anyone who has a significant stake in our oil supply (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela) and who we are not in already in bed with (Saudi Arabia).

If Bush attacks Venezuela, he will likely have to do it without the support of the American people, the legislature or the world. Chavez has not gassed his own people nor attacked a sovereign nation. He is a humanitarian, democratically elected leader of his own sovereign nation who happens to control 10-15% of America's oil. I fear that if Bush tries to attack Chavez that the world will respond to this aggression (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4446374) and America will surely be on its own.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. but..but.. this is RATIONAL thinking. Nothing to do with anything going

on in this administration!!!

[StClone]

2. Watch out Canada and Mexico!

Top Suppliers of U.S. Crude Oil Imports, 2004
Rank
Country of Origin

Thousand Barrels/day

1 Canada 1,616
2 Mexico 1,598
3 Saudi Arabia 1,495
4 Venezuela 1,297
5 Nigeria 1,078
6 Iraq 655
7 Angola 306
8 Kuwait 241
9 United Kingdom 238
10 Ecuador 232
11 Algeria 215
12 Russia 158
13 Norway 143
14 Colombia 142

[StClone]

4. Watch out Iran

Top World Oil Producers, 2004*
(OPEC members in italics)

Country


Total Oil Production**
(million barrels per day)

1 Saudi Arabia 10.37
2 Russia 9.27
3 United States 8.69
4 Iran 4.09

[berni_mccoy]

9. As long as illegal immigration is ignored

Mexico stays in line.

And this is a HUGE wedge issue for the republicans... they HATE the illegal immigration and the fact that Bush just turns a blind eye to it. But there is a reason here... Bush want's to control Mexico for its oil. Repukes can't understand that. If they did, it would mean that they would have to admit that Bush's wars are just for oil... and they can't admit that.

Canada, on the other hand, keeps getting strong-armed by the U.S. on many key trade issues. Most Canadians will admit they need the U.S. as much as the U.S. needs them. It's a necessary evil, symbiotic relationship.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Bush would never invade Canada

He only goes after countries that are weak and have no army etc. He can't be seen as a loser (even though he is by poll raitings).

[MasonJar]

3. Surely even Bush is not that stupid. Why do you fear it? It is as it

should be. If Bush attacks Chavez or Venezuela, then we will have earned the wrath of the world.

[berni_mccoy]

7. I fear what it means to America and ALL of its people

Bush and his cronies will certainly pay the price... but why should 70% of America that does not support the war or Bush's aggressive policy?

And I don't think it has to be a huge, publicized military operation... a quiet coup/assassination that can't be linked to the U.S. would be the thinking of the admin based on Robertson's threats.

[Toots]

5. Bush* will attack Chavez the same way he attacked Aristide

The US sent weapons to the "Rebels" in Haiti and failed to defend a Democracy in the Western Hemesphere as the US Pledged to do and the same thing will occur in Venezuela given enough time. Bush* just flat refuses to live up to agreements America signs.

[StClone]

6. Iran is the real prize

Look at the wars we've fought recently: Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has the fourth greatest oil production and it lies between these two war torn countries. Coincidence that we are putting more troops in South America too?

[berni_mccoy]

8. I agree Iran is next on the list, but the rhetoric

against Chavez from the republican talking heads sounds like war drumbs beating...

And based on what Robertson said, it may not be a big military operation,... a quiet coup or assassination would be all the administration thinks it needs to bring Venezuela in line.

[StClone]

12. I agree on Chavez: Robertson's words matter

This guy has money interests around the world and his trips to the White House make him privy to the regime's inner workings. By accident or design it IS clear that Chavez is on their hit list one way or another.

[Eloriel]

10. Nominated -- good post. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

11. Thanks for the brief history lesson

I have known of Chavez since the whole thing with him began and he told Bush to "fuck off" basically. If it was a battle between Bush and Chavez I'd cling to Chavez before I would Bush personally. That's pretty sad too I think.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Looking At StClone's #2 post above

It occurs to me that Iran is NOT a significant importer of Oil to the U.S. (it would have to be < 1% if we did get any oil from them).

So... would an attack on Iran simply escalate the price of oil further (afterall, I've heard that we would just NUKE Iran vs. sending in troops)? Or would it give us yet another source that we would have exclusive access to (Iran provides 10% of the world oil)? Or is it a little of both...?