Bolivia and Venezuela to expel U.S. ambassadors.

Bolivia because Morales accuses the U.S. of trying to foment a coup against him. Venezuela because Chavez is trying to show solidarity with Morales. Those are the stated reasons, anyway. Story here.

I can’t see us actually going to war with either country*, so I guess the only currently relevant debate is how this will affect the U.S. election and how the candidates will/should respond when asked about it, as they will be.

*Unless there’s a coffee embargo. Then we gonna have to kick some ass!

How do you think it might effect the U.S. election?

Affect. Why does nobody seem to get that right? (Sorry, it’s just a pet peeve of mine. Carry on.)

Mostly baffled. Latin-American relations is something none of the candidates have talked about much, so far. It would require them to express opinions, not just about this particular set of disagreements but about the whole set of left-wing electoral revolutions that have been sweeping Latin America and put Morales and Chavez in power (with immense popular support and intense opposition). Obama can’t say a good word for that or he’ll be labeled a socialist (yet again). McCain can’t say a word against it because he’s trying to distance himself at least somewhat from the way Bush-Cheney have been doing things. As for the general public, how many of them have even thought about these things before?

And Palin probably could not find Bolivia or Venezuela on a map.

I can’t see why expelling an ambassador would be a cause for war or even for anything. If the Ambassador was eating too many cookies at the party then they expell him and wait for things to settle down.

What I don’t understand is this American involuntary reflex of meddling in other countries. Chavez and Morales are two incompetent buffoons who will fall of their own clumsy weight and stupidity. If you let that happen all is well. Let those countries sort themselves out by themselves. But if you meddle, support the opposition, support coups, etc, you are lending the established governments credibility and moral standing and even when they fall America will be blamed.

And Russian bombers have landed in Venezuela to conduct “war games.” Any connection? I don’t really know anything about SA-US relations.

Some Russian fleet is arriving too. It was planned beforehand.

Look, those people have good reason to feel threatened by America which has a long history of coups and other interventions in Latin America. If an alliance with the Russians makes them feel safer just leave them alone. They are no threat to America in any way.

Like with Cuba it is America who lends credence and justification to those governments when it keeps poking them with a pointed stick. They are shooting themselves in the foot. If you just leave them alone they will end up shooting themselves in the face and nobody, not even Russia is going to bail them out.

Then they might be forced to come begging. Of their own free will.

Attention, Mods: Suggest thread merger.

Seems to me, the more likely a given head of state is to claim (falsely) that the USA is trying to foment a coup against him, the more likely the USA actually is trying exactly that.

I figure Evo is telling the truth.

(Emphasis mine)

Wait, so the more he’s lying, the more he’s telling the truth?

Or are you talking about subjective knowledge on the head of state’s part, and not objective reality?

Well, it’s really that the sort of leader who would make it up is the sort of leader against whom our wonderful, enlightened, & not-at-all imperialist :rolleyes: government would be happy to support insurrectionist movements.

You know, anti-American, willing to boast about it, a bit “erratic” in DC’s eyes. If our guys weren’t planning it, they are now–just because he said that.

The dictators are paranoid without objective reason but the CIA may, in fact, be plotting against them even if they do not know it.

“I know you tell me you are going to Boston because you want me to think you are going to Chicago but I know well you are actually going to Boston”.

They are buffoons, and they will not fall of their own stupidity, because they but represent movements much larger than themselves.

:dubious: Hey, c’mon, the CIA already tried to do Chavez once before, in 2002. You know it as well as I do.

They are leading their countries to chaos and disaster. As long as they remain in power things will get worse in those countries until they resemble Cuba. But I do not consider them a threat to anyone and I would just as well leave them alone. Countries need to make their own mistakes, just like people. It is when those mistakes involve invading foreign countries that I object. But if they want to elect a clown and trash their own country that is their privilege.

I understand about chavez, but, why is Evo Morales a buffon?.
Yes he has some nationalistic policies, nationalizing oil production and such.
Being contrary to economic ortodoxy makes him a buffoon?.

And please excuse use us latin americans for fearing U.S. intervention, they are only conspiracy theories like those about the Chile coup of 1973…

No surprise. Chavez has been cultivating an alliance with Russia for some time – and with a lot of other countries on bad terms with the U.S., apparently on enemy-of-my-enemy principles. See this thread.

A summit of South American leaders is backing Morales – at least, WRT Bolivia’s internal conflict.

Meanwhile, the Bush Admin, for the first time, accuses high officials in Hugo Chavez’ government of direct ties to the FARC rebels in Colombia.

I just hope President Obama can smooth all this over . . .

Update: Bush moves to suspend trade benefits for Bolivia, ostensibly “because of that country’s failure to cooperate in drug-fighting efforts in the past year.” (George, Morales is a cocalero and you have to make allowances. :wink: )

What would the effects of that be on Bolivian economy?, Bolivian exports are mostly to neighbouring countries i think.