if venezuela ever committed to a war in south america the first country they would go after is columbia.  However, Columbia would Kick their ass.  Not to mention Columbia being backed by the United States. 

I saw a post in this thread that called someone hitler.  We can look at Hitler and see two sides.   The megalomaniac and the brilliant politician.  Hitler would have done great good for Europe if it weren't for his extreme racism.  He was creating a european super state that would have been able to combine the reasources of all of europe into a single directed power towards progress.  There is no telling what level of development we would be in if europe had been united.  However, Hitler was a scum bag and needed to be destroyed.  The man had a good idea corrupted by evil and hate.

When I first saw your post, J, I wanted to ask you if you really wanted to "threaten" war with other countries?
This explains it:
"My threat of war with China is also a pr campaign, not an actual war with China or Russia that would never actually happen."

But - hmmm - I don't really like disquising something as a 'war,' which is meant to be a PR campaign. They will either know it - which is somewhat obvious... or they'll take it for real. Either way, I do not think sabre rattling is any use anyways.

I'm talking about what's said on tv, while behind the scenes you are standing strong but showing your willingness to make concessions in order to put the distribution of power back in to balance.

ofcourse Hitler made mistakes towards the end of the war but so does everyone when they become desperate.  Really Hitler's political phenomenon is repeating itself in Obama.  He had no political experience but he was a sensation in his time.  however, regardless of the advisors Hitler surrounded himself with, you cannot deny that he had some sort of exeptional feature or trait that made him popular.  I would say his ability to look good in the public eye or his ability to speak. 

Really the only reason i brought it up is because i think Europe would have been better off if they were united as a super state, even if it was under German rule.

/glances approvingly at world dominating rant with a Mussolini straddle

/notices his very silly avatar

/weeps hot tears of shame

Justinian you have some good ideas but you dont understand that morality is actually important. You can unite a nation and say you are the good guys by using morality. The world views you differently and therefore more friendly towards you if you are moral in all your actions. What is your political view called by the way?

Hugo Chavez built his ambitions on the oil reserves of venezuela. the higher the oil price, the higher his ambitions and actions in south america. all his plans depend on the oil price, which declined by 50% since july and with a economic crisis ahead the decline of the oil price will go on. soon Chavez will lack the oil-money to cover his socialism at home and his ambitions in the region. time will fix things.
beheading a nation by eliminating their leaders would result in chaos and civil war without a major occupation force (as we have learned in iraq). atm the US cannot spare enough forces for this.

so you think they'd fund a war against themselves?

On your list of what must be done.

"1. Eliminate Hugo Chavez and return private ownership of Venezuela's oil reserves."

Eliminate Chavez and his #2 will take his place, not only have you not eliminated the governing body responsible for your woes you've given them a martyr.

"2. Get hawkish with China and Russia, threatening them with war if they don't stop (of course only a ceremonious gesture; they'll back down)."

Which will piss of not only China and Russia but any allies you may still have.

"3. Display our naval power in the pacific."

Pissing off China, Russia, North Korea, and any other nation on the Pacific coast of Asia.  Also it will further enflame anti-US sentiment in South America.

"4. Beat up a few South American countries a little, and then offer peace on condition they agree to some free-market concessions and allow the US to build military bases in their countries."

Yeah because open US hostility won't cause any of the SA nations to band together, nope not a single one.

"5. Retake the panama canal."

Ok...

From your list it seems like either you A) vastly overestimate how intimidating the US military is; you've failed to pacify two third world nations and you're spending trillions of dollars you don't have to do it, or B) you actually want to start a war with SA.  What I can't understand is why, after 8 years of essentially continuous war, you would want to do this.  You can't be hoping to occupy all of SA so what could possibly be your angle.

And before anyone starts bragging about how long America's penis is let me just say this.  Can the US win a war against SA on their own, probably.  Can the US win a war against SA, Russia, and China whilst still dealing with terrorism out of the Middle East on their own, probably not.  Make no mistake if the US starts yet another war I will be surprised if they have a single military ally left.

I  am DAMNED tired of the US trying to be the world's policeman. From the invasion of Granada on, it has been nothing but stupid.

I would dearly love to return to the isolationst policies we had before WW I.

To say any actions we have taken since the Mexican/American war were moralistic, is just plain stupid. I correct that: the US has NEVER done any actions in war or out, that were NOT self interest, or just plain stupid.

Mex/US war? we just wanted the land. Spainish/American war? we just wanted an entry point into Asia. And to clear em from the western hemisphere. (the Main was a trumped up charge) WW I really, no reason for the US to be there. Did we turn the tide? NO. Did we really have any interests or business there? Again, no. The fight in Spain, between the wars: did we have any business there? Again no.  WW II, did we have an interest? Yes. Both from the stand point that Japan atked us, and were a  growing economic nation. And, Europe, united under a Nazi ldrship was a threat to us. Korea? We did not belong there. It was an internal matter, no matter who provided aid or why. Dividing a country in two? Sounds like the US civil war. Viet Nam. The French failed their colony. We took the fight over. Why? Gee, we hate communism, and the domino effect. And, again, trying to divide a nation into two.

It goes on and on. Iraq and Kuwait were motivated by greed for oil. not morality and justice.

Gee, think on this bit: The Us placed the Shah of Iran in place, look at Iran now. The US placed Noriega in place, look at Panama now. The US placed Sadam Huisein in power, look at Irag now, and so on. EVERY time we meddle, we make it WORSE!

Geeze, look at our actions in the Domincan "Republic"

OK, just keep sayin the US is doing things moralistically. Then explain why we have supported dictators and drug dealers? Explain why we choose to force "democracy" on other countriies?

Eh, Red Rooster, you have a grand point. Use our military only to protect our interests, and baldly state so.

Did sending our soldiers to die in Yugoslavia, really serve our interest? Granada? Dominican Republic? Viet Nam? Korea? HELL NO!!

I prefer an isolationalist policy. We send troops ONLY when it is clearly in our best interests. AND, cost effective. Suppose we let Sadam Heusein have Kuwait, and bought oil from him, instead of warring him? The cost/profit ratio is?.

Eh, not protect our interests? What were our interests in Granada, Dominican Republic, Viet Nam, Korea? I say NONE.