View Full Version : Venezula's 1-billion dollar loan for Air Defence
Lopettaa
27-09-2008, 10:27 PM
Further war of words and breakdown of relations between Russia and the United States has lead Venezula's President Chavez to build a air defence system. This will add to the competition in world dominance between the United States and Russia. It is also a answer to President Chavez's desire to keep the United States out of South America.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/09Qe4uPcLT0ER/610x.jpg
11 hours ago: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (R) looks at a replica of Russian strategic bomber Tu-160 (TUPOLEV) as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Minister looks on in Orenburg September 26, 2008. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez agreed to draft an energy pact on Friday, drawing Moscow closer to Washington's most ardent Latin American foe.
From RIA Novosti:
MOSCOW, September 26 (RIA Novosti) - Venezuela plans to use most of the $1 bln loan granted by Russia to buy air-defense systems, a Russian military analyst said on Friday.
Russia announced the loan offer earlier on Friday, during a visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"Venezuela needs primarily Tor-M1 surface to air systems to protect the airfields where the 24 Su-30 MK2 jet fighters it bought from Russia are based," said Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Strategic Analysis, a Moscow based think tank.
"Twenty Tor-M1 complexes will cost $600 mln, and the portable SAM systems approximately $70-80 mln," he said.
Caracas is likely to buy Igla-S portable SAM systems, and will also want Il-78 aerial tankers and Il-76 military freight aircraft. The tankers and freight planes for the Venezuelan Air Force will cost around $300 mln, Makiyenko said.
RIA Novosti - World - Venezuela to spend $1 bln Russian loan on air-defense systems (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080926/117155439.html)
Tantal
28-09-2008, 05:55 AM
I've got no urge whatsoever to see my country involved in a military conflict with Venezuela, but if Chavez thinks he can repel the U.S. military with a billion dollars'-worth of third-rate Russian hardware, he is sadly mistaken.
Leviathon
28-09-2008, 02:22 PM
I've got no urge whatsoever to see my country involved in a military conflict with Venezuela, but if Chavez thinks he can repel the U.S. military with a billion dollars'-worth of third-rate Russian hardware, he is sadly mistaken.
I have to agree but I don't think that's Chavez's aim. If America were to attack Venezuela the government and army would fall quickly, though there would of course be the guerilla warfare which would undoubtedly kill thousands of American soldiers. Anyway, that's by the by really, I don't think Chavez's aim is to pose a serious threat to the US military I think it's two things. 1) It's a gesture, the meaning is obvious, 2) It could be used effectively in the case of, say, an American backed invasion of Venezuela by another Latin American country. My personal opinion is that vthe money could be beeter used to help the people of Venezuela and I hope Chavez doesn't fall into the trap many socialists and communists do of focusing too much effort on the military - American foreign policy is very good at stopping left wing governments in this way. But, one can hardly blame Chavez for being wary.
Spartacus
28-09-2008, 09:47 PM
I've got no urge whatsoever to see my country involved in a military conflict with Venezuela, but if Chavez thinks he can repel the U.S. military with a billion dollars'-worth of third-rate Russian hardware, he is sadly mistaken.
I love the Americans boastfulness about their military prowess and then wonder why people cast them as bullies but there ya go.:D
I agree with you though I think the attack might come from Colombia ( the biggest reciever of US " aid " in Latin America ) so the weapons might have some merit.
He would,ve been a whole lot more secure had the Russians given him some of their long range nuclear weapons :eek:
It hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread but the US has announced that it intends to take the 5th Fleet out of mothballs and send it to, you've guessed it , Latin America and the Caribbean.
Lopettaa
28-09-2008, 11:26 PM
I love the Americans boastfulness about their military prowess and then wonder why people cast them as bullies but there ya go.:D
I agree with you though I think the attack might come from Colombia ( the biggest reciever of US " aid " in Latin America ) so the weapons might have some merit.
He would,ve been a whole lot more secure had the Russians given him some of their long range nuclear weapons :eek:
It hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread but the US has announced that it intends to take the 5th Fleet out of mothballs and send it to, you've guessed it , Latin America and the Caribbean.
Hopefully this bullyness will end once the current U.S. administration is out of office. I also hope something is done to end the NORAD accord that Bush and Harper signed earlier this year. This has made Canada a launching pad for American missiles and a free delivery service via our roads and pipelines for American oil and natural gas.
Tantal
29-09-2008, 02:19 AM
Hopefully this bullyness will end once the current U.S. administration is out of office. I also hope something is done to end the NORAD accord that Bush and Harper signed earlier this year. This has made Canada a launching pad for American missiles and a free delivery service via our roads and pipelines for American oil and natural gas.It must be nice having the ability to complain about our military knowing that it would protect you anyway due to the fact that we share a continent. The world loves to complain of our "bullyness" until they're the ones being threatened, then they come running to Uncle Sugar for protection.......and, of course, we always provide it because that's who we are.
Leviathon
29-09-2008, 12:41 PM
It must be nice having the ability to complain about our military knowing that it would protect you anyway due to the fact that we share a continent. The world loves to complain of our "bullyness" until they're the ones being threatened, then they come running to Uncle Sugar for protection.......and, of course, we always provide it because that's who we are.
So you were protecting Iraq? How about Chille under Allende? Oh, and how are you protecting the people in Darfur? What about Vietnam?
Tantal
29-09-2008, 04:50 PM
So you were protecting Iraq? How about Chille under Allende? Oh, and how are you protecting the people in Darfur? What about Vietnam?No, we weren't protecting Iraq. The decision to invade Iraq was a political one because our leaders, both Republican AND Democrat, determined that doing so was in our national interests. It turned out that the intelligence used to sell the war was extremely flawed. Now we're keeping our forces there until a reasonable degree of political stability can be achieved. We broke it, we bought it.
As for Darfur, I think it's reprehensible what's going on there; however, our troops are tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, there are absolutely no U.S. national interests in Darfur other than our moral outrage. I think it's time for someone else to step up to the plate on this one. EU?Anyone? Hello? Actually, on second thought, let's not send the French. They have a certain penchant for buggering the underage girls.
Vietnam? Yes, we were protecting Vietnam and all of southeast Asia from the most brutal political and economic system ever to be devised. It was just another of the Proxy Wars between the Soviet Union and the West. The U.N. lost the stomach for fighting communism after Korea, so, as usual, it was left to the U.S.
Marxist Nutter
29-09-2008, 04:55 PM
No, we weren't protecting Iraq. The decision to invade Iraq was a political one because our leaders, both Republican AND Democrat, determined that doing so was in our national interests. It turned out that the intelligence used to sell the war was extremely flawed. Now we're keeping our forces there until a reasonable degree of political stability can be achieved. We broke it, we bought it.
As for Darfur, I think it's reprehensible what's going on there; however, our troops are tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, there are absolutely no U.S. national interests in Darfur other than our moral outrage. I think it's time for someone else to step up to the plate on this one.
Vietnam? Yes, we were protecting Vietnam and all of southeast Asia from the most brutal political and economic system ever to be devised. It was just another of the Proxy Wars between the Soviet Union and the West. The U.N. lost the stomach for fighting communism after Korea, so, as usual, it was left to the U.S.
You didn't mention Chile? I wonder why? Could it be the difficulty in reconciling the overthrow of a democracy in favour of a dictator with current propaganda about the USA spreading democracy and freedom??
Tantal
29-09-2008, 04:59 PM
You didn't mention Chile? I wonder why? Could it be the difficulty in reconciling the overthrow of a democracy in favour of a dictator with current propaganda about the USA spreading democracy and freedom??Having researched it now, the Pinochet government seems to be a mixed bag. It had the horrible human rights record of communism, but with better economic results.
Marxist Nutter
29-09-2008, 08:52 PM
Having researched it now, the Pinochet government seems to be a mixed bag. It had the horrible human rights record of communism, but with better economic results.
I wish Bush had been that honest with Iraq. Instead of all this freedom and democracy crap (which is just way too hard for anyone 2 swallow), he should have just said...'Look we don't give a crap what political regime u have, Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, as long as you play by our economic interest and let US companies drill for, distribute and profit from your natural resources on our terms, couldn't give a shit what else u do - go blow yourselves up for all America cares.'
Tantal
29-09-2008, 09:16 PM
I wish Bush had been that honest with Iraq.
Actually, the better economic results were for the Chileans themselves. With a free market economy, they are doing much better than many of their South American brethren.
Leviathon
29-09-2008, 09:53 PM
Having researched it now, the Pinochet government seems to be a mixed bag. It had the horrible human rights record of communism, but with better economic results.
Yes, but the government you got rid of wasn't even communist! Not even by the US definition of communism.
Tantal
29-09-2008, 09:54 PM
Yes, but the government you got rid of wasn't even communist! Not even by the US definition of communism.Meh. Leftism is leftism. Might as well strangle it its infancy.:D
Marxist Nutter
29-09-2008, 10:46 PM
Meh. Leftism is leftism. Might as well strangle it its infancy.:D
Meh, could even start crucifying Marxists. Mel Gibson could make a new film....The Passion of the Just
P.S I of course, do not mean to compare Jesus to Marx, for a start Marx never wore Sandals.
Tantal
29-09-2008, 11:05 PM
P.S I of course, do not mean to compare Jesus to Marx, for a start Marx never wore Sandals.He wanted to. He just couldn't afford them under his new economic system.:D
Leviathon
29-09-2008, 11:17 PM
Meh. Leftism is leftism. Might as well strangle it its infancy.:D
Always with the quick retort Tantal.:D
Marxist Nutter
29-09-2008, 11:29 PM
He wanted to. He just couldn't afford them under his new economic system.:D
He could bought them if he wanted to, just with Engel's money :D
Tantal
30-09-2008, 12:44 AM
Always with the quick retort Tantal.:DMeh. Gotta have a little comic relief. Remember, it's only teh innerwebz for Pete's sake.:D
cajunsnake
02-10-2008, 07:02 PM
No, we weren't protecting Iraq. The decision to invade Iraq was a political one because our leaders, both Republican AND Democrat, determined that doing so was in our national interests. It turned out that the intelligence used to sell the war was extremely flawed. Now we're keeping our forces there until a reasonable degree of political stability can be achieved. We broke it, we bought it.
As for Darfur, I think it's reprehensible what's going on there; however, our troops are tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, there are absolutely no U.S. national interests in Darfur other than our moral outrage. I think it's time for someone else to step up to the plate on this one. EU?Anyone? Hello? Actually, on second thought, let's not send the French. They have a certain penchant for buggering the underage girls.
Vietnam? Yes, we were protecting Vietnam and all of southeast Asia from the most brutal political and economic system ever to be devised. It was just another of the Proxy Wars between the Soviet Union and the West. The U.N. lost the stomach for fighting communism after Korea, so, as usual, it was left to the U.S.
Somehting else that needs to be brought out, was the fact we put Hussan in power, because (at the time) he served our purpose. This was done with the help of the CIA.
The CIA and Saddam (http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html)
But, as history has shown us, they have the nack of putting in people, who they later find out, cannot be controlled. I agree the intel was very flawed, and true to their nature Washington is still trying to lay blame on the other guy. I don't agree that we should stay there until their government is stable, though. I say this for one reason, check history and see when was the last time they were EVER stable. You're talking about people who have been killing each other, long before our country was a thought...and while Europe was still in skins. This is something that Bush and his Administration should have thought of first.
As far as the French...and the underage girls...you and I both know the gentlemen we have in Washington have that covered. But again, check history to see what they are willing to do. And that's when this country sit's on their hands:
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm)
As for Vietnam, that began during the Ike Administration.
History of CAT/Air America (http://www.air-america.org/About/History.shtml)
The thing that wasn't mentioned is the fact that the average Vietnamise farmer, didn't even know what communism was. All they knew was that they were caught between a rock and a hard place. Again all I say is for that area I was in. But by and large they just wanted to raise their rice crops and their kids. Should we have been there in the first place? That's a whole different discussion, for me I did what I had to do...for me. The political aspects of the war was just that...political. Should we have left them...I don't know. But I do know that we left over 2000 of our people there...and that will always be our disgrace.
SNAKE
You didn't mention Chile? I wonder why? Could it be the difficulty in reconciling the overthrow of a democracy in favour of a dictator with current propaganda about the USA spreading democracy and freedom??
this have notheing t o do with freedom, it have to do with the oil. perhaps Chilie have n o oil so Bush he i s not intrested i n it. Bush he only like the oil.
Marxist Nutter
09-10-2008, 08:49 PM
this have notheing t o do with freedom, it have to do with the oil. perhaps Chilie have n o oil so Bush he i s not intrested i n it. Bush he only like the oil.
I do agree to some extent; but it is more complicated than just oil. However economic motivations were the cause of the war it had **** all to do with human rights - that's obvious the USA supported Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds!
I do agree to some extent; but it is more complicated than just oil. However economic motivations were the cause of the war it had **** all to do with human rights - that's obvious the USA supported Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds!
i just read were Russia will set up defence i n Cuba and Venezuela also. so this are more complicated than the oil.