Chavez in $2bn Russian arms deal

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Russia has agreed to lend Venezuela over $2bn (£1.2bn) to buy weapons, President Hugo Chavez has said.

The credit will be used to purchase nearly 100 tanks and a series of anti-aircraft rocket systems from Russia.

In his weekly TV address, Mr Chavez said the weapons were intended to boost Venezuela's defensive capacity.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8253822.stm

[maddezmom]

1. a bit more from Bloomberg: Venezuela’s Chavez Agrees to $2.2 Billion Russian Arms Pact

Venezuela’s Chavez Agrees to $2.2 Billion Russian Arms Pact
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Daniel Cancel

Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Russia will provide a $2.2 billion credit line for weapons purchases and will jointly develop oil fields and nuclear energy.

Venezuela will buy 92 T-72S tanks, Smerch missiles with a range of 90 kilometers and an S-300 Antey-2500 anti-aircraft defense system including radar and missiles with a range of 400 kilometers, Chavez said yesterday during his weekly program “Alo Presidente” on state television.

“Thanks to the help and support of the Russian president and prime minister, we’ve reached an agreement to increase our defensive capacity,” Chavez said.

The Venezuelan president has already spent about $4.4 billion on Russian weapons, including Sukhoi fighter jets and 100,000 Kalishnikov rifles. Chavez said the arms are needed to defend the nation’s energy resources and won’t be used for offensive purposes.

more:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a9Q.xFWvaMps

[Selatius]

2. T-72 tanks are nearly useless against modern battletanks.

The defensive missile systems and the T-72s are most likely an attempt to send a message to Colombia's president.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Other sources are reporting T-90s, which are modern MBTs

[Selatius]

41. I dunno about that. Russia rarely exports their best equipment to foreign countries.

Typically, they export hand-me-downs that they don't use anymore or downgraded versions of the systems they do operate (i.e. Su-30MK warplanes, which is an export version of Russian family of Su-27 warplanes and the derivatives that have come from the Su-27). Venezuela has ordered 24 Su-30MKs from Russia last time I heard, due to be delivered 2010 and later.

I think the only exceptions to that rule, though, are China and India. They have been able to buy some new stuff coming out of Russian defense factories, partly because they have been very big customers filling Russian defense industry coffers with big orders.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. When this first came up, a trade article discussed that they were coming from Russian inventory

so one assumes its their current version. For tanks its the electronics that make the difference these days. No word on what Chavez is going to get.

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are very important to the producing nation since it reduces unit cost and makes things more affordable for domestic purchase as well. For example, the LeCcerc MBT made by France only has 1 FMS customer, UAE, which has almost as many as the French army. If there were more FMS customers, the costs would have dropped dramatically and France would be able to afford more of their own tanks. An example of a good FMS program is the F-16 Falcon. Lots of customers made for lower cost all the way around.

There are better tanks designs out there than the M-1 and Merkeva, which includes the Leclerc. However the US and Israel invest very heavily in training and readiness. In battle that makes the difference.

[Kurska]

45. Has the T-90's ever been proven in combat against other tanks?

Much less proven MBTS like the Merkava or the Abrams?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. Not that I know of

This *may* be the first export order for them. The electronics suite is a big deal and its not clear what will be delivered. Prior articles also said that BMPs were on the list. Heavy MBTs make no sense in Latin America. Heavy APCs, like the BMPs are a much better choice. Then again this is mostly a political deal, not one based on military requirements.

[Kurska]

57. Alot of this stuff is the kind of equipment that looks good on paper,

But that Venezula doesn't have the military to back up. Chavez must realize that T-90's aren't going to do anything to change the actual power balance between him and anybody.

India bought around 200 T-90's awhile ago didn't they?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Looked into it more this AM and you are right they did and also got a local production deal as well

with technology transfer. A couple of sources indicate that though the chassis/body is common, India changed the electronics to international and domestic systems that they considered best of breed.

[Old Hob]

52. Seems like he's consolidating his political position IMO. nt

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. very disturbing

weapon stockpiles in South America.

[Syntheto]

4. Yeah, especially considering...

...STRATFOR analysis indicates that the next wave of energy development will be in the area of Lithium-ion batteries; Chile and Bolivia having the biggest concentrations of the stuff.

If the world's prime moving equipment ran on sunflower seeds, there would be a carrier task force off the coast of wherever there were the most sunflowers grown and I'm sure there would be a group of democratically-minded 'freedom fighters' who needed our help, and of course, out of gratitude would secure for us a sweet deal on sunflower seeds.

Prediction: within 20 years, there will be airstrikes on Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Sucre and Santiago as we do our part to help these brave defenders of democracy fight against...somebody.

[smirkymonkey]

21. Uruguay??

:shrug:

[tkmorris]

5. Not really

It sounds like an impressive buy, but there is nothing here that the US couldn't take out from a distance without ever endangering itself in any way.

No, the only thing these weapons are good for is Venezuela establishing itself as a nation not to be intimidated by it's neighbors, primarily Colombia. It has just declared that it is the de facto military powerhouse in the region, and as such it deals from a position of strength in any dispute. Useful to them, but certainly not any cause for alarm to anyone with a first world military.

[dipsydoodle]

7. the US couldn't take out from a distance..............

Box cutters come to mind. :sarcasm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjD7zD0a4I0 It ain't what you do...........

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Don't forget the S-300s. Even the export models are dangerous.

[endarkenment]

16. SAM are defensive weapons

Why exactly does Venezuela not have the right to defend itself?

[twitomy]

17. for the same reasons the US shouldnt be developing the

"National Missle Defense" system. Its a defensive weapon system as well.

[endarkenment]

20. Uh wow like a totally wrong answer.

The destabilization of the mutually assured destruction nuclear standoff, which is the major reason why we have not had a nuclear strike since 1945, through the abandonment of the anti-missile treaty and the threatened deployment of anti-missile systems on Russia's borders, might appear superficially to be similar to a non nuclear nation deploying surface to air missiles as part of a conventional air defense system. And one could make the argument you have made: "Its a defensive weapon system as well", but one would either have to be very naive to do so, or be engaged in dishonest discourse. So which is it with you?

[twitomy]

28. None of the above.

I dont think defending oneself from nuclear weapons is dishonorable unless you do so in order to
get away with a first strike. And I dont think our President is of that mindset.
A few missles near the Russian border would do nothing to deter a first strike from Russia;
So I think their concerns are disengnenious. They just dont want to have to invest billions to try to "keep up" as their presecessor the Soviet Union collapsed in trying to do so.

[endarkenment]

29. or both

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. I think you missed the context

tkmorris in post preceding mine stated that none of the weapons Chavez was buying could standup to the US. While that is true, I pointed out the S-300 as fairly effective and something to be cautious of.

I did not say the Venezuela did not have the right to defend itself.

[endarkenment]

24. Sorry - most of the reponses here are OHNOES!!!! - my mistake.

Generally the knee jerk Cold War DU Hawks post all over these threads as if Venezuela has no right to defend itself and no reason to be concerned about armed to the teeth US ally Colombia, the US military base network in the region, the 4th fleet, our air force, and the long and sorry history of US intervention both covert and overt in the region.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I think you overstate the capability of Columbia

No armor to speak of and even the recent purchase of refurbished Kfirs will keep them far behind Venezuela in terms of combat aircraft capabilities. Clearly Chavez does most of the saber rattling in the region.

[Lagomorph]

65. "armed to the teeth US ally Colombia"

Here, read up, you've a lot of confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Army_of_Colombia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_Air_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_Air_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
http://www.reuters.com/article/americasCrisis/idUSN07411579
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/27/us-bases-deepen-rift/

[hack89]

40. It is not so clear cut - they can used offensively

They have a range of about 50 miles. If all that 50 is in Venezuelan air space then they can only be defensive. If, however, they are placed on the border with a neighboring country such that those missiles can reach 50 miles into that other country, then they can be used to threaten that other country. A good example is China - they have similar missiles opposite Taiwan. While they have a mission to protect Chinese air space, their other mission is to attack Taiwanese aircraft to help the Chinese Air force gain air superiority over the Straits of Taiwan so the Chinese Navy can carry an invasion force to Taiwan.

[twitomy]

18. Chavez is on a "Peace thru Strength" kick it appears;

that, or he is just getting some equipment to safely redistribute the confiscated rice.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Hello? We are the ones stockpiling weapons and building new bases in Latin America

After what we did to Iraq, it would be irresponsible for any national leader to leave their country defenseless to American imperialism and hegemony.

And before you ask, Obama's election has not changed one iota our imperialist designs for the world.

[Pavulon]

36. There is nothing in VZ that is any threat to a US action

his weapon systems are only a threat to his neighbors. Shitty russian gear is not relevant to anyone but them.

[ronnie624]

56. The Venezuelan government does not threaten its neighbors.

On the contrary, Chavez has always been more inclined to offering friendship and cooperation to neighboring countries.

And it doesn't matter that you proclaim Venezuela's arms purchases useless. As a sovereign nation, Venezuela has a right to ignore your council on the matter, and arm its military, anyway. Your 'point', such as it is, is what is lacking relevance.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. So who ordered tanks to the their borders?

[ronnie624]

74. Don't ask me to make your point for you.

If you have specific claims to make regarding the matter, make them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. So its safe to assume that you did not know that after Columbia attacked the FARC camp

Chavez ordered troops and tanks to the Venezuelan border with Columbia?

[ronnie624]

77. "...after Columbia attacked the FARC camp",

which was in a neighboring country. In other words, Colombia was the aggressor, and the move by Chavez was defensive.

[dotymed]

85. Nice to see a rational

fellow hoosier.

[EFerrari]

49. That aren't ours. n/t

[David__77]

6. I think the tank purchases are a mistake.

What use are tanks of this kind? It seems that there is some bravado here. Venezuela's national security can be enhanced through arming the population as a whole with small arms, as well as acquiring better technology than is afforded by these tanks. "Power projection" with these sort of tanks is very outmoded thinking. Colombia is a concern, yes, so on the other hand they may have a role with regard to a potential aggression by that country.

[denem]

9. Tanks are imposing in an urban setting, like Prague, Caracas or Beijing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. They were used similarly by the Shah in Tehran

[davepc]

15. only against lightly or unarmed civilians.

We've lost a few M1 Abrams in Iraq to IEDs.

[jakeXT]

10. you could move troops.. clear roads or forests ...

[Pavulon]

33. Dozers clear roads, apc carry troops, and tanks intimidate helpless civilians,,

or jest get blown up from the air. Useless purchase.

[SpiralHawk]

8. "Hey, that should be our money." - Republicon Munitions Cronies

eom

[endarkenment]

14. Well it would be except we won't sell them stuff.

So they went to the next best source.

I love the smell of rightwing upset in the morning.

[Psephos]

34. Actually, it's because Chavez won't buy American weaponry. n/t

[Pavulon]

35. Negative, he wanted f16 parts, we gave him the high hat.

so he spend lots of money on migs.

[Psephos]

39. Self-delete n/t

[Psephos]

43. Aha, so THAT's where he got it from...

;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Next best sources are France or Israel

If you are looking for quality AFVs or SAMs. Russian gear is well below that in terms of capabilities.

However if you are looking a taking on $2.2 billion USD in debt and make a political statement at the same time, Putin et al is your guy.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Last summer, the Bushwhacks reconstituted the US 4th Fleet in the Caribbean

(mothballed since WW II), an act that Brazil's president, Lula da Silva, said poses a threat to Brazil's oil reserves. (Everybody south of the border knows that it is a threat to Venezuela's). The Bushwhacks also funded/organized a white separatist insurrection in Bolivia with the goal of creating a fascist mini-state in control of Bolivia's main gas/oil resources. Bolivia's new indigenous president, Evo Morales threw the US ambassador (and the DEA) out of Bolivia for this, and received the 100% backing of the newly formalized South American 'common market,' UNASUR, in ending the insurrection, preventing the split-up of Bolivia and restoring peace in the country. (This was in September of last year during our Financial 9/11.)

The Bushwhacks probably also provided US high tech surveillance, a US pilot and plane, and ten 500 lb US "smart bombs"--and possibly organized--a Colombian bombing/raid on Ecuador in which 25 sleeping people were blown to smithereens without trial, at a temporary FARC guerrilla camp just inside Ecuador's border. The 25 dead included the chief FARC hostage and peace negotiator, Raul Reyes, and there is overwhelming evidence that Reyes was about to release Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages (this was in March 2008)-- so said her husband, and the Swiss, Spanish and French envoys, who were in Ecuador for the purpose--in a bid for peace in Colombia's 40+ year civil war. This ended all talk of peace. The Colombian military then claimed to have retrieved Reyes' laptop (later laptopS) which they said contained evidence that Chavez (president of Venezuela, with huge oil reserves on Colombia's border to the north) and Rafael Correa (president of Ecuador, with huge oil reserves on Colombia's border to the south) are "terrorist-lovers." Colombia seems to have an "Office of Special Plans" of its own, for manufacturing "evidence" against war targets.

The US furthermore lards Colombia--a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth, including the murder of thousands of union leaders by rightwing paramiltary death squads with close ties to the Colombian government and military--with $6 BILLION mostly in military aid, and Colombia's alleged president*, Alvaro Uribe, recently announced plans for seven new US military bases in Colombia--an announcement that set off alarms all over Latin America. With the US military base in Honduras, recently secured by a rightwing military coup** (the US also supports the Honduran military), the US 4th Fleet and the seven new US bases in Colombia, the US has Venezuela's main oil region surrounded.

There is considerable evidence of a US war plan that Rumsfeld*** left sitting around, for instigating civil wars in northern Venezuela and northern Ecuador, where the oil is, and where rightwing politicians openly talk of secession--for which the Bolivian white separatist insurrection last September may have been a rehearsal and a test-out of systems. (Ecuador's President Correa stated publicly last year that they have evidence of coordinated organizing for this war plan among rightwing groups in three countries--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador.)

When South America last summer formalized its new 'common market,' UNASUR, Brazil proposed a 'common defense.' Colombia's recently retired Defense Minister Santos began immediately trying to sabotage the creation of a 'common defense.'**** Meanwhile, it is up to individual UNASUR members to defend the resources upon which UNASUR as a whole depends, for the development and progress of the region. Chavez is responsible for the "northern flank." Venezuela is the most directly threatened and the most in need of defense. However, Ecuador may be the first target, in an effort to take out that Venezuelan ally to the south of Colombia. (Ecuador's president recently said, "After Zelaya, I'm next"--according to Ecuadoran and South American intelligence). Ecuador is virtually defenseless, and has already been the victim of a US/Colombian cross-border attack.

-----------------------------------------

*(You raise your head in a leftist cause in Colombia, you risk getting it shot off. 'Elections' in Colombia are controlled by the rightwing death squads--via threats, intimidation, thuggery and outright murder. That is why I say "alleged" president. By contrast, Venezuela's and Ecuador's elections--and all those in which leftist governments have been elected--are characterized by their transparency and honesty and by maximum citizen participation, lack of even the hint of intimidation, and full and free expression.)

**(Honduran President Zelaya proposed converting the US military base to a commercial airport, which--probably more than anything--is what prompted the Honduran military to shoot up his home, kidnap him at gunpoint and fly him out of the country against his will, with a refueling stop at the US base, where the US military did nothing to stop this crime.)

***(See "The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html
Rumsfeld, among other things, urges "swift action" by the US in support of "friends and allies" in South America. I think this is the remnant of an actual plan for US military support for fascist secessionists in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The plan failed in Bolivia, for several reasons--which I won't go into here--but is likely still "on the table" at the Pentagon and in Bushwhack circles in the US, with Venezuela and Ecuador as the main targets.)

****(Santos--whom I consider to be the 'Donald Rumsfeld' of South America--is 'running' for 'president' of Colombia. Uribe--the current 'president' who is maneuvering to extend his term, again--is bad news, with his narco-thug and death squad connections, but, believe me, Santos would be worse. He is chafing at the bit to invade Venezuela and Ecuador, kill all the leftists and turn the oil over to Exxon Mobil & brethren.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Paper move only

There are no new ships being built for the 4th Fleet, and the ships assigned to it were already in the region. Its more administrative than anything else.

[Peace Patriot]

27. The president of Brazil said it is a threat to Brazil's oil, so I have to take that seriously.

And I'm old enough to remember all the goddamn lies about the US military buildup in Vietnam. Who says it's "more administrative than anything else"? The Pentagon? And I'm supposed to believe that because...?

There is compelling evidence of a US military buildup in South America, and you only have to look at a map of all that essentially undefended oil to understand what the "Southern Command" is preparing for. The main targets are Venezuela's oil reserves and operations on its Caribbean coast, adjacent to Colombia, and probably includes Cuba in that "theater" (the Caribbean--big oil find in Cuba recently), and Ecuador, with its northern oil region adjacent to Colombia and to the Pacific. And if Brazil's worries are taken into account, it includes Brazil's northern Atlantic oil (huge new find there, which its president is taking great care to keep Brazilian control over, so a good portion of the profits can be used to alleviate poverty in Brazil and contribute to Brazilian development).

I think we should never underestimate our war/oil profiteers' greed for the "black gold"--we've had the heinous Iraq War to teach us that--and our rightwing politicians' and corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies' hatred for leftist governments that use oil profits to educate and bootstrap the poor--for which we have the on-going psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez, and increasingly against Ecuador's Correa, to remind us, once again, about the intense lying that is almost always the preliminary to war.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. So you take seriously any statement made by a foreign leader? Does that include the current regime

in Honduras?

Seriously, the reactivation of the 4th fleet HQ and assigning of assets to it that were already in the area does nothing to change the US military posture in the region. It makes the command structure similar to other areas and give a few more flag officers command billets. Had there been a change in force structure and allocation, then it might be something to be concerned about. There are many real issues in the region, 4th Fleet is not one of them.

[Peace Patriot]

63. Why are you exaggerating what I said? I did NOT say that I "take seriously any statement...

...made by a foreign leader." I said that I take seriously the statement of President Lulu da Silva of Brazil, a former steelworker and union leader who has steered a middle path on economic policy, and has made deals with Bush, as well as with Chavez and a whole bunch of other leaders and corporations around the world. I have been following his career in both corpo/fascist and alternative news sources, and I am very impressed with his even-handedness and level-headed-ness, though I differ with him on some policies (development of corpo biofuels, and slowness in alleviating vast poverty, for instance). I think he is a particularly reliable and truthful and steady leader. And if HE thinks that the US 4th Fleet is a threat to Brazil, that statement must be taken seriously.

Further, the reconstitution of the 4th Fleet must be taken in context--for instance, the context of the seven new US military bases in Colombia--and must also be reviewed in light of history. It is by just such deceptions that military buildups are undertaken prior to waging war on other countries. It may be "administrative" for the moment. But with the manufacture of a "Gulf of Tonkin"-type incident, suddenly it isn't "administrative" any more, and battleships are quickly assigned. But I frankly don't believe that it is merely "administrative." The Bushwhacks did nothing that did not have the goal of stealing somebody blind, and/or killing lots of people. And reconstituting the 4th Fleet, as if Latin America were a "theater of war," is one of the most provocative things they could have done--provocative of anger, fear and arms sales. It occurred in the context of their effort to start a war with Ecuador and Venezuela in March of last year, and the formalization of UNASUR, the new South American "common market" in the summer, followed by the Bushwhacks' support of the violent, white separatist insurrection in Bolivia. Whether they assigned ships to it or not, it was a threat.

Also, you speak as if the Pentagon provides truthful information about its status of forces and its intentions. And you are basing your judgement of this matter on what they have said, as far as I can tell. If you have better information than that, please say so. But I have lived too long to take anything the Pentagon says at face value. And, yes, I would believe "foreign leader" Lula da Silva over the Pentagon any day. You think "foreign leader" means liar, and our red-blooded American guys don't lie? That's what it sounds like. And if that's what you mean, that is absurd.

[Prometheus Bound]

67. Don't arguments like that make you wonder why you bother?

A: I take President Lula seriously.
B: Ah, therefore you take all world leaders seriously.

What hope is there for serious discussion?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. Its called reducto absurdum

The poster left themselves wide open with their statement. Statements in the form of "Since the President of nation X said blah blah blah, I have to take it seriously" cannot by itself be taken seriously. Bush and other have made a lot of silly and nonfactual statements over time. Why should Lula's words be treated as gospel without critical examination against readily available facts.

The posters claims all sort of nefarious plots and intents from the Bushies. However, this is not the Bush administration. The poster also claimed Pentagon based schemes. However, policy is set by the administration, not the armed services.

[dotymed]

86. ProgressiveProfessor

I believe you are neither. I really do not care, but your
disdain for President Chavez is obvious. He has helped his
fellow countrymen (not the wealthy ones though) and many
impoverished people (even in America) immensely. Too bad other
leaders do not follow suit. Is that not a progressive goal?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Doty Med

I support him when he does good things and deride when he does bad things. The expensive military purchases are far from required for the defense of Venezuela and he is borrowing to do it. Surely that does not help his fellow countrymen and impoverished people world wide. In this area he is not being progressive, smart, or prudent.

Some here appear to take the binary approach with Chavez. That is both immature and irrational. All men have feet of clay.

[dotymed]

91. I disagree

With the Colombian troop and weapons build-up, supplied by the
U.S. It is a good decision to purchase these weapons as a
defensive measure. The "arms race" was obviously
started by America. With the history of American backed
"coups" and media opposition (by wealthy and U.S), I
believe that Chavez is helping the impoverished,again, by
trying to ensure his continued policies in the area.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Again, if there is not change in force allocation or structure how does it constitute a great threat

Lula's resume is irrelevant as are his opinions if there are no facts to back them up.

There are not seven new military bases for the US in Columbia. Its permission to access them in return for site improvements. The cap on US personnel remains in place.

Ship deployments and general location are readily available. The overall force strength of the USN is public record. Under Reagan it was almost 600 ships, its now below 300. Locations/assignments can be concealed from the public for a short time, but not from other nations. You can't really hide a carrier group.

You speak as if the Pentagon sets US policy. It does not. If there are hidden intentions, they would come from the Obama administration. Do you see him supporting the policies and actions you are concerned about?

[Peace Patriot]

64. Why are you exaggerating what I said? I did NOT say that I "take seriously any statement...

...made by a foreign leader." I said that I take seriously the statement of President Lulu da Silva of Brazil, a former steelworker and union leader who has steered a middle path on economic policy, and has made deals with Bush, as well as with Chavez and a whole bunch of other leaders and corporations around the world. I have been following his career in both corpo/fascist and alternative news sources, and I am very impressed with his even-handedness and level-headed-ness, though I differ with him on some policies (development of corpo biofuels, and slowness in alleviating vast poverty, for instance). I think he is a particularly reliable and truthful and steady leader. And if HE thinks that the US 4th Fleet is a threat to Brazil, that statement must be taken seriously.

Further, the reconstitution of the 4th Fleet must be taken in context--for instance, the context of the seven new US military bases in Colombia--and must also be reviewed in light of history. It is by just such deceptions that military buildups are undertaken prior to waging war on other countries. It may be "administrative" for the moment. But with the manufacture of a "Gulf of Tonkin"-type incident, suddenly it isn't "administrative" any more, and battleships are quickly assigned. But I frankly don't believe that it is merely "administrative." The Bushwhacks did nothing that did not have the goal of stealing somebody blind, and/or killing lots of people. And reconstituting the 4th Fleet, as if Latin America were a "theater of war," is one of the most provocative things they could have done--provocative of anger, fear and arms sales. It occurred in the context of their effort to start a war with Ecuador and Venezuela in March of last year, and the formalization of UNASUR, the new South American "common market" in the summer, followed by the Bushwhacks' support of the violent, white separatist insurrection in Bolivia. Whether they assigned ships to it or not, it was a threat.

Also, you speak as if the Pentagon provides truthful information about its status of forces and its intentions. And you are basing your judgement of this matter on what they have said, as far as I can tell. If you have better information than that, please say so. But I have lived too long to take anything the Pentagon says at face value. And, yes, I would believe "foreign leader" Lula da Silva over the Pentagon any day. You think "foreign leader" means liar, and our red-blooded American guys don't lie? That's what it sounds like. And if that's what you mean, that is absurd.

[IndianaGreen]

31. We didn't reconstitute the Fourth Fleet so that our sailors do PT

Put down that Kool-Aid and those rose-colored glasses.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Considering that the overall force structure of the USN is shrinking

and PT has nothing to do with it, I suggest you take off the tinfoil hat and turn it in for recycling.

[and-justice-for-all]

26. They can do that...

we sell arms to other countries.

[Judi Lynn]

32. Lula is certain that Senate will approve Venezuela's membership in Mercosur

CARACAS, Monday September 14, 2009
Lula is certain that Senate will approve Venezuela's membership in Mercosur


During an interview with daily newspaper Folha de Boa Vista, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that with Venezuela in Mercosur, the states of northern Brazil will be benefitted from increasing trade.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said on Monday he is confident that the Brazilian Senate will approve Venezuela's entry into the Common Market of the South (Mercosur).

During an interview with daily newspaper Folha de Boa Vista, Lula said that with Venezuela in Mercosur, the states of northern Brazil will be benefitted from increasing trade.

"There is not opposition of the Senate to Venezuela's entry into Mercosur," Lula said in the interview, AP quoted.

"The proposal was already analyzed and approved by the Chamber of Deputies. I am positive that the Senate will pass it also," Lula said.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/09/14/en_eco_esp_lula-is-certain-that_14A2738167.shtml
Opposition newspaper

[Judi Lynn]

37. France upsets strategic balance in Latin America

France upsets strategic balance in Latin America
A new military cooperation pact signed by France and Brazil may signal that both Latin nations are to play an ever greater role in geopolitics.
Monday, September 14, 2000
By Eduardo Szklarz

Some analysts fear that military cooperation between Brazil and France may change the strategic balance in Latin America. In recent months, tension has grown in the region because of arms purchases by Venezuela's flamboyant President Hugo Chavez from Russia, and the accord signed by Colombia and the United States that allows the US to use Colombian military bases. Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim defended his nation's recent shopping spree by saying that its new nuclear submarine will be equipped with conventional weapons only, while noting that Brazil has a “constitutional prohibition” against the fabrication and use of atomic weapons. Besides, Brazil is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Brazil inked with France the most important military pact in Brazil's recent history. The agreements signed by Brasilia and the Quai d'Orsay provides for the delivery of 50EC-725 helicopters, four conventional Scorpene submarines and a nuclear-powered sub. These will actually be built at shipyards and a naval base located near Rio de Janeiro. The whole deal is valued at approximately $10 billion and will be completed in stages out to 2021.

The “strategic cooperation” was signed on September 7 by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy as part of Brazil's Independence Day celebrations. The principal focus of the accords is a transfer of French technology so as to allow building the weapons systems on Brazilian soil. With the agreement, Brazil will have the most powerful war fleet in Latin America, constituted by modern frigates, corvettes, missiles, torpedos, and advanced helicopters.

This new arsenl will permit Brazil to satisfy a growing concern over the security of Pre Sal – an enormous deposit of sub-salt fields of petroleum and natural gas that extends some 600 miles along Brazil's coast on the sea bottom. Some field are located more than 20,000 feet below sea level. Haroldo Lima, managing director of the National Petroleum Agency (ANP), claims the new reserves could surpass 100 billion barrels (Bb) of high-quality recoverable oil. (By comparison, Venezuela has 142 Bb, although this number is said to be rapidly increasing.) At current market prices gross receipts from the sale of Brazil's oil would exceed 3 trillion dollars—150 percent of Brazil’s annual GDP.

The Franco-Brazilian military pact could also magnify Brazil's capacity for vigilance and defense of its biodiversity and commerce, which is conducted most through seaports. For its part, France expects to transform Brazil into a springboard for its commercial ventures in Latin America. French products could then be re-exported to the other countries on the continent. Among these are the EC-725 helicopters, which will be built in Brazil by Helibras – a subsidiary of the French firm, Eurocopter. President Sarkozy announced that France will purchase ten KC-390 military tranport aircraft to be built by Embraer. According to Sarkozy, this will allow France to replace its ageing US-built C-130 transport craft.

More:
http://www.speroforum.com/a/20464/France-upsets-strategic-balance-in-Latin-America

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Ahhhh I would not be so confident in that

Most experts consider the Leclerc tank the equal or better of the M-1 in terms of features and technology. However, crew training and experience would give the advantage to US crewed M-1s.

[sabrina 1]

60. The old rightwing

childishness about France. I'm sure you'll be calling them 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' before long?

Without France's military, would there be a USA? Trivial question in response to a trivial post.

[Kurska]

38. Let him waste his money.

Russia is more then happy to unload the crap on a useful idiot like Chavez.

[Umbral]

79. Let him? more like force him. nt

[dotymed]

87. President Chavez

has proven himself to be useful, however definitely not an
"idiot." Too bad there aren't more leaders, in the
world, like him. People before profits, that is the least
"idiotic" stance I have seen. Your rants won't get
my B.P. up, but feel free...

[Old Hob]

53. What do you call a heavily militarized country that is controlled by a lone & often charismatic man?

Anybody? Anyone?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Overspent and broke?

[sabrina 1]

59. The US under George Bush?

Well, except for the charasmatic part ~

[Old Hob]

61. Even Bush didn't remove Presidential term limits

setting aside all the arguments of whether he is "good" or "evil" or is or is not a dictator, I think it's pretty obvious that he's consolidating his power in the same ways that many a dictator has done before him.

[Peace Patriot]

62. Chavez did NOT remove Presidential term limits! Jeez.

It was a national vote of all of the people, in an election system that is far, FAR more transparent than our own. The voters overwhelmingly approved it. And if you criticize Chavez for wanting to LEGALLY run for office again, you have to criticize our own FDR, who ran for and won four terms in office, and died during his fourth term. He was "president for life"!

But who we really should be criticizing are the Pukes here in the 1950s, who rammed through a Constitutional amendment--that the people never got to vote on--placing a two-term limit on the president, so that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again. Our Founders opposed term limits as anti-democratic.. They felt that the people should be able to choose whomever they saw fit to put into office. They trusted democracy. Economic reform, reform of the government to make it fairer and more democratic, and true empowerment of the poor majority--as opposed to oligarchies of the rich--takes time. It cannot be done quickly, after decades of misrule by the rich and their entrenchment throughout the government and control over society, including the press. The rightwing press also called FDR a "dictator."

And when you dis Chavez like this, you are dissing the people of Venezuela. That's what our corpo/fascist media has gotten you to do--to ignore the people of Venezuela whose very hard work on election transparency and grass roots organization put Chavez in office, and who then came out of their hovels, in the tens of thousands, and defended their Constitution and their elected president, and stopped the 2002 Bush-backed rightwing military coup. Chavez is their choice. And, believe me, they are a very democratic people--perhaps the most democratic of any people in Latin America.

Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

Who are you going to believe? The people of Venezuela, and the other leaders of South America, who are almost all friends and allies of Chavez, or our corpo/fascist press and our benighted national political establishment?

[endarkenment]

68. Funniest post of the thread so far.

congratulations.

Didn't remove term limits as that was voted down, a fact that you all still cannot deal with.

But we digress. Would you care to compare Venezuela military spending as a fraction of Venezuela GDP and US military spending as a fraction of US GDP?

Who is militarized? What? Huh?

[Peace Patriot]

76. There were national two votes on lifting the presidential term limit in Venezuela.

In the first, lifting the term limit was one of over 60 measures that included items like a constitutional right to free university education, pensions for street vendors (a big labor sector), and --importantly--equal rights for women and gays. Venezuela has especially rightwing Catholic clergy, and this 60+ amendment campaign saw ads that claimed that the Chavistas were going to take children from their mothers. It was very contentious. Still the whole package almost passed (it lost 50.7% to 49.3%). The National Assembly then took up some of the measures individually, but the term limit issue was put to a second national vote, and as a stand-alone issue it won overwhelmingly.

This means that Chavez gets to run for office again, like presidents in the US could do, prior to Eisenhower (and the Puke anti-FDR, anti-New Deal term limit on our president), and like many other presidents and heads of state (PMs) can do. As long as elections are transparent and fair--and they certainly are in Venezuela--it is not a big deal. Unlike here, the people of Venezuela can amend their own constitution by popular national vote; they can also recall a president at the midpoint of his or her term also by national vote.

Every anti-Chavez rightwing "talking point" turns out to be like this--no big deal, when you find out the actual facts. A lot of people think Chavez nationalized the oil, for instance (as if that were bad). Not true. Venezuela's oil was nationalized by previous administrations. What Chavez did was to renegotiate the oil contracts with the multinationals to give Venezuela and its social programs a better deal. Is Chavez repressing freedom of speech? No. Venezuela's media is still as foaming-at-the-mouth rightwing as it ever has been (TV/radio 90% rightwing; print about 60% rightwing). He denied a public airwave license renewal to one TV station, RCTV, which had actively participated in the 2002 violent rightwing military coup--an action that any democracy in the world would be justified in taking, considering what RCTV did to foment and promote the coup (--a coup that suspended all civil rights including free speech)--and his government has also done much to establish public access to TV/radio, and to improve the fairness and consistency of licensing of the public airwaves. These are common sense measures in any democracy. The nutball right (with which our national political establishment is aligned on this issue)--like the nutball right here (the "tea baggers")--is speaking for vastly powerful, billionaire, multinational corporations, who don't want free speech, they want to totally control the political discussion in their interest, to propagandize and brainwash the public so the rich can get richer. The Chavez government has, in truth, vastly improved free speech and all civil rights in Venezuela, as well as vastly improving citizen participation in politics and government.

Our corpo/fascist media lies to us about Chavez on every issue--including their creation of a bogeyman "dictator" which is entirely an illusion. The latter is perhaps the worst thing that they do, because it shuts down discussion of ideas such as public access to publicly owned TV/radio airwaves, and universal free college education and universal free health care. They don't want open and fair discussion of these things. They want the rich to get richer. So they create this phantom. I don't think there is any president in the world who is more directly subject to the "will of the people" than Chavez, whose people rescued him from the 2002 coup, who have a fair and transparent election system in which they can vote him out, and who can recall him, if they don't like what he's doing.

[sabrina 1]

78. And Chavez didn't steal an election!

See? We could play these games, or YOU could learn some facts instead of embarrassing yourself by appearing to be ingorant on a public board.

I was going to do the homework for you, but Peace Patriot has done an excellent job of that already. I doubt you'll read those facts, so I'll simply say 'No, Chavez did not remove presidential limits because he lives in a Democracy where decisions like that are presented to the equivalent of OUR Congress, as required. If presidential term limits were removed in Venezuela, that would happen the same way it would happen here. It failed in Venezuela to pass into law. Chavez accepted the decision just as a US president would have to here. He did not do anything at all to overturn the democratically arrived at decision.

Clearly you are reading Rightwingnut talking points, doing no homework of your own, and regurgitating them assuming them to be correct. If you want to criticize someone, do it based on facts, otherwise your credibility becomes negligible and anything you have to say will fall on deaf ears.

I have to say, I blame the media for the extreme ignorance of people in this country, but knowing how unreliable they are, it is the duty of every citizen to do their own homework. With all that is available there is simply no excuse for the kind of ignorance displayed in your post.

[Peace Patriot]

80. The term limit issue was put to a national vote twice in Venezuela.

In the second instance, as a stand-alone issue, it won overwhelmingly. In the first vote, it was packaged with 60+ other amendments, one of which was particularly contentious in Catholic Venezuela (equal rights for women and gays), and the package almost won. The anti-Chavez crowd never acknowledge that Chavez fought for equal rights for women and gays in Venezuela, in the first vote, and did so at the risk of of the term limit amendment going down to defeat. What "dictator" EVER championed equal rights for women and gays?

Anyway, when given a chance to vote on the term limit issue alone, the voters overwhelmingly approved it. This means that Chavez can run for office again. It doesn't mean that he will necessarily win the next election. That might depend on whether or not the opposition can offer the people of Venezuela anything better than a rightwing military coup and the rich getting richer at the expense of the vast poor majority. This is the thing that our corpo/fascists don't understand--or rather, don't want us to understand: the people of Venezuela are not stupid.

[sabrina 1]

81. Thank you, I have been responding to

that talking since the first time it was raised in Venezuela, and here it was twisted into 'Chavez is making himself a dictator'. Sorry, it's a knee-jerk reaction by me at this point as it simply disgusts me to see people on the so-called left doing the dirty work of the right. I should take my own advice and calm down before posting when I see it, as I'm sure I will again, and again.

But you're right, it did pass the second time which says a lot for how his own people feel about him, which is all that matters. But we know why there is an effort to demonize him in the US. And it scares me to see how easy it is for them to get people to go along, possibly into one more disastrous invasion of a country whose only crime it is, is that they have resources.

[Peace Patriot]

82. But your point was a good one, that the Chavistas PUT IT TO A VOTE of the entire country,

and when their 69 amendments were defeated, by a very close margin, after a hard-fought campaign, both Chavez and those who supported the amendments did not contest it, as they had a right to, but accepted the narrow defeat.

When they then put the term limit on a ballot by itself, the anti-Chavez screamers then complained that Chavez had NOT accepted the previous results and, damn him, just kept trying. And that's what happens in a DEMOCRACY, which anti-Chavistas don't seem to understand at all. Things get proposed. They may get defeated, but if the margin is a narrow one, the proponents have every right to try again. Conditions change. In this case, it was a stand-alone issue, and a much clearer referendum on the peoples' view of term limits. They voted them all down--even those for rightwing governors. Such is life in a DEMOCRACY. You win some, you lose some, you keep trying.

The rightwing here, and there, wanted to limit the leftist democracy revolution that Chavez is leading and that the vast majority of Venezuelans support. If the rightwing in this country had been able to, they would have rammed through a term limit on FDR. They could not get away with that, so they did it in the 1950s, as an effort to prevent any "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and to begin to undo the "New Deal" that FDR had led (which they are close to accomplishing). The rich have their private clubs and their money and their power. The poor have time. Given enough time, democracy--if it is in working order--will produce a fairer, more just country, and will disempower or balance out corrupt or overly-powerful, entrenched interests, as the will of the majority. Term limits are designed to overrule the will of the majority. That is why our Founders opposed them, and did not place term limits on any federal officials, president or congress. The Republicans overruled the Founders, and have since been aiming at a corpo/fascist state in which ordinary people have no say. First it was with term limits. Then it was with corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies and filthy, FILTHY money, and scads of it, in every campaign. And lately they have added 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines, with the code owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--and have gotten such a lock on power that we can't break it.

They wanted to do the same to Venezuela--to gain global corporate predator control of the oil--but the people of Venezuela have outsmarted them at every turn, including holding elections that are far, FAR more transparent than our own.

We need to learn from them.

[sabrina 1]

83. Thank you, your posts are always so clear

and filled with facts. I notice our friend has not responded to any of them, though.

I did not know that the second proposal was made on just the issue of term limits. That is very significant. Mixing in other issues that people didn't agree with in the first proposal, probably did exactly what they wanted. In every Democracy, as you say, issues get voted down and then proposed again.

And lately they have added 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines, with the code owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls

It is an outrage that this was ever allowed to happen. If the anti-Chavez crowd are really interested in how a Democracy actually is being destroyed, they need look no further their own backyard.

They wanted to do the same in Venezuela

I doubt they'll stop trying. Venezuela's value in resources just shot through the roof this past week and the greedheads are probably foaming at the mouth trying to figure out how to get their dirty hands on all that wealth.

Maybe that's why I am rooting so much for the Venezuelan people and the people of the rest of the region. Because we cannot stop them, the people are too unaware of what is going on and the media makes sure to keep it that way. The people of those countries are really the only hope of stopping the greed and a return to the brutal policies of the past.

[Peace Patriot]

84. "It is an outrage that this was ever allowed to happen." I agree! US elections are being fixed,

big time. And once you understand this--and understand that our Democratic Party leaders were complicit in the 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines--everything falls into place. It is an ugly reality, but it IS reality--and that is a good starting point for reform. Our own party leaders put the vote counting into the hands of far rightwing corporations and required NO audit/recount controls. It is the worse thing that has ever happened to our democracy. It effectively ended our democracy. It was an act of high treason by the Republicrats. I went through a period of open-mouthed astonishment that our own party leaders could betray us that badly. But it is a fact that they did. And we really must face it. Otherwise, we are just going to keep floundering around, wondering why things are so bad and we aren't getting anywhere. Voting is the fundamental power we have as a people. It is the equivalent of our very sovereignty as a people. Transparent vote counting is the first condition of democracy. Without it, you do not have a democracy. I think it is still possible to get it back, but it will need a massive citizen campaign at the state/local level. A lot of people are working on this, but it has not reached 'critical mass' yet. If they Diebold Obama out, in 2012, that might do it. Or it may take many years and much suffering in the meantime.

[dotymed]

88. Bushland?

[Prometheus Bound]

58. Slightly over 1/10th of 1% of global arms sales.

Wow!

[dipsydoodle]

66. US worried about Venezuelan arms

The US has said it is concerned by an arms build-up in Venezuela, a day after its president announced a major weapons deal with Russia.

US state department spokesman Ian Kelly said Venezuelan policy posed "a serious challenge to stability" in the region.

He also urged Venezuela to be "transparent" about buying weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8255930.stm

[ronnie624]

73. The graph from your link adds perspective:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8255930.stm>

[Judi Lynn]

90. This is a tremendous illustration. Puts things in real perspective. Thank you. n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

92. After looking at that graph, US state department spokesman Ian Kelly says:

"Boy, do I feel dumb."