Who Will Be The First

[mollag]

I was wondering who will be first to be at the end of a CIA removal programme, Hugo Chavez or Pres Musharaf.

One an embarrassing enemy, the other an embarrassing friend, ?

My money is on Musharaf cos he has the big fireworks.

 

Anywayup if you find yourself standing alongside either of the gentlemen, slowly side shuffle away to safety while whispering "dead man walking"

[cheesemonster2005]

"first to be at the end" - maybe I've had too much drink but I don't understand.

[Chinahand]

Its always easier to get rid of a "friend" than an "enemy". Chavez will outlast Musharef by decades!

[cheeky boy]

My money's on Musharef, what threat is a dirt poor south American country now that the Soviets are out of the frame ?

[mollag]

"first to be at the end" - maybe I've had too much drink but I don't understand.

 

 

See wat you mean, should read something like " first to be at the sharp end of a CIA removal operation"

 

I manx, me no spika de english good one time

 

 

 

I should really like Hogo but he does come across as a major knob, perhaps he is the victim of mistranslation

[Lonan3]

Its always easier to get rid of a "friend" than an "enemy". Chavez will outlast Musharef by decades!

And because no one can be bothered, Mugabe will probably outlast them both.

[cheesemonster2005]

My money's on Musharef, what threat is a dirt poor south American country now that the Soviets are out of the frame ?

 

Dirt poor? Venezuala? You have as much knowledge as Dick Cheney this week when he said that he "wants to help the Peruvian people rid themselves of Chavez".

[tucker]

At the moment i think removing Moosherrif would be like removing Saddam only their "insurgents" will have nukes

I think the CIA would do best to keep their big noses out ,cant think of anything they have ever done that has made the world a better or safer place

[VinnieK]

Dirt poor? Venezuala? You have as much knowledge as Dick Cheney this week when he said that he "wants to help the Peruvian people rid themselves of Chavez".

 

It certainly sounds poor: a GDP per capita of $7,200, 24% of which is debt, with an external debt of over $40 billion. 38% of the population lives under the poverty line and Venezuala as a whole receives $48 billion in economic aid.

 

Neither Chavez or Musharef are going to be "on the sharp end of a CIA removal operation" though: Nearly all of the CIA's earlier schemes for regime change were contingent on the existence of strong pro-US factions in the countries they sought to interfere with, which isn't really true in Venezuala or Pakistan. Also, we're living in very different times to those of the Contra affair and the Bay of Pigs: The U.S.S.R. was more of a threat to the U.S. than terrorism ever will be. The CIA's adventures in South America were motivated by a fear of Soviet aligned states on their doorstep combined with the fact that any attempt to implement regime change by conventional military means would have risked provoking the U.S.S.R. into making similar moves in Europe and Asia.

[P.K.]

The U.S.S.R. was more of a threat to the U.S. than terrorism ever will be. The CIA's adventures in South America were motivated by a fear of Soviet aligned states on their doorstep combined with the fact that any attempt to implement regime change by conventional military means would have risked provoking the U.S.S.R. into making similar moves in Europe and Asia.

Disagree completely. Firstly Pakistan will try and look like they are moving democratically forward because of the enormous amount of foreign aid they receive - they won't want to risk that. Secondly I didn't bother posting in the "Is Nuclear War Wrong" thread because it is patently obvious to anyone with half-an-ounce of common sense that the threat of a US-led nuclear strike has kept the peace in Europe for over 50 years - a record! So it's not very likely Russia would have a go in the European theatre, now is it?

 

After all, it has always been US policy to protect their troops with over-whelming firepower and having demonstrated their willingness to use it in Horishima and Nagasaki they are not going to hold back in a face-off in Latin America. Hence Krushchev withdrew from Cuba in 1963 and since that time the US has always known that their own back yard is secure enough to play around in without actually having to resort to conventional military means. Of course, they just had to demonstrate their authority with Panama, Noriega and so on. But as the world super-power you might as well. As to Asia the Russians hardly need to bother. With China invading Vietnam after the US retreat you could hardly need a better indicator of the new status quo, now could you?

 

If I was in charge of US policy I would want a hard military man in charge of Pakistan to make it as difficult as possible for movement to take place across the Afghanistan border. So I will await current developments with some interest.

 

By the way, it's Venezuela. Jeeeze....

[VinnieK]

Disagree completely. Firstly Pakistan will try and look like they are moving democratically forward because of the enormous amount of foreign aid they receive - they won't want to risk that

 

Irrelevant to the point, doesn't actually contradict anything in the passage you quoted.

 

Secondly I didn't bother posting in the "Is Nuclear War Wrong" thread because it is patently obvious to anyone with half-an-ounce of common sense that the threat of a US-led nuclear strike has kept the peace in Europe for over 50 years - a record!

 

Irrelevant to the point, same as above.

 

So it's not very likely Russia would have a go in the European theatre, now is it?

 

Basic misunderstanding of the point. No one claimed Russia would have a go in the European theatre now, in fact the point was precisely that the U.S. wouldn't have to rely on the kind of ropey old CIA schemes used in South America during the cold war because in the absence of U.S.S.R. style support for either country the U.S. can rely on more diplomatic/conventional military means to achieve their objectives.

 

After all, it has always been US policy to protect their troops with over-whelming firepower and having demonstrated their willingness to use it in Horishima and Nagasaki they are not going to hold back in a face-off in Latin America. Hence Krushchev withdrew from Cuba in 1963 and since that time the US has always known that their own back yard is secure enough to play around in without actually having to resort to conventional military means.

 

More irrelevance. Also, you're confusing two different aspects of the Cold War confrontation involving Cuba. The Cuban missile crisis was specifically about the stationing of soviet missiles on Cuban soil, which famously Kruschev backed down from - the U.S was prepared to risk conflict when directly threatened. However, the U.S.S.R. did not "withdraw" from Cuba: military and economic assistance continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union - the U.S. was not in this instance prepared to risk provoking the Soviets (and indeed the rest of the world) by openly backing and assisting a coup, and economic blockades counted for little when any dodgy old dictator who didn't want to toe the American line could just align himself with the U.S.S.R. and have access to resources and money through the Soviet Bloc, hence the necessity of CIA plots.

 

As to Asia the Russians hardly need to bother. With China invading Vietnam after the US retreat you could hardly need a better indicator of the new status quo, now could you?

 

China didn't invade Vietnam, in fact the NVA and Viet Cong were suspicious and on occassion hostile to China, aligning themselves more closely with the U.S.S.R. Also, irrelevant.

[Chinahand]

Its always risky stepping in between a VinnieK vrs P.K. bust up - but here goes.

 

China did invade Vietnam: in 1979 well after the US withdrawl - but for very very complicated reasons - Vietnam had invaded and overthrown Pol Pot's Maoist experiment in Kampuchia ending the killing fields and restoring Cambodia. The conflict was really a geopolitical dispute between the PRC and the USSR.

 

The relationship between China and the USSR is extremely complicated - they started off as partial allies, which mutated to being suspicious allies, but with Kruschev and Brevnev the USSR became viewed by Mao as reactionary and the relationship ended in a big way. There were military skirmishes in Xinjiang and Heilongjiang and proxi-war rivalries.

 

China only really had North Korea and Cambodia/Kampuchia as allies. Vietnam was firmly in the Soviet Camp - China was not strongly involved in Vietnam - the Korean War had made them nervous of foriegn adventures - Mao was basically isolationist - and by the early 1970s Nixon leavered the USSR-China break down to his advantage - driving a further wedge between the PRC and the USSR.

 

In the Post Vietnam War period Vietnam signed a defence treaty with the USSR and then invaded Cambodia. This was an attempt to alter the balance of power in the region and forced China to act - they successfully showed that the treaty was a paper tiger but the Vietnamese fought much better than expected and rather than being an example of China restoring its regional influence with the USSR powerless to stop them it showed the PLA to be poorly equipped and trained.

 

So it was a non conclusive episode - the USSR lost influence by failing to materially support an ally, but the Chinese were unable to gain influence due to the poor performance of its armed forces.

 

Other than that I think the two of you are really saying pretty similar things and your argument seems to be more semantics than reality - what's new! Though I'm sure you'll be able to disagree with me!

[VinnieK]

China did invade Vietnam: in 1979 well after the US withdrawl - but for very very complicated reasons

 

Fair enough, I (obviously) didn't know that - given P.K.'s wording I assumed he meant that China had invaded Vietnam shortly after the U.S. withdrawl and was the primary cause, which reading your post clearly wasn't the case.

 

Other than that I think the two of you are really saying pretty similar things and your argument seems to be more semantics than reality - what's new!

 

How so? I introduced the idea that CIA removal operations are unlikely since the conditions we live in favour different methods of dealing with Venezuela and Pakistan than informed the decision to use them in Cuba and Nicaragua, whilst P.K.'s argument started with "the U.S. has kept the peace for 50 years, so it's not like Russia's going to attack Europe!" bundled together with a characteristic load of old toss that missed the point completely. The point P.K. makes is similar in the sense that it hints at the U.S. being able to act more freely in the region due to the lack of a Soviet presence (which I acknowledged), but his statement of disagreement is faulty since it seems to hinge on the mistaken belief that my argument hinged upon an assumption that Russia is still a threat in Europe and Asia, which is contrary to my position - I never suggested that "Russia would have a go in the European theatre" (I stated that the U.S. could not risk overt military operations in Cuba and South America during the cold war because it would have perhaps provoked the U.S.S.R taking similar measures in Europe or indeed any other theatre).

[mollag]

There were other factors involved in the Cuban missile crisis that are seem to be overlooked. Briefly the USA started installing missiles in northern Turkey, Russia objected and started the Cuban install in retaliation. True Russia backed down in Cuba but also the missiles were removed from Turkey.

Shades of the missile net problems arising today, what if Russia wants to fit a similar system in Cuba to "balance the power".

 

I spent some time recently with a lady who was raised in the USA embassy compound in Ankara during the Cuba period, her father being a senior diplomat. Her take on the period is very interesting, well at odds with the accepted version.