Iran-Contra II: Reagan Spotted In Venezuela

Republican Says Iran Sees Venezuela as Doorway to Americas!!!

Here we go again. It's time for the Republicans to roll out their dominoes theory just in time for 2008. Let's tie together Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and put Ollie North in charge of the State Department.

Here's what one of the main talking providers to conservative talk radio has to say about the pending menace:

Exclusive Interview (CNSNews.com) - Top U.S. officials who avoid confrontation with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should exchange their passivity for a more forceful Latin American policy, Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said in an exclusive interview with the Cybercast News Service.

Otherwise, rogue nations and terrorists will continue to use Venezuela as a conduit for dangerous enterprises that jeopardize U.S. interests, the Florida Republican argued. As it stands, Iran's influence in the region is already growing at a quick pace thanks in large measure to the Chavez government, said Mack.

Read more @ Cybercast News Service.

I didn't get a chance to listen to right wing nut radio today, but I'm sure Hannity and Limbaugh will some be hot of this.


Roadkill said...

Curt or whoever:

Of course, the domino theory proved correct. Once the US left South Vietnam per the Paris Accords, North Vietnam violated those agreements by engaging in a renewed assault on the South, culminating in victory, consolidation, re-education camps in which hundreds of thousands suffered and died, and over 1 million boat people fleeing for their lives.

Moreover, the Democratic congress aided and abetted the carnage by refusing to come to South Vietnam's aid, in violation of America's commitment under the accords and eerily paralleling the North's disrespect for the terms of a two-state peace.

By 1975, Laos had also fallen to Communist insurgency, followed by Cambodia in 1979. Only China's intervention halted the North Vietnamese march across southeast Asia.

I think you should be more circumspect about mocking the domino theory, which is in fact did play out but has been downplayed by MSM and left wingers since it does not comport with their preferred reinvention of the history of Southeast Asia.

I'm not sure that the concept of domino theory applies in South America, but it certainly did with respect to America's disgraceful abandonment of South Vietnam.

Sunny Badger said...


What is MSM? Educate me on which media outlets you are referring to. The partisan left- and right-wing media outlets both talk about what is not carried on or what is reported on MSM.

There's a long history of foreign military involvement in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. i.e., ask the French. So the domino theory went that if one country falls to Communism then the next one will fall -- like dominos.

Did that happen? You say the Chinese stopped it from happening. The would be the Communist Chinese. The Americans backed an assination of the South Vietnamese leader -- a popularly elected leader I believe. The South Vietnamese didn't want to fight -- just like Iraqis today. It was an internal conflict that once again was none of our business. Or should I say it was all about American business interests.

You must be one of the few left that actually think it was a mistake pulling out of Vietnam. Oh yea, just so the liberals reading this don't get confused, President Johnson, a Democrat, got us into Vietnam via a manufactured incident. President Richard Nixon, a Republican, got us out of Vietnam.

Roadkill said...


For the record, MSM = Main Stream Media (but I think you know that).

Yes, there is a long history of foreign military involvement in Vietnam, and yes, the French got their buts kicked (not really surprising), but my point has to do with the domino theory. Check the record.

North Vietnam's conquest of South Vietnam in 1975 (in express violation of the Paris Peace Accords) constituted the first domino. Then Laos fell to a communist insurgency later that year (domino #2), followed by Cambodia in 1979 (domino #3).

Yes, you are correct that Communist China put a halt to the marauding Vietnamese Army; they had their reasons, of course, mostly having to do with consolidating their hegemony in the region and containing the Soviet-backed Vietnamese. Regardless of the reasons, however, they did stop the rapacious North Vietnamese Army.

But the domino's did fall as predicted in the late 1970's, and millions died, and we did nothing to stop it.

So I do think we made a grave mistake by pulling out of Southeast Asia. I also believe that once the selfish, guilt-ridden boomer generation is gone, dispassionate historians will find that Vietnam was a noble but poorly executed effort in the long twilight struggle against communism. Even now, contemporary historians largely agree that our precipitous withdrawl and disengagement from Southease Asia led directly to mass suffering and death in the re-education camps and killing fields of communist-ruled Vietman, Laos, and Cambodia.

Because when it comes to inflicting Suffering, Starvation, and Death, nothing but nothing beats 20th Century Communism.

Sunny Badger said...


If what you mean by "20th Century Communism" is the mafia-like dictatorships of Russian, China, etc. that would have totally shocked and disheartened Karl Marx, I agree with you.

Hindsiight is a great thing, but it doesn't change history. It might touchup the photos to suit a certain spin factor eminating from the historian.

What's your point about Vietnam? Would it have been better to never have gotten involved in it or to have slogged it out?

How old were you in 1969? I was a 14. I don't think my eight years of schooling and paper route and dishwashing experience qualified me as an expert on the subject. However, I did know the old guy who lived in our neighborhood who went to Vietnam and never came back. And I do remember when Memorial Day wasn't on Monday and I don't remember any of the neighborhood dads bragging about their war experiences.

I think the point of this post is to illustrate that we have a certain faction in our government that sees war as the most viable option to displaying our waning power in the world. The US is quickly turning into the Detroit of nations and is real slow to wake up and smell the toast of its looming reality.

Roadkill said...


I was 13 in 1969, enjoying a fantastic, Huck Finn-type childhood that is no longer possible for our own children.

I do remember thinking as a boy that service in Vietnam was part of my responsibilites as an American, just like my Grandfather served in WWI, Father served in WWII, and Uncle served in Korea. I never did get the opportunity to serve in Vietnam, however, since the draft ended in the early 1970's (along with all the campus anti-war protests, which seemed in retrospect to have fizzled out once the prospect of service ended for college-age boys.). Nonetheless, I was ready to go, because I felt it was part of my duties as an American.

I do remember Memorial Days that fell on weekdays, and parades in my small hometown. I think that the Monday holiday movement has drained from such holidays their very meaning, and have become just an excuse for partying over a three day weekend.

I make a point of re-reading MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail every January xxth, Lincoln's Second Inaugural and Washington's farewell speach every Presidents Day, The Gettysburg Address every Memorial Day, both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution every 4th of July, and the poem "Flanders Fields" every Veterans Day. I wish everyone did so, because I think we are losing touch with the meaning of these great holidays. Perhaps we can agree on that.

Sunny Badger said...


We do agree on the holidays. Memorial and Veterans Days are days for heavy thinking. War is a serious matter that seems to be taken too lightly of late. I don't believe the American home front is chipping in enough skin in the current military engagements. But then again, I fear the art of political spin now requires our leaders to be photogenic politicians rather than dedicated statespersons. Maybe it's always been that way...

By the time I escaped from high school in 1973, few of my classmates were running down to the recruiter's office. Of the friends who did sign up, little of it had to do with patriotism. Most of it had to do with getting out of Dodge, learning a trade and getting some school money at the end of the hitch. In many ways, I think a lot of that holds true today.

I've talked to a number of young men who have returned from Iraq and few have anything good to say about their experiences. They might have went in gungho but came home realizing they might have played the role of political pawn. Most to these talks have been at the bar and most of these kids had plenty to drink. The truth was slurring out.

So did you going the service are high school?

Roadkill said...


I agree with most all of your recent comment.

I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from the remarks of recently returning Iraq veterans, however; such commentary is common amongst soldiers. Let's not forget that it was the the greatest generation, who fought the German, Italian, and Japanese fascists, who coined the terms SNAFU (Situation Normal, All F**ked Up) and FUBAR (F**ked Up Beyond All Recognition). Yet the American Legion and VFW Halls are filled with WWII vets who would vehemently deny ever having uttered such disrespectful or sarcastic epethets.

Hey, that last sentence of yours read like you wrote it after coming home from those Irag Vet bars. Was the question you meant to ask "Did you serve?" The answer is yes, (for many years).

Sunny Badger said...


I think that "last sentence" should be attributed to a long day.

I'm with you about veterans and bar talk. But I think there is much truth in what is said and I also think those vets I've talked to were speaking about what lies beneath the "Army of One" ads. Most of these kids are going into the service with a naive sense of patriotism, but that is nothing new. That's why you don't see many 30+ people enlisting. Reality has set in.

Like you, the conservative radio talkers like to compare Iraq to WWII and the scarifies made by the generation of our fathers. I don't see the correlation. Iraq was no Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan.

If you research the reason Bush Senior went into Iraq in 1991, many feel it was a diplomatic miscommunication between Ambassador April Gillespie and Saddam Hussein that inspired Iraq to move into Kuwait. Until then, if you recall, Iraq was our ally.