BF2S Forums Venezuela has all the oil

Braddock wrote:

The vast majority of foreign policy, as far as superpowers are concerned, IS the exertion of influence over neighbours (usually to the benefit of the superpower and often to the detriment of the neighbour).

You've just described foreign policy objectives of any country, regardless of their superpower status (with the exception of the unnecessarily emo "often to the detriment" comment).

Braddock wrote:

The US takes umbrage at Venezuelan policy because the elected leader Chavez has seen unfairness in the way Globalisation divides up wealth among the population and has decided to do something about it. The fact that the leader of an oil-rich country in a continent that is otherwise beholden to the US is attempting to implement an extreme left-wing Socialist agenda upsets Washington because it makes it more difficult for the US to plunder valuable resources at knockdown prices. The US is most likely terrified at the prospect of other South American nations following Chavez's lead and trying to get better deals for their resources... for the US to live so comfortably some other nations have to live uncomfortably (that's just the way of the world). While I can understand the grievances that multinational bosses have at agreed deals being revoked, I also understand the grievances of the Venezuelan people who feel they weren't getting a good deal for their natural resources.

It has less to do with resources and more to do with his attempts to undermine existing agreements with other countries that extend beyond resources. While I appreciate your desire to wave your fist in the air, shout "power to the people" and decry corporate greed and resource scavenging, there is far more to foreign policy--even in little ol' South America--than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_re … s#Americas

If you look at this, Venezuela kind of sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl.

Braddock wrote:

As regards Colombia, it's all conjecture regarding how deep and far-reaching US operations are there. What is certain however is while the US have troops and operations in countries neighbouring Venezuela the same cannot be said of Venezuelan activity in Canada or Mexico... Chavez has more right to get antsy-in-his-pantsy in that regard. There also haven't been any Venzuelan-backed US coups lately.

The Colombians have far more to worry about from Chavez backing the FARC than Chavez has to worry about from the US helping the Colombians. Chavez doesn't like that the US helps the Colombians kill the FARC (because the FARC protect the druggies--it's symbiotic), because Chavez likes the FARC.

As for the implication of a US-backed coup: recognizing the other guy when the guy you don't like gets deposed =/= backing the coup. In fact, I would say warning Chavez that a coup is imminent pretty much obviates any tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that we had anything to do with it.

According to William Brownfield, ambassador to Venezuela, the U.S. embassy in Venezuela warned Chávez about a coup plot in April 2002.

Braddock wrote:

America claims to champion democracy but the reality is they only like democracy when it results in leaders who follow the American view of world politics and economics. I believe countries should be allowed to govern and decide for themselves. If they are not hurting any other nations then leave them to it, it's their prerogative.

Of course. Does Ireland like it when world leaders do things that work against its interests and objectives? Of course it doesn't. Countries are certainly allowed to govern and decide for themselves. Nobody has said otherwise. Attempts to influence don't change that, they are still free to choose what they wish.