Chavez and Castro

My point is just that education is more indoctrination
I am not sure that this is true.

that state-provided food security (through the state supermarkets) is a recipe for disaster
The distribution network employs over 45,000 people. The program purchases from regional and local producers about 40% of its total purchases which supports the local agricultural industry in the form of microcredits, and jobs have been created in small and medium-sized businesses which have not only expanded but have also successfully inserted themselves into the national economy.

Purchases from local and regional businesses reduce costs in transportation, distribution and advertising, thus reducing costs for the consumer. The food program is developing the agriculture industry in venezuela, I don't see this as a bad thing.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Any education is indoctrination on some level or another, no matter the source.

The effects of production quotas in agriculture depend more on the world market than is visible at first glance; this can be currently seen in the EU, which introduced production quotas for milk 20 years ago. The first decade, this did stabilize low-income farms with low production (and stabilized end-user prices), but after these caught onto the system, they switched to more profitable production venues. But, since some major exporters on the world market (eg Australia) face production problems now, the end-user price in the EU is rising (by quite some margins) at the moment, while the (quota-regulated) remaining domestic producers do not really get more money out of this.
Agriculture regulations (by subsidies, production quotas, guaranteed buys) are really a mixed bag, and require constant precise adjustment to stay permanently stable.
 

contedicavour

New Member
I'd only add that forcing private enterprise to price as a function of what the government regulates is the best way to wreck the enterprise's ability to operate efficiently.
Besides, even supposing the government did a super job of adapting prices to changing market conditions, everything is biased by political considerations. Take the example of low cost oil sent to London to make a favour to the leftist mayor or the similar deal to Nicaragua... instead of using the money to reinvest into PDVSA in order to stop the decrease in barrels per day production. Suppose the government does the same with food supplies to support poor neighbours...

cheers
 
I'd only add that forcing private enterprise to price as a function of what the government regulates is the best way to wreck the enterprise's ability to operate efficiently.
I don't think those private enterprises that you might be refering to in venezuela was very successful.

Besides, even supposing the government did a super job of adapting prices to changing market conditions, everything is biased by political considerations. Take the example of low cost oil sent to London to make a favour to the leftist mayor or the similar deal to Nicaragua
Isn't that how the world works? Govt. rewarding their friends and allies.
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
I don't think those private enterprises that you might be refering to in venezuela was very successful.


Isn't that how the world works? Govt. rewarding their friends and allies.
Well, Venezuela has several efficient retailers and manufacturers (take the Polar group) that have profited from the fact that Venezuela was a democratic and stable place for a long time since the '50s. Several multinational countries have their Latin American HQ in Caracas (P&G for example). If you start controlling prices (directly or indirectly via state supermarkets that obey to political and not economic considerations) then you obtain... well, another Cuba... and voilà we're back on topic ;)

cheers
 

Neutral Zone

New Member
Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece

Martin Arostegui, Santa Cruz
IN a new outburst of antiwestern sabre-rattling, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has threatened Britain with “revenge” for the Falklands war of 1982. The belligerent Latin American leftist warned last week that his recent build-up of sophisticated Russian and Iranian weapons would be used to destroy the British fleet if it attempted to return to the South Atlantic.

Speaking on his weekly television show Alo Presidente (Hello, Mr President), Chavez denounced what he described as Britain’s “illegal occupation” of the Falklands and repeated his call for a regional military alliance against Britain and the United States.

“If we had been united in the last war, we could have stopped the old empire,” Chavez said, as he gesticulated to maps showing how Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would intercept British warships. “Today we could sink the British fleet.”

Chavez has often expressed support for Argentina’s claim to the Falklands, but his latest broadside was notable for both its antiBritish vitriol and its unprecedented threats. He declared that British history was “stained with the blood of South America’s indigenous people” and demanded revenge for the “cowardly” sinking of the General Belgrano, the Argentine cruiser.

Western diplomats have long grown used to harangues from Chavez, who announced this weekend that he would negotiate with guerrillas holding dozens of hostages in Colombia, including three US contractors and Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian abducted as she campaigned for president in 2002. But US and British officials have recently become more concerned by his willingness to lavish billions of dollars from Venezuela’s soaring oil income on military capabilities.

On his TV programme, Chavez introduced a group of 30 Venezuelan pilots who were trained in Russia to fly a squadron of 24 Sukhoi SU-30 multi-role fighters. The aircraft were part of a $3 billion armaments deal with Moscow.

Chavez has also bought 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and negotiated to set up a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He has reportedly ordered nine Russian diesel submarines, including the cruise missile-carrying 677E Amur-class vessel.

The Venezuelan pilots told him they would soon be training with medium-range BrahMos missiles, a supersonic antiship cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia.

US officials also fear that Chavez may be seeking nuclear technology from his contacts with Iran and North Korea. He is discussing a possible joint programme with Tehran to build an unmanned drone aircraft similar to the American Predator and has long been engaged in a regional attempt to promote military cooperation against the US.

So far most of his neighbours have shied away from confrontation with Washington, but Chavez is continuing to press for the creation of a “single South American army”.

His outspoken attacks on Britain and his support for Buenos Aires have gone down well in Argentina, where President Nestor Kirchner’s wife, Cristina, is the favourite to succeed her husband in elections next month.

While there is no indication that either of the Kirchners wants to precipitate a new crisis over the Falklands, military analysts say Venezuela’s lengthening military reach might seriously impede any British attempt to dispatch a new task force.

=====================

Is this more bombast by Chavez or is he serious? There doesn't seem to be any appetite in Argentina for another Falklands adventure but who knows what sort of government they could have in 10 or so years when Chavez has got all of his new toys? I'd never heard about Venezuela buying Brahmos before, I take it he's referring to the air launched variant which isn't in service yet? I there were to be another Falkands conflict in around 2020 and if Venezuela sided with Argentina and tried to interdict an RN task force as it headed south or attempted to cut the SLOC's then how would the future RN, with CVF's and F-35's and T45's do? Even if this is just rhetoric I hope that the MoD is paying attention to this.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Is this more bombast by Chavez or is he serious?
Of course it's rhetoric. He wants to draw his neighbours in to "counter" the US. Talking about the Falklands is a way to appeal to the South American grassroots, hoping that they might pressure their governments to support him.

By 2020 both QE-class aircraft carriers would be finished, as would the Type 45 destroyers and several Astute class submarines. Some of the new frigate-replacement escorts might have been produced.

Besides, how would Chavez or his successor strike the Falklands? Merely preparing for an attack would draw attention when he moved his air and naval assets into the region. That would allow plenty of time to fly more Typhoons and equipment down to the islands. Argentina itself is severely lacking in modern equipment.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Of course it's rhetoric. He wants to draw his neighbours in to "counter" the US. Talking about the Falklands is a way to appeal to the South American grassroots, hoping that they might pressure their governments to support him.

By 2020 both QE-class aircraft carriers would be finished, as would the Type 45 destroyers and several Astute class submarines. Some of the new frigate-replacement escorts might have been produced.

Besides, how would Chavez or his successor strike the Falklands? Merely preparing for an attack would draw attention when he moved his air and naval assets into the region. That would allow plenty of time to fly more Typhoons and equipment down to the islands. Argentina itself is severely lacking in modern equipment.
he have to move equipment into Argentina?
as the Su30 wouldn't have the range from Venezuela to reach the falklands and his navy is pitiful compared with Argentina in 1982 and is smaller than the Argentinian navy now and neither nation has any ampibs.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
he have to move equipment into Argentina?
as the Su30 wouldn't have the range from Venezuela to reach the falklands and his navy is pitiful compared with Argentina in 1982 and is smaller than the Argentinian navy now and neither nation has any ampibs.
Not quite true about the amphibs. Venezuela has four smallish (4000 ton) landing ships - Capana-class. But of course, deploying them to Argentina would be noticed.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Isn`t the Falkland islands deemed to belong to the British, if they needed NATO assistance would not NATO be obligated to help out if needed. I personally just love it every time you have a country leader like Chavez running his mouth on one of his many rampages, this just gives my DOD the ammunition needed to purchase additional advance weapons from congress.
 

f-22fan12

New Member
Isn`t the Falkland islands deemed to belong to the British, if they needed NATO assistance would not NATO be obligated to help out if needed. I personally just love it every time you have a country leader like Chavez running his mouth on one of his many rampages, this just gives my DOD the ammunition needed to purchase additional advance weapons from congress.
I agree with you completely. Everytime a crazy leader like Chavez buys $1 billion worth of arms, the U.S. buys $5 billion or more of arms. :D It's people like Chavez that allow the Pentagon to Justify a $500 billion military budget.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I'm pretty sure the hon congressmen and women and their advisers can put things into context and base their decisions on that.

One can wonder though, if the Venezuelans shouldn't be scratching their heads saying text-deleted. They might like Chavez' nationalisations and social programs. But this gives me associations to another fellow with a temper, when he had his final days in a bunker under Berlin.

You know, like moving imaginary units around on maps, Wunderwaffe, delusions of grandeur...

Not commenting if I agree or disagree with his domestic politics, but wow, does he need to calm down.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Isn`t the Falkland islands deemed to belong to the British, if they needed NATO assistance would not NATO be obligated to help out if needed.
Nope, NATO wouldn't be obligated to involve itself. It wasn't in 1982 either, btw.

The obligation does not come into play for any Allied territories south of the Tropic of Cancer (*). The same goes for any attacks on RN ships south of the Tropic of Cancer, btw.

Neither the Falklands nor Venezuela are north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all [...]
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;[...]
---
(*) Tropic of Cancer = 23° 26' 22" north of the Equator. A map can be found here.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nope, NATO wouldn't be obligated to involve itself. It wasn't in 1982 either, btw.

The obligation does not come into play for any Allied territories south of the Tropic of Cancer (*). The same goes for any attacks on RN ships south of the Tropic of Cancer, btw.

Neither the Falklands nor Venezuela are north of the Tropic of Cancer.



---
(*) Tropic of Cancer = 23° 26' 22" north of the Equator. A map can be found here.
Man - what a bummer for Britain who has contributed greatly to NATO. Thanks for the information, but I think Britain could take anything that Venezuela and Argentina threw at her and come out on top, and I would think that the U.S would be there for them to lend a hand if needed.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I’m currently mid-through Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War by Hugh Bicheno - A great read, highly recommended. The author is fluent in both Spanish and English with strong ties to both countries. His access and subsequent evaluation of official records makes for a fascinating read, he provides blow by blow accounts of the war from both sides, right down to the minute detail of who shot down / killed who, by what means and the result of such actions. His descriptions of the battles between the respective SF units (SAS / M&AW vs. 602) are particularly noteworthy.

A very interesting aspect of the book is his study of the Latin American mentality and obsession with maintaining a macho image, Chavez is a prime example of such behavior. This macho sense of self-worth is best exemplified by the following Argentinean joke (taken from the book):

Best way to make money – “buy an Argentinean for what he’s worth then sell him on for what he believes he’s worth”

What comes out I the book is a deep rooted distrust of Anglo / American liberalism and perceived anti-Catholicism. The fact that Henry VIII renounced the Catholic Church and stated the Church of England was used prior to the invasion to motivate the troops by the attached padres, most of the latter were drawn from an ultra-conservative sect tracing their roots back to the Spanish Inquisition! The Argentineans regarded the Brit’s as effete and believed they didn’t have the ‘balls’ to fight-back, clearly Chavez is starting to think the same!
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
I’m currently mid-through Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War by Hugh Bicheno - A great read, highly recommended. The author is fluent in both Spanish and English with strong ties to both countries. His access and subsequent evaluation of official records makes for a fascinating read, he provides blow by blow accounts of the war from both sides, right down to the minute detail of who shot down / killed who, by what means and the result of such actions. His descriptions of the battles between the respective SF units (SAS / M&AW vs. 602) are particularly noteworthy.

A very interesting aspect of the book is his study of the Latin American mentality and obsession with maintaining a macho image, Chavez is a prime example of such behavior. This macho sense of self-worth is best exemplified by the following Argentinean joke (taken from the book):

Best way to make money – “buy an Argentinean for what he’s worth then sell him on for what he believes he’s worth”

What comes out I the book is a deep rooted distrust of Anglo / American liberalism and perceived anti-Catholicism. The fact that Henry VIII renounced the Catholic Church and stated the Church of England was used prior to the invasion to motivate the troops by the attached padres, most of the latter were drawn from an ultra-conservative sect tracing their roots back to the Spanish Inquisition! The Argentineans regarded the Brit’s as effete and believed they didn’t have the ‘balls’ to fight-back, clearly Chavez is starting to think the same!
very interesting could you give the ISBN number.
with 6 C17 would allow a rapid reinforcement of the island with planes troops ect.
lastly whats the capacity of the 4,000 ton LST [are they ex USN]
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Book details

Razors Edge
Paperback: 384 pages
Publisher: Phoenix; New Ed edition (15 Feb 2007)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0753821869
ISBN-13: 978-0753821862

The tactical, strategic overview, maps and troop orbat details are excellent.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
with 6 C17 would allow a rapid reinforcement of the island with planes troops ect.
... not really, with C-17. At least not rapidly.

Port Stanley Airport has a 918m runway nowadays. A C-17 has an absolute landing run of 915m on a dry runway (1500 on wet surface) - official operational minimum limit is 1064m (3500ft).

So that would be... err... tight and slippery, probably. C-130 can operate from there, and that's about the maximum.

Argentine already had some "creative approaches" to lengthening the runway during the occupation in order to fly heavier aircraft (fighters) from there, but those all didn't turn out workable. The RAF also lengthened the runway after the war to operate Phantoms from there.

lastly whats the capacity of the 4,000 ton LST [are they ex USN]
202 troops, 1600 tons cargo, 4 LCVPs, helo platform aft (Jane's).
Not ex-USN. The ships are Korean "Alligator III" built for Venezuela by Korea Tacoma shipyard in the early 80s. South Korea and Indonesia operate similar ships.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
... not really, with C-17. At least not rapidly.

Port Stanley Airport has a 918m runway nowadays. A C-17 has an absolute landing run of 915m on a dry runway (1500 on wet surface) - official operational minimum limit is 1064m (3500ft).

So that would be... err... tight and slippery, probably. C-130 can operate from there, and that's about the maximum.

Argentine already had some "creative approaches" to lengthening the runway during the occupation in order to fly heavier aircraft (fighters) from there, but those all didn't turn out workable. The RAF also lengthened the runway after the war to operate Phantoms from there.


202 troops, 1600 tons cargo, 4 LCVPs, helo platform aft (Jane's).
Not ex-USN. The ships are Korean "Alligator III" built for Venezuela by Korea Tacoma shipyard in the early 80s. South Korea and Indonesia operate similar ships.
thanks for that for that info. sorry i made a mistake:( i mistook Port Stanley for Mount Plensence which has a 2 1500mt+ runways

Elevation AMSL 243 ft / 74 m
Coordinates 51°49′22″S 058°26′50″W / -51.82278, -58.44722
Runways
Direction Length Surface
ft m
10/28 8,497 2,590 Asphalt
5/23 5,003 1,525 Asphalt

which would allow a rapid reenforcement of the islands with all manner of stuff in the 6 C17[ one C17 has almost the same troop capacity as the Venezuela LST of around 200 troops with full kit]
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...[ one C17 has almost the same troop capacity as the Venezuela LST of around 200 troops with full kit]
Can't really compare them. A C-17 can carry the troops & their kit, & they can cope for a day or so on board. That many troops can live on each LST, which can also carry vehicles & supplies for them. For a short trip, it can carry a lot more troops.
 
Top