Chavez says Venezuela needs Russia for protection

Source: AP

MEIENDORF CASTLE, Russia - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called on Tuesday for a strategic alliance with Russia to protect the South American country from the United States.

Chavez is expected to reach a number of agreements for purchasing military hardware while in Russia, according to Russian news media reports. One newspaper reported that the deals could be worth up to $2 billion.

"That way we can guarantee Venezuela's sovereignty, which is now threatened by the United States," Chavez was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying.

While welcoming Chavez at his castle resort in the Moscow region, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Russian-Venezuelan relations "are one of the key factor of security in the (South American) region."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080722/ap_on_re_eu/russia_chavez;_

Leave it to Bushco to revive the cold war. :banghead:

The world is slowly locking itself into economic/political alliances that, unlike the cold war, have no ideological basis but instead, much like the situation that lead to WWI, are based on mercantile interests, specifically control over the planet's remaining pools of cheap oil.

That 'sichiation' resulted in the great wars of the 20th century, the russian revolution, fascist and communist totalitarianism, 100,000,000 or so dead people, etc.

however that is not happening. Russia has no reason to enter into a NATO like go to war treaty with a 3rd world nut. Now I know castro, hugo's hero, had a similar deal but this is not 1963.

As for a weapons buy, who cares. He can buy stuff to blow up his neighbors.

It is of no significance to the US.

He is a busy former coup leader. I wounder how much time he spends watching out for guys like himself.

on the planet. But that didn't stop the US from attempting (and temporarily succeeding in) a right-wing (of course) military coup in 2002.

His economic reforms, undoing the damage done by Friedmanesque right-wing policies which dispossessed the indiginous population (and most of the middle class, as well), are detested by the US political economic class. Historically the US has a well established pattern of overthrowing the democratically elected governments of CA and SA countries which take any kind of socialization path, replacing them with barbarous dictatorships which run bloody rampage through the ranks of the "left", through the ranks of the union leaders, civil and human rights advocates, religious figures of the "liberation theology" type, and so on. It isn't a pretty history.

I'm amazed at the apparent ignorance of many here, who don't seem to understand that it has been and is progressive SA which is violently threatened by a US based extreme right intelligence and military and economic machine - and not vice versa.

Regarding truth in reporting re. the progressive movement in SA, and the difficulty of disseminating the truth of things, one couldn't do better than watching the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary)", which has a short write-up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(documentary)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

There may be many reasons why Chavez can be criticized, but there should be NO doubt that he is the overwhelming choice of the Venezuelan people. "Democracy is on the March", says Dubya (jealously)

pnorman
On edit: Here's the correct Wiki site of that documentary: http://tinyurl.com/85uf5

There's a ton to learn, from taking the time to study it.

The people who were busy filming when this started must have been astonished!

Very cool seeing it over and over! There's no excuse for not having seen it once! Thanks, again.

the grarly little Pedro Carmona, dissolved the Venezuelan National Assembly, the Supreme Court, cut loose the Attorney General, the head of the National Bank, and voided the national Venezuelan constitution. He sent out police to hunt down cabinet members, and finding them, bring them to prison in handcuffs.



President for a day,
coup conspirator,
Pedro Carmona

They claimed the had a mandate from the people to do this, yet the people, once they penetrated the media news blackout and learned what had happened, poured into the streets, surrounded the Presidential Palace, Miraflores, and demanded the return of Chavez.

The documentary you posted shows them screaming they do NOT want a dictatorship again, they want Carmona OUT, and they demanded Chavez over and over and over, while the news media refused to cover this turn of events, and continued to do on-air reports claiming Pedro Carmona was still in charge.

As Izarra, who was with one of Venezuela's biggest tv networks said, they FORBADE their newspeople to show ANY CHAVEZ SUPPORTERS ON TV.

Simply amazing.

These are the people _Bush has backed, and funded with millions of US taxpayers' dollars.

The coup plotters, participants, in many cases, have fled to the U.S. Whatever ones are left in Venezuela continue to plot with the opposition.

Can you imagine what _{George W. Bush} would have done to these people had this happened to him?

Thanks, again, for posting the documentary.

will be smuggled to Hugo's buddies in FARC?

Our taxes already paid for the killing of many union leaders

way to "no world" status! Was it W you were referring to?

It ain't gonna happen. Why would Russia go to war over Venezuela? Militarily they can't help them unless they use nukes and they're not that stupid. What Russia wants is to sell military equipment to Venezuela for lots of money (preferably in Euros).

If anything they would like the US to go to war with Venezuela. Russia was the #2 oil exporter in the world in 2005 and I think they are #1 now. The higher the price of oil the better for them.

I doubt that Russia would have gone into a full fledged war with the US in 1963 over Cuba. They might have gone so far as to attack West Berlin but I doubt it. They couldn't have helped Cuba.

They're still pissed about the missile defense system.

why don't you spend 10 minutes informing yourself before you post drivel?

gee, you might actually learn something and sound intelligent :sarcasm:

$2 billion dollars worth of Russian military hardware wouldn't stand up to 10 minutes of a dedicated U.S. attack, but it makes for a good excuse to buy weapons.

Obama will be in the White House.

Chavez knows that Venezuela would not be much of a match for a direct US attack. However that has little to do with creating a regional counterforce to US proxies such as Colombia. We are at the moment unlikely to directly attack Venezuela. We have already demonstrated a willingness to engage in proxy-based military adventures in the region, and our foreign policy idiots continue to view latin america as some sort of client region that we are free to mess with whenever we get bored with screwing around in the middle east.

don't worry.

I hear an echo.

I say no on both accounts. and what is wrong with taking this position??

are you hoping for a confrontation?

but pretending not to know is part of his/her schtick.

"Gotta catapult the propaganda"

see my post above.

nice posts on the Supreme Court ruling on guns by the way. yeah, upholding the second amendment is a true demonstration of fascism.

Your baiting isn't really worthy of any debate. You are an antagonistic shit stirrer who is obviously not Progressive, Democratic or Liberal. Hell you aren't even moderate, you are militant extremist. Why you haven't been banned yet is beyond me.

Take your militant right wing gun agenda and your neo-con nut dream else where, I'm not interested in talking to paranoid fascists who abuse "rights" as a way to push their pet guns on our society. Your agenda has nothing to do with the Second Amendment no matter how hard you try to spin it...


People like you never engage in any conversations regarding any other "rights", so you can blather all you want but you won't be getting me banned or into and idiotic Orwellian argument.

Have a bad day

why that leaped into your head I'm not entirely sure. However, cross border sabatoge and terrorism is most likely the reality. By Chavez purchasing these weapons anyone who would participate in neferarious actions will most likely minimize them knowing that a painful retaliation is possible.

He's not buying AK47's, night vision goggles, or surveillance airplanes. He's buying tanks and anti-aircraft systems.

What he's really buying is Russia's diplomatic support by purchasing their weapons.

that was the idea of my post, all you can do is limit it by giving your nemesis a reason not to escalate beyond being an annoyance.
And yes again, he is buying Russian favor, just like we buy favor by selling our military toys to other countries. SA, Isreal, Pakistan, Colombia, etc, etc.

However, using the US bogeyman bit as an excuse to do undemocratic things doesn't make it right.

please do elaborate.

Have you actually studied the situation in SA, in Venezuela? Have you studied the US/SA dynamic for the past 30 yrs or so, and have some understanding of what forces are in play? Or do you just parrot the same right-wing line that gave the world Pinochet and right-wing death squads?

as the U.S. "boggyman" is fucking around with Venezuela?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Venezuela_page/Venezuela_page.html

nice try, no sale... again.

They are the easiest to fuck with and shut down....I love it!

Help yourself to a heaping helping of them.

not like Bush at the same time.

That's the problem with most Chavez supporters, they think anyone who is anti-Bush is automatically good.

The world isn't black and white, unfortunately the most rabid Chavez supporters and Bush seem to think the same way.

name me a "rabid Chavez supporter." The "Chavez supporters" I've seen here at DU always have REASONS for their positive view of Chavez, and those reasons go well beyond Chavez's dislike of Bush. For instance, the social justice goals and accomplishments of the Chavez government. Or, the strong evidence of a transparent vote counting system and honest elections in Venezuela (meaning that Chavez, unlike Bush, is a genuine representative of his people). Or, Chavez's leadership on issues of South American self-determination (the Bank of the South, the new South American "Common Market"). This is not "thinking like Bush" (who only thinks one-word thoughts, like, "OIL!," or "TORTURE!"--whoopee!).

I, for one, resent being accused of "thinking like Bush." I only do that on occasion, when I read posts like yours that make no sense whatsoever, and that try to dismiss those of us who know something about Chavez, Venezuela, South America and Bushite policy as "rabid."

So here's my one-word Bush-like thought about you: OIL! (what is it? got Exxon Mobil stocks?)

isn't it a psychological problem
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Grow_Them_Young_Pay_Them_Well_Anti_Chavistas_That_Is

discuss, isn't it?

They haven't learned, yet, that a headline here and there, and some crap spewed from cable news will not tell them what they need to know if they're going to have a reality-based opinion.

It may be far worse than that, however, when you get to the true troll state and you actually don't care what's done as long as your right-wing leaders win. They turn their brains, and their moral responsibility over to hate show hosts.

boy are they hard to spot, huh.... they are so clever... lol.

to dislike both men. :eyes:

and the other didn't--and hasn't harmed anybody at all. One tortures prisoners and rips up the Constitution. The other recently called for humanizing the prisons, and has run a scrupulously lawful government. One permits gas gouging against the poor. The other uses oil profits to benefit the poor.

It's not a simple matter of "liking" Bush or Chavez, or "disliking" them both. These are matters of policy and principle. Whether you are drawn to a personality (as reflected through news filters) or you are repelled by it, is really irrelevant. Facts are relevant. Actual behavior as leaders is relevant.

I was just pointing out that disliking one does not entail, by necessity, supporting the other. The poster to whom I replied was implying that taking a position against Chavez automatically makes one a Bush supporter.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'd be worried about that too if I were him. Heck, I'm worried.

OTOH, if Barack is elected he won't have anything to worry about.

Relations between Venezuela and the US will not improve even if Barack Obama becomes president, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, predicted today.

A persistent thorn in the side of the US, Chavez told his supporters not to get their hopes up over Obama, the Democratic candidate, as there was little difference between him and his Republican rival, John McCain.

"The two candidates for the US presidency attack us equally, they attack us defending the interests of the empire," Chavez said at a meeting of his socialist party. "Let's not kid ourselves, it is the empire and the empire must fall. That's the only solution - that it comes to an end."

Obama has taken a tougher line towards Chavez in recent weeks as he continues to harden his international image in an attempt to broaden his appeal to more conservative voters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/venezuela.usa

_Bush right-wing hostilities which have reflected the racist hatred and disrespect for the entire continent, and lay at the bottom of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans due to U.S. meddling since 1954, and Eisenhower overthrew the democratically elected Guatemalan leader, Jacob Arbenz, and kicked off the bloodbath from which they've never been allowed to recover completely, since right-wing assholes here have made it their business to keep trying to divide and conquer, preying on one or two or three governments at a time.

Here's how much they adored Richard Nixon when he visited in Caracas, in 1958 LONG BEFORE CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED:









Carrying on the tradition,
here's a look from the window
of the U.S. car carrying Bush's
ambassador Brownfield from a
kid's little league baseball game
he crashed, when the parents didn't
want him there, grabbed fruit, eggs,
vegetables from local markets, leaped
on their motorcycles and chased him away.

South America is mostly a leftist continent now, with closely allied leftist governments elected in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and most recently, Paraguay (and further north, in Nicaragua; with a progressive gov't recently elected in Guatemala; and likely election of a leftist in El Salvador next year). (Peru also has a leftist gov't, but it's a very corrupt, 'free tradist' gov't, likely to be ousted in the next election cycle, by a real leftist.)

Colombia is the odd man out in South America--with its $5.5 BILLION in U.S. military aid (through Bushite fingers), its belligerence (recent bombing/raid against Ecuador), its rightwing death squads (nearly 40 union leaders murdered this year alone), and its highly corrupt government. (Just for instance, its president, Alvaro Uribe, is under investigation for bribing legislators to extend his term office, and for participating in a death squad meeting, and some fifty of his political cohorts are under investigation--and some are in jail--for death squad activities, election fraud, drug trafficking and other crimes).

The many leftist governments of South America are the driving force behind creation of the South American "Common Market"--UNASUR--in which context Brazil has proposed a common defense. Neither thing--the market or the defense--includes the U.S.

Now, why would Brazil be concerned to propose a common defense? South America has no enemies except....?

Ah! Its sole enemy, lo these many centuries, has been the U.S. of A., funding and organizing heinous dictatorships on behalf of its corporate predators, and, of recent vintage, the only fuckwads who:

1) have tried to topple the democratic government of Venezuela numerous times, in numerous ways (from support of a violent rightwing coup--whose first act was to suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, in 2002--to Exxon Mobil's failed attempt, early this year, to seize $12 billion in Venezuela's assets over a 60/40 oil deal favoring Venezuela's poor);

2) are organizing, funding and probably arming white racists in Bolivia, who want to secede from the Morales government, taking Bolivia's gas/oil riches with them;

3) orchestrated an attack on Ecuador, this March, from the (high-tech, fully equipped, military) "war room" in the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, for the purpose of stopping leftist leaders' successful hostage negotiations with the FARC (--they bombed the chief FARC hostage negotiator and 24 other people, in their sleep--days before Ingrid Betancourt was to be released--nearly starting a war with Ecuador);

4) are funding rightwing groups all over South America, with billions in USAID-NED and black budget funds, but most especially in the countries with the oil (Venezuela and Ecuador, and their closest allies, Bolivia, Argentina), all with the strongest social justice governments in South America; and are likely funders/organizers of a three-country plot (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia) for fascist groups in the oil-rich provinces to secede and create fascist mini-states in control of the oil (to deny benefit of those resources to the poor majorities, and to give multinationals much better deals).

5) are reconstituting the U.S. 4th Fleet (a nuclear fleet), to be up and running off the coast of Venezuela this summer (specifically, off the oil-rich coastal state of Zulia, adjacent to Colombia; fascists in Zulia and Colombian officials (including Uribe) have already met to discuss secession).

6) have been engaged in a relentless corporate media campaign of lies and disinformation against Chavez, and, more recently, against Rafael Correa (Ecuador), as well as simultaneous efforts to disinform/misinform the American people about the new South American left as a whole, and the rebellion of this massive leftist movement against U.S. domination, whether by "free trade," the World Bank/IMF loan sharks or the failed, corrupt, murderous U.S. "war on drugs." They don't want us to know that rebellion is possible if you stick together. Surprise, surprise.

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

Brazil's president, Lula da Silva, recently said, of Chavez: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things--but not on democracy!"

Not reported in the corporate media, of course, because they want you to think that Chavez is a "tyrant"*.

Brazil's president also recently called Chavez "the great peacemaker" (for his work on hostage releases, on a peace initiative for Colombia's 40+ year civil war, and in heading off war between Ecuador and Colombia, after the recent U.S./Colombia aggression).

Da Silva and Chavez are close allies. Da Silva is more center-left, Chavez more socialist, but they are friends, and have common goals--the biggest one being South American economic and political integration in a "Common Market," i.e., South American independence and self-determination, with a strong focus on social justice. They joined forces to build the new Orinoco Bridge between Brazil and Venezuela. They recently joined forces to aid Bolivia with a huge road project. And they are both working on Colombia's Uribe, to better integrate Colombia into this new powerhouse South America trade bloc, and to bolster him up against what I gather is the threat of a U.S./Bush Cartel-dominated military dictatorship in Colombia. (There is evidence of a rift, in Colombia, between civilian and military powers--and we can be sure that the Bushites are in the middle of that as well. "Divide and conquer" is their M.O.)

Lula da Silva is well aware of the U.S./Bushite plots against his friends and neighbors--as are all South American (and, for that matter, Central American) leaders. Recent Obama rhetoric does not bode well for a new enlightened U.S. policy toward Latin America. He could well support these fascist secession plots with the U.S. military, or, at the least, look the other way when Bush Cartel forces make their move (Colombian military and closely tied rightwing paramilitaries, Blackwater, and local fascist paramilitaries--possibly all coordinated by none other than Donald Rumsfeld*).

So, that is why Brazil has proposed a common defense. And that is why Chavez is bolstering Venezuela's military with Russian arms purchases, and is seeking allies in the greater world. (The Bush Junta banned arms sales to Venezuela--as if they had a right to do that. Venezuela has harmed no one--NO ONE! They have meanwhile larded Colombia with $5.5 BILLION in arms--the least democratic country in the western hemisphere, and the one with rightwing death squads!)

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

*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

A note on Venezuela's democracy: These facts about the election system should make things fairly clear. In Venezuela, they use electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they do a whopping 55% handcount, as a check on machine fraud. In the U.S., we now have electronic voting everywhere, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with ZERO handcounts in many states, and only 1% in the best of the states. So, who is guilty of tyranny? Who are the unelected dictators? Whose government cannot be verified as a legitimate expression of the will of the people? Not Venezuela.

Brazil Appeals to Neighbors to Cut Dependency on the US and EU
Brazzil Magazine
Monday, 21 July 2008

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Alvaro Uribe, the presidents of Brazil and Colombia, respectively, vowed Saturday, July 19, to boost trade and investment between their nations ahead of crucial world trade talks this week. Lula urged Colombia and the region to increase trade ties "so we aren't left dependent on a single partner," such as the US or European Union. (MORE)
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/9597

Judi Lynn just posted this at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3403873

This accord between da Silva and Uribe follows upon a Uribe/Chavez meeting last week to "bury the hatchet" and to announce joint ventures (for instance, a new Colombia/Venezuela railroad). Further, da Silva shares the goal of South American self-determination with Chavez and most other South American leaders. I am posting this here because it bolsters my argument that both Brazil's proposal for a South American common defense, and Chavez's arms purchase deal with Russia are closely connected, and are part of one South American policy initiative, on which da Silva and Chavez (and many others) are agreed, and which da Silva and Chavez are working particularly hard to include Colombia in. They want Colombia to stop being the "odd man out" and the troublemaker, and the conduit of U.S./Bush nefarious schemes against their democratic governments.

Venezuela and Russia pledge to cooperate
By Anne Barnard
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

MOSCOW: President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia said Tuesday that their countries would more closely coordinate their actions on global oil and gas markets and that they would work together on foreign policy, a sphere in which both countries have sought to counter U.S. influence.

Chávez, who is expected to sign contracts to purchase more than $1 billion worth of Russian arms, called for the two nations to become "strategic partners" to defend against what he called a U.S. threat to his country.

"That will guarantee the sovereignty of Venezuela, which the United States is now threatening," Chávez said at the start of two days of planned meetings, according to the official Russian news agency RIA-Novosti.

Medvedev, who met Chávez for the first time since he succeeded Vladimir Putin as president last winter, stopped short of endorsing his guest's sharp remarks about the United States. So did Russian officials, who emphasized the business significance of the new cooperation, including three deals to expand Russian oil and gas companies' presence in Latin America, rather than its political import.

But Medvedev noted that the two countries aim to promote the United Nations as the primary means for settling international disputes.

"We think that it is our common task to achieve a more democratic, just and secure world," Medvedev said, according to Interfax. "We are ready to work on this, together with the Venezuelan president."

More:
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=14699539

:hi:

knows enough to not have to bother with the story!

They've got some real demons at work on headlines, apparently. They just don't let up. :hi:

US critical of Russia-Venezuelan arms deal
By DPA
Jul 22, 2008, 20:40 GMT

Washington - The United States on Tuesday criticized a 2- billion-dollar Russian package of arms sales to Venezuela, saying the weaponry pursued by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez goes beyond the country's defensive needs.

'We've repeatedly communicated concerns with Russia about Chavez's arms build-up in the past, and we're going to continue to do so,' Gonzalo Gallegos, a US State Department spokesman said.

'We continue to question ... whether such acquisitions are in line with Venezuela's legitimate defense needs,' Gallegos added.

Chavez met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow on Tuesday to finalize the deal. They did not disclose details, but the Russian newspaper Kommersant placed the value at 2 billion dollars. Kommersant said the deal includes 20 air-defence systems, 12 military transport planes and 24 fighter jets.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1418769.php/US_critical_of_Russia-Venezuelan_arms_deal

At least not one Chavez ought to be cavorting with (though it'd be worse if he went for, say, Zimbabwe but China has already been there done that). Putin may have changed titles, but he sure as Hell hasn't given up power. The man and his supporters have worked diligently the past few years to usurp power in that country, with dreams of a Neo-Imperial Russia. This is hardly unknown in the West. Even Duh Chimperor has made public statements calling on then-President Putin to tone down the anti-democratic horseshit. President Dmitry Medvedev is a puppet at best, getting manhandled behind the scenes by Putin and other cranks with delusions of a reborn Imperial Russian superpower status. Russia is a terrible choice, not matter if you support Chavez or not. If Chavez is such a champion of democracy and not, you know, a dictator, why would he seek support from Russia's, you know, dictator Putin? Does he like Putin's style? Did they look into each others eyes? Even Bush had to backtrack after doing that and say, "Oops," because Putin's shit is so transparent.

I would think more-established democracies, like the member states of the EU or even India (would be my choice; their exploding economy needs the oil Chavez has to offer, so its a guaranteed trading partner and I'm sure India would be MORE than happy to ensure that oil's security for its own economy's sake) or Australia, would be better symbolic choices. The last thing Russia needs right now is another total collapse of its economy in trying to support an overseas military it already can't support since the last collapse of its economy over a decade ago. Russia has oil you say? Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. So does Venezuela, only Russia's is under the permafrost. Do you have any idea how hard and expensive it is to reach that shit (remember, Russia is poor)? About as bad as trying to reach oil out in the deep sea; the only saving grace is it's on land.

Congratulations. How does the hook taste?

Now how about responding to the other 95% of my post? You know, the parts about Russia being a shitastic choice for Chavez to ally himself with?

The problem with the US's purely military, pure force "shock treatment" foreign policy that allows for no middle ground, is that as nations start to recover from the devastation of the military coups, the economic attacks, as they inevitably do, the victims remember who the monsters were and how they operated - and how they lied. This doesn't make the people naive.

So suck it down, DRoseDARs

Pay particular attention to the part where I explicitly say that INDIA (which, for the geographically-impaired, is NOT the United States) would make a better choice.

Christ, you people are robots. :eyes:

He loves saying this kind of stuff, whether it's true or not, or whether it's realistic or not, just to stir the pot and get the spotlight put back on him. Just when most people are saying "Chavez who???" he says something else silly and rattles the cage.

*sigh* Readin' deficiencies r funnzies.

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

eom

Or are you just spitting out robotic responses again? ;) :P

You know, you CAN use the space called "Message" found below the "Subject" line to flesh-out your responses. Your posts don't all have to be one-liners. You did it in post#51, too bad it was in response to an imaginary post instead of to anything I had said. I'm not a carny, you can have another fair swing at it...

They put an interdiction even on parts for equipment Venezuela bought from U.S. corporations. It's not formal sanctions, because no one in the world would agree to that. The Bushites have absolutely no right to do it, and Venezuela has done nothing--NOTHING!--to deserve it. Venezuela's crime is that the government believes in using the oil profits to benefit the poor, and that means, not that U.S. corporations can't operate there--Chevron is, for instance--but they can't haul all the profits away into the pockets of the super-rich. They have to agree to a fair deal for Venezuela (--as did Chevron, also BP, Norways's Statoil, and France's Total). Exxon Mobil and the Bushites hate Venezuela for this, and have tried every which way to Sunday to try to topple its democratic government, and have relentlessly slandered its popular and democratically elected president.

That's why he has to equip Venezuela's military in Russia. The Bushites don't want Venezuela to have a reasonable military defense. Why would that be?

...than the banter I've been having so far. I notice a differently titled headline has less spin in it and as such this deal is more about buying goods rather than alliances. Russia certainly has a lot of weapons with no soldiers to use them, so I guess that makes more sense, but in the long run Venezuela is better off partnering with countries that DON'T have a long historical list of Human Rights abuses and anti-democratic skulduggery ... like Russia does. China by the same token would also be a poor choice, hence my favoring India. The population is there, the economy is growing, and you know they're going to want to be at least a regional power if not a global power. The Indians have their flaws, but Russian and Chinese they are not. Those two countries need to get their shit together in terms of fairness and equality, else the next hundred years are going to be interesting in a bad way.

You might be surprised at how well Venezuela is received "overseas", as V is in the Americas, except for the USA. And how much power that goodwill generates. My guess would be, if you put Bush and Chavez on a scale to measure, Chavez would generate the most goodwill worldwide. To those who'd disagree, all I can say is, suck it down, right-wingers. Suck it down.

:toast:

I enjoy occasionally needling others because in many cases they learn to temper their responses instead of spitting blather over and over again. However, it'll be delightful to see Obama needle McCain during the debates because Johnny boy will likely be showing a different kind of "temper" and erupt on live, national television. You might even be able to pop some popcorn just by holding it close to the screen when he blows.

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

Venezuela's democracy, and the real democracy now flourishing throughout South America, won't influence undemocratic regimes, rather than the other way around. Also, how do undemocratic regimes get influenced? By trade relations, cultural exchange and integration. Isolating undemocratic regimes is the worst of diplomatic strategies, and it is often prep for war (economic warfare followed by hot war).

You can't influence human rights policy in a country that doesn't give a crap what you think because they have nothing at stake, economically, and no reason to listen to you.

In any case, who are WE to be saying who Venezuela should trade with? We have lost control of our own government and have helplessly watched while it slaughtered one million innocent people in Iraq to get their oil. Our government is torturing prisoners! --setting the worst possible example in the world, making it acceptable, and giving those in our military who want to give honorable service lifetimes of nightmares. And they're funding a country, Colombia--to the tune of $5.50 BILLION--with one of the other worst human rights records on earth--a country where hundreds of union leaders have suffered torture and death.

We have no right to preach to Venezuela. They have harmed no one, tortured no one, invaded no one, and imprisoned no one unjustly. They are a sovereign country with a strong democracy that puts own own to shame in most respects. If they see a need or advantage in trade with Russia, that is their business, not ours.

Take your message to Bush! Take it to Obama! Tell them to call off the dogs on Venezuela, and see if they give a goddamn what you think.

Here is a the news flash for you.

Russia has all the technologies and research to extract oil and gas in very difficult conditions of Siberia. This is frankly what they are doing now.
Russia poor? The 3rd largest holder of US debt after China and Japan. US is poor - more than 9 trillion in debt alone. Can you afford living on credit forever?

The rest of your post is just pure BS. Putin enjoys about 75% popularity, people actually like his policies, isn't democracy all about doing what people who elected you like?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pzwCfOsv_9YleiDDVkkQqUg

As of Jan. 2008 and $9.4 trillion in debt (9.2 at the time the spreadsheet was compiled), Russia comes in 15th at $35.2 billion USD, which is just 1.47% of our foreign debt. Surprisingly, Japan owns us more than the Chinese, but not by much at 586.9 to 429.6 respectively. The UK comes in a distant third at 160.
As of May 2008 (data compiled the US Treasury Department July 16th, 2008), Russia moved up to 8th at $63.7 billion. Japan, China, and the UK still dominate the pack far exceeding Russia.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

As for Putin's "popularity," I strongly suggest you take a closer look at what the various Humans rights groups have to say about conditions in Russia. Hell, with that last bit you posted, you could draw certain parallels with (God help me) Hitler. Germany was devastated after WW1 and he gained "popularity" not by executing Jews and conquering half of Europe right off the bat, but by doing things the people who elected him liked. That ... and quickly developing an atmosphere of fear of what would happen to you if you openly suggested that he was doing otherwise. Apparently you only remember the Russia of 15 years ago in the abstract, because the reality is their economy collapsed and with it the Soviet Union. They've been suffering and hobbled ever since. That isn't being stuck in the past, that's 15 years ago continuing on through to today. Boris Yeltsin had trouble with his popularity because he couldn't just *poof* make the economy better and so people became disillusioned with this newfangled "democracy" stuff in Russia. Yeltsin was to post-USSR Russia what the Weimar government was to post-WW1 Germany: Impotent. Putin, formerly of the KGB, and others like him knew full well they could take advantage of that disillusionment. Human rights groups and democracy watchdogs have documented a stark drop in freedoms since 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia

As for Russian technology, that's immaterial. It gets increasingly expensive the more treacherous the terrain is or the more deep the reserves are. The price of oil makes it worse too; it takes oil to find more oil and as time goes on we all know the price oil will continue to rise in the long-term, regardless of the short-term. Permafrost is dangerous land to work on with the heavy equipment necessary to extract oil. Stuff breaks (or breaks through the ice/sinkholes) or freezes, people get injured or killed more often, time and money are lost as a result of all those factors. The fact remains: It is EXPENSIVE business, regardless of what technology they have. Their economy now rests on a few volatile commodities (like oil) and as such is subject to major swings in global prices. Per the CIA World Factbook oil, metals, timber, and natural gas make up 80% of Russia's exports and 30% of government revenue. Those prices drop, they're screwed again. It certainly doesn't help that Putin and his cohorts have hampered efforts at expanding the free market in Russia, rather pursuing the return of state control.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

I work with a lot of Russians and they genuinely think Putin brought better times to Russia so your empty references to his background is just empty references.

George Bush senior was also a CIA director at one time - did anybody at least once mentioned his spooky background?

I know where all this anti-Putin stance comes from - the drunk Yeltsin guy was a "Yes"-man for the western politicians and would concede anything in front of him. Now Putin is different, he is "I take no shit from anybody" kind of guy and that makes the neocons in Washington crazy.

somewhere else and bitching about who Chavez "cavorts" with.

Because we are the final arbiters of all and every good. Our unelected Torture President said so.

lol

"it's so funny to read an American complaining about the lack of democracy

somewhere else and bitching about who Chavez "cavorts" with.

Because we are the final arbiters of all and every good. Our unelected Torture President said so.

lol"

So by your own words, any and every American who posits an opinion (either personal or fact-based) about the affairs of others is a Bushist. That says a lot about you and what you think about everyone here. Russia's economic and Human rights abuse problems aren't some imaginary American rightwing propaganda, they're recorded and documented parts of history as researched by both government agencies and NGOs of various backgrounds and national origins.

the charming rightwing Isreali defense minister whose own human rights abuses have been well documented.

But, that's different. :)

My use of the word "cavorting" was at a time when I didn't understand (thanks to the earlier spinrific headline) that Chavez was just buying weapons, not signing an alliance pact. If you'd bothered reading anything posted in the nearly 11 hours since, well, scratch that you already have your narrative and you're not about to let a little context get in the way of that. If you want to start cherry-picking out-of-context and out of time, that's your business. Just leave the adult discussions for the adults. As for Obama, he's making the necessary (and sometimes unfortunate) rounds as a presidential candidate. Just like his FISA vote. For the record, I didn't vote for Obama or Hillary in the primaries, so save the sanctimony for someone who cares. :)

was reaffirming one. :)

informed, reality based beliefs, anyway?

It's enough to fire up some of the more "intelligent" ones among us to the point approaching spontaneous human combustion, if the word "human" applies.

http://www.terradaily.com.nyud.net:8090/images/human-laughter-bg.jpg

Russian weaponry is far less Hi Tech, easier to service in the field by low tech mechanics, designed to operate in hostle environments, and less expensive per item.

Russian weapons will also be easier and faster for Venezuela to build under license if Chavez decides to go that route.

All in all, Chavez will get more Bang for the Buck (Bolivar) with fewer techno headaches, less downtime, and a much smaller contingent of highly trained support personel.

it depends on who your enemy is - against his SA neighbors ok. Against the US - stupid.

The US Hi Tech juggernaut was soundly defeatd in SE Asia by guys riding bicycles and shooting AK47s.

The Taliban is winning in Afghanistan, and the Resistance will win in Iraq if it takes 100 years. The USA cannot afford to field its Hi Tech/Hi Dollar Army indefinitely.

Nobody can defeat the USA in a 20th Century set piece frontal conflict. That is why the World moved on to other more successful strategies about 40 years ago.

I could see your point if he was arming himself for a guerrilla war but he is not.

He is doing it for two reasons: to bully his neighbors and to pay off his generals so they stay happy and on his side.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=620_1217075292




http://it.notizie.yahoo.com/ap/20080726/foto/pot-sunken-sub-9399fe8-543fda19ded20.html

Columbia is in the mini sub business. Well, certain capitalists in the export business anyway....

so vietnam was obviously a proxy war with USSR. Vietnam makes nice shirts and takes amex at the hilton in ho chi mihn city. Next time you are in macy's check the labels. They kick up to china now.

I say we won that one.

We bled the USSR in Afghanistan, cia and isi used those guys a pawns.

Iraq is a matter of approach. If we wanted to colonize the place it could be done with enough death. That is not the approach. That is a mess but that is another topic and a book by its self.

Afghanistan is another matter, define wining? That is an idealogical war.

The us can afford to fund defense as long as we remain the most powerful economy in the world. GDP closest is Germany at 1/4 of ours.

There doesn't seem to be any de-facto policy that it's necessary for one country or another to forge an alliance with, and only with democracies. I would imagine that a minor-country-beginning-to-go-places-on-the-world-stage would simply go after the most pragmatic choice rather than one that assuages our own delicate western sensibilities.

As Russia possesses the world's largest natural gas reserve and the second (or maybe third?) largest coal reserve, as well as nine straight years of economic growth average app. 7% per year, it seems to me that the two nations could mutually benefit each other by trading fuel commodities.

And as Russia is the world's largest exporter of arms (and those exported arms are getting cheaper by the day as Russia is currently going through a complete upgrade of its ground forces and getting rid of the fourth and fifth generation APC's, tanks, etc.) and Venezuela wants inexpensive armaments and high tech intelligence equipment to augment its own army, it seems like an almost perfect match.

He should ask the Republican Guard how their outdated soviet weaponry did against the U.S.

That's all Bolivia has to do, also.

Both of these are democracies - altho' of course that makes no difference to the US. The US has kinda proven its case, in SA.

in an almost unprecedented military boondoggle--to a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth. WHO is power-grabbing?

The Chavez government's arms purchases are IN CONJUNCTION WITH a regional initiative proposed by BRAZIL for a South American common defense. Venezuela is working cooperatively with other countries on a common South American economic, political and defense strategy, in the context of UNASUR--the South American "Common Market" the foundation of which was recently formally laid, though it has been in the works for a long time.

Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, recently called Chavez "the great peacemaker"--for his efforts to prevent a war between Colombia and Ecuador (after Colombian aggression), and his successful hostage release efforts and peace initiative with regard to Colombia's 40+ year civil war. He also said, of Chavez: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot things, but not on democracy."

No one in South America--except for the U.S.-dollar bloated Colombian military and its fascists politicians--has ever considered Venezuela to be a threat of any kind. Chavez has close alliances and friendships with almost all of the region's leaders, all of whom know that the only threat of aggression against South America comes from North America, and from its client state and surrogate, Colombia.

There is power, GeniusLib, and there is a "power grab." Venezuela has LEGITIMATE power in the region. The Chavez government holds LEGITIMATE power in Venezuela. It is a sovereign country with a solid democracy. What is Bush's legitimacy in South America? What right does he have to spend billions of our tax dollars to prop up the worst human rights abuser in the western hemisphere--Colombia--and to be funding and plotting fascist coups, and destabilization, and civil wars against Venezuela and Bolivia and other democratic countries?

None! So, who is the regional "power grabber"?

that seems like a waste of 2 billion dollars.

Surely a country with the poverty VZ has could spend it's money more wisely....

half-decent foreign policy, not dictated by Exxon Mobil, and wasn't relentlessly slandering the country and its government, in a psyops campaign with haunting resemblances to the Iraq WMDs campaign (prelim to war), coupled with a history of coup plots against the Chavez government, current re-activation of the 4th Fleet (why?), the U.S./Colombia bombing of Ecuador, and all sorts of evidence of a Bushite scheme to foment secessionist plots in the oil-rich provinces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

The Venezuelan government would not need to purchase arms and beef up its military, except for the threat from the UNITED STATES. This, too, is why Brazil recently proposed a common South American defense system, in conjunction with the South American "Common Market" (UNASUR), neither thing--neither the "Common Market" nor the common defense--to include the U.S. WE ARE THE THREAT. And it's likely money well-spent by Venezuela, since the U.S. only likes to take on countries that it has pummeled with economic sanctions and no-fly-zone bombings, for twelve years, prior to invasion. Pushover countries. Weak countries. Countries with no air force. Virtually defenseless countries. (This is one of the main reasons that an attack on Iran is now off the table. Iran is well-defended, and is not yet on its knees from economic sanctions and other bullying.)

Chavez re-negotiated the oil contracts, and changed what was 10/90 split of the profits in favor of the oil giants, to a much fairer 60/40 split in favor of Venezuela. That money is being poured into social programs to benefit and to bootstrap the poor--including massive spending on education, medical care, infrastructure (roads, bridges, low cost housing), land reform, loans and grants to small business and co-ops, encouragement of local manufacturing, South American economic integration, regional infrastructure and other progressive projects. You would begrudge them $2 billion in military hardware, to defend their country against on-going U.S. war plans, when the Bushites waste that much every couple of hours on aggression, torture and murder?

Venezuela's poor are not complaining. They are doing MUCH BETTER than they have ever done in the past. Poverty has been reduced by 30%. Illiteracy has been eliminated. All indicators are up. Venezuela has shown nearly 10% growth over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil)--growth that benefits everyone. And Venezuelans understand very well what the threat is. They experienced the U.S./Bush-supported, violent, rightwing military coup, in 2002, and the coup's suspension of their Constitution, their court system, their National Assembly and all civil rights, and the kidnapping of their elected president. They responded by pouring out of their hovels, in the tens of thousands, surrounding Miraflores Palace, and demanding restoration of the Constitution, and return of their kidnapped president.

They are well aware of what would have happened if that U.S.-supported coup had succeeded. Many of them would have been tortured and murdered. Their democracy, and all of their progressive gains, would have been crushed. Chavez is hugely popular in Venezuela, with a 60% to 70% approval rating. He has been elected and re-elected in honest and transparent elections, and his policies are a true reflection of the people of Venezuela. They also have a presidential recall provision in their Constitution. So, if they have a beef with Chavez's military purchases, we will hear about it. But I think the truth is that they know damn well what it's for--to prevent any further U.S. intervention in their country, whether by direct attack or fomenting of civil war.

All South American countries have high poverty rates and are struggling to recover from decades of putrid U.S. exploitation in cahoots with U.S-supported rightwing regimes and heinous dictatorships. That 10/90 stat on multinational oil giants' exploitation is a good case in point. Venezuela's oil was nationalized long before Chavez (as it has been in a lot of other countries--any country with common sense does this.) But prior regimes in Venezuela were giving away the oil profits, in exchange for a glitzy, import-addicted, urban lifestyle for the rich oil elite. The damage to Venezuela's poor, and to the country as a whole, was enormous. This elite utterly neglected local manufacturing, and issues like food self-sufficiency and land reform. And they simply left the poor to rot. The result--like elsewhere in South America--was disastrous. And it has taken the Chavez government ten years to start undoing that damage, including re-negotiating Venezuela's share of the oil profits (now at 60/40), with--and this is no small matter--constant plotting and aggression by the Bush regime. They have had to battle a coup attempt, a crippling oil professionals' strike, a U.S. funded recall election (which Chavez won, hands down), assassination plots, Bushite funding, organizing and training of the rightwing opposition, relentless propaganda (even worse than here) from the corporate 'news' monopolies, and (U.S.-supported) Colombian harrying of their border--with pesticide spraying, and rightwing paramilitary murders--and a flood of hundreds of thousands of Colombian refugees into Venezuela.

And the Chavez government has done very well, indeed, under these circumstances. They haven't solved every problem, but they are TRYING. The ones who are NOT trying to solve the problem of poverty in South America--the Bushites, the Colombian government, and the fascist elites and anti-democratic plotters--are the ones deserving of criticism. Why aren't you criticizing Bush's spending $5.5 BILLION of our tax dollars for the failed, corrupt, murderous "war on drugs"--instead of criticizing Chavez for trying to defend Venezuela's social justice government?

starting with the profound neglect of the Venezuelan infrastructure, as the oligarchy only served and satisfied its own needs, goals, interests while the rest of the country struggled in misery and destitution. When things needed help desperately, US puppet Carlos Andres Perez decided to tighten the screws on the poor by implementing grotesque new demands on the tiny budgets they already had, by raising the cost of their transportation, heating oil, creating new pressures across the spectrum. When they ran into the streets in protest, he ordered his military to open up, and fire directly into the midst of all those unarmed people, murdering at least 3,000, although his government attempted to claim it was only in the hundreds (as if that would be an acceptable number of dead innocent citizens, either).

The revolution in Venezuela actually started with Carlos Andres Perez "El Caracazo" Massacre, in February, 1989.
They will continue, one way or another, to fight until they secure the adequate level of social change they must have to survive at all.

This will NEVER end if Hugo Chavez leaves, or is assassinated, regardless of what our short-sighted idiot right-wingers fantasize. The Revolution started well before he was elected. They say they won't back down, will not allow a return to the conditions they've already endured prior to El Caracazo Massacre. I would trust them!

The other host of obstacles the Chavez administration will have to face, in addition to the damage done to the country by previous oligarchs, is the damage they do to their own country (aimed at the poor, and the "leftists") by attempting to sabotage, destabilize Chavez's government, through crippling strikes, the violent protests, "guarimbas," disinformation campaigns, and the non-stop disinformation spewing from the oligarchy-owned media outlets which suppresses real news, and issues bogus news, so well illustrated by their conduct, their actions during their violent coup against Hugo Chavez, and their lies concerning the snipers shooting into the crowd at the bridge in Caracas.

The oligarchs are profoundly traitorous to their country's interests. The country is eventually going to take its power back PERMANENTLY.

They don't care about this country, or its infrastructure, or its emergency services, or its workers, or its once strong middle class, or its reputation, or the soundness of its banks and other financial institutions--they don't care about anything at all, except piling up more money and property than anybody else, and now they need repressive powers to protect their ungodly fortunes, so they don't care about the Constitution or the rule of law. With their fat wads, they can buy themselves whatever services THEY need, and fuck-all to the rest of us--to we who built all this infrastructure and did all the work to make them rich.

It's sad, because I did hold out the hope that America was different--has a sufficient tradition of democracy to make needed course corrections, and to prevent what the disastrous rich did to us in the 1920s. But we've gone right back down that path, starting with Reagan.

Just take a look at this:

-------

Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow

Source: WSJ

By JESSE DRUCKER
July 23, 2008; Page A3

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data. Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. (MORE)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3406598

More from that article:

The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8%, down slightly from 2005 and the fifth straight year of declines. The average tax rate of this group was 28.9% in 1996, and was 24% in 1988.

Well, the unwashed masses else simply don't have access to the power to protect themselves. What a pity.

Not so democratic, is it?

They flee their country and whine about how they were forced out by "THE DICTATOR CHAVEZ." Maybe they should have put their wealth back into their country and helped the poor out a little. The poor need to be helped, not raped. Frankly, the wealthy deserve what they got. After all, you reap what you sow.

arms (considering how well their ordinance performed in Iraq) isn't going to "defend" jackshit.

It's a waste of money. Money that would be much better spent elsewhere. You can't defend it.

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

that was proposed by Brazil, and is being created in connection with the South American "Common Market" (UNASUR). Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, just met with Colombia's Uribe to try to bring Colombia more into the orbit of this common economic, political and defense strategy. Chavez is not alone. All the leftist governments are concerned about the intentions of the U.S. (especially with the reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet--why?), as well as Colombia's role as a U.S. chattel.

The U.S. won't likely attack Venezuela (or its other oil targets, Ecuador and Bolivia) head-on, but rather in conjunction with rotten fascist schemes, such as the one unfolding in Bolivia, to foment civil war in these countries, by funding, organizing and no doubt arming fascist secessionist groups in the oil-rich provinces (who will try to declare their "independence" and split off from their leftist national governments). The U.S. will act in support. Chavez (or Correa, or Morales) would be facing local forces--rightwing paramilitaries, mercenaries, possibly Blackwater and/or the Colombian military--with the kind of aid the U.S. recently gave Colombia in its attack on Ecuador (--high tech U.S. military surveillance, ten U.S. "smart bombs," possibly a U.S. bomber and pilot)--a war by proxy. In fact, that Colombian attack on Ecuador was likely a test-out of systems of coordination.

It's not at all a waste of money for governments that have long been targets of the Bush Junta to be prepared for an attack. The U.S. government and its global corporate predator powers cannot win elections in South America. The South Americans have done too much good work on their democratic institutions. But our corporate fascists lust after Venezuela's and Ecuador's oil, and Bolivia's gas and oil, and are also being forced to play on a more even playing field, with the ejection of the World Bank/IMF loan sharks from the region, and many countries rejecting U.S.-dominated "free trade" and the failed, corrupt, murderous U.S. "war on drugs." So there is plenty of U.S./corporate motive to destabilize and topple democratic governments--especially the ones with the oil--and utilize the U.S. military toward that end. But they can't get any traction, for instance, on tagging Hugo Chavez as a "dictator." Everybody in South America knows it isn't true. Direct assault would bring the whole continent into it, in defense of Venezuela. The Bushites have a more indirect strategy, as outlined above--for which $2 billion in Russian arms could well be a deterrent, and certainly up to handling local conflicts, like a fascist-instigated civil war (secessionist plot), or Colombian border incursions, with limited U.S. support.

I think you are right that Venezuela, even with a beefed up military, couldn't repel an all-out U.S. attack (if we had the forces and money to do that). But that's not a realistic notion of how it would happen. So you are arguing against a "straw man"--an exceedingly unlikely scenario. When you consider the likely scenarios--and other developments, such as Brazil's proposal for a common defense--Chavez's military purchases make sense. It is part of a COMMON defense that Chavez is planning in coordination with Brazil and other countries, against the likeliest kinds of attack.

he's buying submarines.

how do subs handle border incursions? or civil war?

surface to air missiles?

same thing.

just seems like chest beating to me. the usual "mines bigger than yours" that the tinpot general set goes for...



waste of money, imho

Seems to me Russian arms have beaten the U.S. in other proxy wars.

against a 35% inflation rate

"Kommersant" is a right-wing/neo-liberal tabloid and it is NOT a "reliable source." It is so right-wing that it opposes Putin from the neo-liberal right. In fact, the word itself ("kommersant") means "businessperson."

to Hugo in exchange for certain privileges and leases and does it Red Dawn ?

where it belongs?

Why can't we move off the subject of war and focus on peace and rebuilding from our last "wars"???

Sheesh! :hippie:

unfortunately, military coups are a huge problem in SA.

have much in common politically, but when it comes to foreign policy, they both benefit by curbing American influence around the world. I think this is an effort to do that, Chavez buying weapons is just a symbol of their willingness to oppose US influence and a way to prove their loyalty.

If I was Chavez, though, I would think twice before linking myself to Iran and Russia while trying to create an open and socially responsible democracy. It's hard for me to think Chavez believes the US will invade, he's probably more concerned with the US and its allies in South America funding groups opposed to him in Venezuela.

Barack Obama, returning from Berlin,
may get to find out what life will be like moving into the second decade of this new millennium when elected.
lol
or do people actually think Russian bombers In Cuba and bases In Venezuela will disappear and the world will "like us" the way they use to back in '92 ?

Russian support may keep Hugo in office past 2012 but, imo, Havanna will be the next Berlin wall to fall in the next few years and the next US admin will be taking credit for it
;)
CIA plot
or
divine inspiration ....

just depends for some reason on which butt sits in the oval office.