"The Colombian government has become the Israel of Latin America," - Chavez

Here is a metaphor to choke on. It is time to quit.

Chavez simply has to go. If Saddam was a threat to the region in the Middle East, Chavez clearly is problematic for Latin America. The Chavez metaphor about Columbia and Israel in the right church but the the wrong pew. The comparison should be with Chavez and Latin America.

We do not need a Latin Hamas in the Americas. Chavez is past the stage of being a clown or an irritant. He is dangerously close to crossing a line that should be called a trip wire. An aircraft carrier visit should be the order of the day and Chavez should be forced to stand down from his escalation against Colombia.

Russia and China should be given a stern warning that the games are over in latin America and enough is enough.

At the very first opportunity and with the thinnest of reason or cover, Chavez should be given the immortality he richly longs for.

______________________

South America on brink of war
By Martin Arostegui Washington Times
March 3, 2008

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said Colombia's military violated its airspace to retrieve the body of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia's second in command, Raul Reyes.
SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — South America was on the brink of war yesterday as Venezuela and Ecuador amassed troops on the Colombian border in response to the killing of a Marxist rebel leader.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to join the rebels in a war to overthrow hard-line Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a key ally of the United States, deploying tanks, fighter jets and thousands of troops along the Colombian border.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa also ordered troops to the border, expelled Colombia's ambassador and recalled its ambassador to Bogota, but left its embassy open. Venezuela closed its embassy in Colombia and ordered all diplomats home.

A weekend battle sparked the mobilization, in which Colombian forces killed a top leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in a camp in Ecuador.

"The obsessive conduct of those who prize the military option sharpens the armed conflict with grave possible consequences" read a statement from Venezuela's Foreign Ministry after the weekend killing of FARC's second in command, Raul Reyes.

On his weekly Sunday talk show "Hello President," Mr. Chavez accused Colombia of "invading" Ecuador, and compared the action to Israeli attacks against Palestinians.

"The Colombian government has become the Israel of Latin America," Mr. Chavez said. He called Colombia a "terrorist" state and its president, Mr. Uribe, a criminal; "Dracula's fangs are covered in blood

(Más aquí)

Chavez Moves Tanks Towards Colombia

Chavez with an AK-47, of course

Chavez sends tanks to Colombia border in dispute (hat tip: Trish)
Sun Mar 2, 2008

By Saul Hudson

CARACAS (Reuters) -

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez moved tanks to the Colombian border and mobilized fighter jets on Sunday, warning Bogota could spark a war after its troops struck inside another of its neighbors, Ecuador.

Reacting to Colombia's killing on Saturday of a Colombian rebel over the border in Ecuador, a Venezuelan ally, Chavez also withdrew all of his diplomats from Bogota in the worst dispute between the neighbors since he came to office in 1999.

"Mr. Defense Minister, move me 10 battalions to the frontier with Colombia immediately, tank battalions. The air force should mobilize," Chavez said, adding he will bolster his military's presence along the 1,400-mile (2,200-km) border.

"May God spare us a war. But we are not going to allow them violate our sovereign territory," the ex-paratrooper added on his weekly TV show.

Colombia's military said on Saturday troops killed Raul Reyes, a leader of Marxist FARC rebels, during an attack on a jungle camp in Ecuador in a severe blow to Latin America's oldest guerrilla insurgency. The operation included air strikes and fighting with rebels across the frontier.

The anti-U.S. Chavez, who had warned a similar operation in Venezuela would be "cause for war," threatened to send Russian-made fighter jets into U.S. ally Colombia if its troops struck inside his OPEC country.

Colombia had no immediate reaction to Venezuela's military movements. Prior to Chavez's statement, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe denied violating Ecuador's sovereignty, saying the operation was in response to fire from across the border.

But the leftist governments of Venezuela and Ecuador questioned the accuracy of his account. Ecuador withdrew its ambassador in protest.

"Colombia has not violated any sovereignty, only acted in accordance with the principal of legitimate defense," the government said in a statement.

Washington, which backs Uribe's fight against the rebels with its largest military aid outside the Middle East, said it was monitoring developments after Chavez's "odd reaction."

France called for restraint on all sides, saying it underlined the need for the negotiated release of FARC hostages, including the most high-profile captive, French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt.

The FARC said in a statement the killing of one its leaders who had been involved in hostage talks should not affect moves to free captives, according to the Venezuelan government.

CIVIL WAR SPILLOVER

Uribe, who is popular at home for his tough stance against the rebels, has often jousted with neighbors over spillover from the four-decade conflict. But he has managed differences with pragmatism and disputes have rarely moved past rhetoric.

Uribe says rebels take refuge in frontier areas and neighbors urge him to stop violence seeping over borders.

Chavez has been in a diplomatic dispute with Uribe for months over his mediation to free the rebels' hostages. Uribe says Chavez used the talks to meddle in Colombian affairs.

The Venezuelan called the rebel leader's death the "cowardly assassination" of a "good revolutionary."

"I am putting Venezuela on alert and we will support Ecuador in any situation," he said.

Uribe is "a liar, a Mafia boss, a paramilitary who leads a narco-government and leads a government that is a lackey of the United States," Chavez added.

Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank in Washington and a critic of Chavez, said the Venezuelan was playing with fire even if the spat could distract from his domestic problems such as chronic shortages of some foods.

"It maybe is a measure of how concerned he is about his own domestic support," he said. "I don't know how far he is going to go with this, but it is a risky political action."

(Additional reporting by Patricia Rondon in Caracas, Patrick Markey in Bogota, Jean-Baptiste Vey in Paris and David Alexander in Crawford; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Near Crash of A320 in Hamburg. Is the Pilot a Hero or a Fool?

You tell me.

Iran and Iraq Getting Together.

Nation building is best left to the nations that want to build themselves. Nations by definition are self identified. When a nation is dictated to by another it becomes something quite different again. Iraq is going to go its own way. That was the goal and Iraq is doing it.

The United States may have seen the apogee of its influence over Iraqi affairs, but unfortunately, it had not reached the height of its responsibility. Here is a hint of things to come. Does anyone doubt that there is a large portion of Iraq that is sympathetic and supportive towards Iran?

______________________

Iran leader's Iraq visit eclipses US, Arab ties
Sun Mar 2, 2008 Reuters

By Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s.

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.

A line of senior Iraqi political leaders welcomed Ahmadinejad when he arrived at Talabani's palatial home.

Bush has visited Iraq several times, his administration keen to reduce Iranian influence in the world's top oil-exporting region.

But that goal been made harder by a reluctance from Iraq's mainly Sunni Arab neighbours to send high-level diplomatic representation, or even to visit, despite U.S. encouragement.

"To Iraq's neighbours, Ahmadinejad's visit underlines that a non-Arab country has kept its embassies open since the fall of Saddam and its leader visits Iraq," Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi told Reuters.

Many Arab diplomats have stayed away after a suicide car bomber attacked the Jordanian embassy in August 2003, killing 17 people. Militants have killed several other diplomats, including an Egyptian who had been sent to head Cairo's mission in 2005.

"Not a single Arab country has an embassy in Iraq and not one of their leaders has visited, despite Iraq being an Arab country," Abbawi said.

Several Arab nations have missions in Iraq, but none has ambassadors permanently in the country.

Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure.

Bush's last visit in September 2007 was to a desert airbase in Anbar province in Iraq's west. He flew in unannounced to ward off insurgent attacks and the visit was over in a few hours.

Washington says Tehran supplies weapons and training to Shi'ite militias in Iraq, a charge Tehran denies. Analysts say Iran seeks a stable Iraq but at the same time wants to make life difficult for occupying U.S. forces.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is at odds with Washington over Tehran's nuclear programme, has repeatedly called for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, blaming them for violence that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis since the 2003 invasion.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they will play no role in Ahmadinejad's visit and that the U.S. military will not be involved in protecting him as he travels around unless it is asked for help.

When Ahmadinejad flew into Baghdad, his plane was controlled by Iraqi air controllers. But from his plane, Ahmadinejad would probably have seen the rows of American armoured vehicles and helicopters at a giant U.S. military base next to the airport.

(Editing by Paul Tait and Samia Nakhoul)

Sunday Morning

"Red Phone Moments"

The Clinton Campaign has aired a television ad showing sleeping children and asking who would be more qualified to answer a national security emergency call at 3 a.m. What can we infer from Barack Obama's response?

"The question is not about picking up the phone. The question is: What kind of judgment will you make when you answer?"

"We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer," Obama said.

Obama's hindsight is 20-20. But what about his judgment? What does it say about the man who refused to accept the "common knowledge" and nearly universal opinion of the world's intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a threat to use them? If, in the highly charged and uncertain atmosphere after 9/11, Barack Obama was unwilling to proactively act against Iraq which had been labeled by many as the "most dangerous place on earth," it is unlikely that a President Obama will act proactively and preemptively against threats in the future. The US Intelligence may have been wrong about the threat posed by Iraq, but Mr. Obama had no way of knowing that at the time. Each time he reminds us of his unwillingness to act then raises questions about his willingness to act in the future.

He has indicated that he will sit down and dialogue with anyone. Like other notable Democrats who have been to Syria for tea with Assad, would his ready dialogue cloud his judgment as he too "looks into the other man's eyes?" We don't know the answer just as we don't know many other answers to the Obama enigma. Since the media refuse or are not allowed by the Obama campaign to draw out the candidate, we can only speculate based on his previous words, actions, positions and associations. Unfortunately, this leaves us feeling uneasy about his suitability as Commander-in-Chief at this particular point in history.

For example, this weekend Israel is once again engaged in ground actions against its mortal enemies in Gaza and the USS Cole stands in full alert off the coast of Lebanon. Given the recent assassination of Hezbollah's number two and the subsequent vows of revenge and war, would a President Obama send the most advanced defensive platform in the world to essentially cover Israel's back?

That's a very good question for the media to ask the vague candidate Obama. The media has gotten very lazy in the last decade. Rather than dig deeper into a candidates background and beliefs they have preferred to cover the horse race of elections. These elections are not games and at some point, the adults must do their jobs. Witty retorts in public debates won't do. With Obama's short resume, we must have a much more extensive and critical interview process and if the MSM is unwilling to do their proper jobs or fail to perform as constitutionally envisioned, the McCain campaign will have to force the issue. So far, Obama has gotten an easy ride. Unless we're to become a nation/cult of Kool-Aid drinkers, that must change.

Washington on Our First Preemptive War

Lessons on Iraq From a Founding Father

By Brian O'Malley Washington Post
Saturday, March 1, 2008; Page A15

What would George Washington do about Iraq? In a December Outlook essay, historian Joseph J. Ellis argued that it's not possible to theorize exact answers because the "gap between the founders' time and ours is non-negotiable, and any direct linkage between them and now is intellectually problematic." But Ellis also conceded that this position is "unacceptable to many of us, because it suggests that the past is an eternally lost world that has nothing to teach us."

History does hold lessons about today's issues, and this is clear when considering Iraq and U.S. conduct in the war against terrorism. Consider the 1775-76 invasion of Canada, America's first preemptive war, which ended just days before Congress ratified the Declaration of Independence.

On Sept. 14, 1775, Washington wrote two letters to Col. Benedict Arnold, who led an American force into Canada. Five of Washington's points for invasion merit particular attention.

• First, if the citizens don't want us there, don't go. Washington told Arnold, "You are by every means in your power to endeavour to discover the real sentiments of the Canadians towards our cause, and particularly as to this expedition; ever bearing in mind that if they are averse to it, and will not co-operate, or at least willingly acquiesce, it must fail of success. In this case you are by no means to prosecute the attempt."The expense of starting the mission and the disappointment of not completing it, Washington wrote, "are not to be put in competition with the dangerous consequences which may ensue from irritating them against us."
  

• Second, the safety of American personnel depended on how they treated people. Washington wanted Arnold to "conciliate the affections" of the Canadian settlers and Indians and ordered Arnold to teach the soldiers and officers under his command "that not only the Good of their Country and their Honour, but their Safety depends upon the Treatment of these People."

• Third, proper treatment of prisoners was necessary. The prominent British parliamentarian William Pitt, who championed American grievances, had a son serving in Canada. John Pitt was never taken into American custody, but in the event that Pitt was captured, Washington warned Arnold, "You cannot err in paying too much Honour to the Son of so illustrious a Character, and so true a Friend to America." This insistence on kind treatment extended beyond Pitt. Washington wrote, "Any other Prisoners who may fall into your Hands, you will treat with as much Humanity and kindness, as may be consistent with your own Safety and the publick Interest." Washington told Arnold to restrain the Continental troops and their Indian allies "from all Acts of Cruelty and Insult, which will disgrace the American Arms, and irritate our Fellow Subjects against us."
  

• Fourth, any Americans who mistreated Canadians should be punished. "Should any American Soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his Person or Property," Washington wrote, "I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary Punishment as the Enormity of the Crime may require." In an accompanying letter Washington added, "Should it extend to Death itself it will not be disproportional to its Guilt, at such a Time and in such a Cause."

• Fifth, respect the people's religion. "As the Contempt of the Religion of a Country by ridiculing any of its Ceremonies or affronting its Ministers or Votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every Officer and Soldier from such Imprudence and Folly and to punish every Instance of it."

American ideals won immediate support from the Canadians, but American misconduct squandered it. Contrary to Washington's orders, some American commanders disrespected Canadians' religion, property and liberty.

Lamenting this American misconduct, Washington wrote to Gen. Philip Schuyler on April 19, 1776, "I am afraid proper measures have not been taken to conciliate their affections, but rather that they have been insulted and injured, than which nothing could have a greater tendency to ruin our cause in that country; for human nature is such that it will adhere to the side from whence the best treatment is received."

George Washington is still first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen. It's too bad he couldn't have been the first person we asked about how to proceed in Iraq.

The writer is an adjunct professor at Jones College in Jacksonville, Fla.

How About a Good Spanking?

Spare the Rod?
Spanking may lead to aggression and sexual problems later in life, says a new study. So why do so many parents still believe in it?

By Claudia Kalb | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 28, 2008 | Updated: 12:54 p.m. ET Feb 28, 2008

It's a topic that riles up emotions and opinions the way few others do in the contentious world of parenting philosophies. Spanking. Should you? How could you? Is it right? Is it wrong? Online message boards are flooded with messages on the topic: the confessions, the wrath, the full-on support. "Yes, I've done it, even though I always swore I wouldn't," writes one. "Sometimes spanking works best," responds another. And then there are the vocal opponents. "Spanking," writes one, "is abuse."

The spanking wrangle has a long history in scientific research, and new findings to be reported today at the American Psychological Association Summit Conference on Violence and Abuse in Relationships will intensify the debate yet again. In a provocative paper, Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, says that spanking kids increases their risk of sexual problems as adults. Straus, a longtime researcher in the field, analyzed four prior studies and found that teens or young adults whose parents used corporal punishment were more likely to coerce dating partners into having sex or to engage in risky or masochistic sex.

One stat: the 25 percent of university students who ranked highest on a corporal punishment scale insisted on sex without a condom, compared with the 12.5 percent of university students who scored lowest on the scale. Another: 75 percent of college students who'd been spanked a lot said they were sexually aroused by masochistic sex, compared with 40 percent of students who were never spanked. "It's so consistent with so many other studies showing harmful side effects," says Straus. "It didn't surprise me."


The new study has its weaknesses, but so does just about every other paper in the field. For starters, you can't study spanking in the randomized double-blind way you can a medication. It would be ethically inappropriate to divide a bunch of kids into two groups, spank some, spare others and then compare how they fare 10 or 20 years down the road. And double-blind? Impossible to disguise spanking in a dummy pill. So there's no way to absolutely prove cause and effect. The study also relies on students' own recollections of their childhood experiences. Straus says he controlled for people covering up mistreatment by their parents. On the other hand, the students could also have exaggerated. "It's possible," says Strauss, "though I don't find it too plausible."

Elizabeth Gershoff, a researcher at University of Michigan's School of Social Work, says Straus's findings are consistent with the literature. "I have every faith in his research," Gershoff says. "The more children are spanked, the more aggressive they are and the more likely they are to engage in delinquent or at-risk behaviors." Sexual behavior is just one example of that behavior, she says. One lesson kids learn, says Gershoff, is that if you have the power in a relationship, you can use aggression to get your way. Another: "[Kids] may learn that sometimes there's pain and fear involved in loving relationships."

Gershoff, who published a large analysis of the spanking research in 2002 and has just completed a new paper about spanking in the context of human rights and public policy, says spanking may work to gets kids' attention, but it doesn't teach them how to behave appropriately in the long-term. A little tap once in a while is going to have minimal risk, but the risk increases "the more you do it and the harder you do it," she says. "I think everything we know from the research is that it doesn't work and it might have negative side effects."

Need more do you?