Perpetual Student on November 27, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Thank you , I suspected as much myself. Too many Saul Alisky and Noam Chomsky disciples are around to count!!!!

The oil’s gonna run out someday.

Negotiations between Venezuela and Russia on the purchase of five to ten Russian submarines are winding down. The final decision may be made when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visits Russia on June 29. Chavez will visit Russia just before Russian President Vladimir Putin visits the United States. The submarine deal will likely become another irritant in U.S.-Russian relations.
Venezuela is spending big money on modernizing its armed forces. According to the Venezuelan Defense Ministry, the country spend $4.3 billion on arms purchases in 2005-2006. Of that sum, $3.4 billion went to Russia. Germany, France and Italy jointly and Russia competed in a tender to provide Venezuela with submarines. It will have the largest submarine fleet in South America, along with Peru, which has six submarines, Brazil, which has five, and Chile, which has four.

Venezuela makes no secret of the fact that it is preparing for military conflict with the United States.

There are now reports that say that Venezuela’s spending on arms have shifted from $1 billion to around $3 billion. That is a lot for a country the size of Venezuela with no obvious regional enemies or a war to fight.

There have been a series of reports from a number of sources that Venezuela has finalized a deal with Russian arms manufacturers. Those reports have now shifted the total from $1 billion to around $3 billion, and expand its focus beyond SU-30MK2 (Mnogofunktzionniy Komercheskiy 2-seat) long-range multi-role fighters and various Russian helicopters to include other equipment as well. The final deal is reportedly still being negotiated.

georgej on November 27, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Thanks, georgej. Hard to imagine that changing. Better declare war on Venezuela. Heh.

To IBD: about the Cordoba “transitional governemt” comment, it was in yesterday’s El Tiempo. I read it in the hard copy (not the net) on about page 3. If El Tiempo got that wrong, fair enough, but you probably know that they tend to be pretty careful about stuff like that. I think I still have my copy at home…if you think you need it, let me know if you can’t get your hands on a copy and I will see what I can do.

The point regarding an inaccuracy regarding FARC and Chavez was the comment in the IBD editorial that “Chavez proved to be acting as an agent of the terrorists”. Whether or not that is, in the big picture, true, it wasn’t the issue that caused the breakdown last Wednesday.

That had its specific origin in the call from Chavez to Gen. Montoya in complete disregard of Uribe’s instructions. Punto. It was ” la gota que reboso la copa” (the drop that overflowed the cup).

If you read El Tiempo today, for example, you will see that the government says Chavez held out that Uribe was willing to meet with the FARC leadership, which is denied. But nothing is said anywhere that he was actually acting in concert with the FARC…for obvious reasons. Obviously, there are suspicions (hence the photos given to Chavez) but there is not, and cannot be, any accusation of this at the moment.

There is no disagreement between myself and the IBD writer about the nature of Chavez. I had not heard about the Guyana situation but, as I mentioned, he has tried to interfere in local elections in Colombia. There is no question that the FARC regards Chavez as a sort of hero (though in some ways he is their useful idiot). The potential meeting between Chavez and Marulanda made everyone sick…moreso because Chavez was pushing to have it in Colombia.

So, the point is this. Chavez is a disaster…for Venezuela, for Colombia, for the world. But I believe that it is extremely important that we see the facts exactly as they are…they’re bad enough. So it was for the sake of clarity that I posted my note.

Is it coincidental, megalomania affects political figures more than others? Or is it a qualifier for political office?

Supporters of such delusional types should be required to relinquish their citizenship and deported to their idols country and see how long they survive while they sucked dry.

Or am I just hoping?

TheSitRep on November 27, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Don’t give up hope.

Of course, if Chavez wins the election it will be bad for Venzuela, and South America.

On the other hand, if Chavez loses the election it will be bad for Venzuela, and South America. (Do I need to expand that conclusion?)

Danny Glover couldn’t be reached for comment.

Nor Sean Penn. Or Kevin Spacey.

i think they are hiding in the closet with tom cruise and cindy sheehan

All kidding aside (sort of), I don’t see this ending peacefully. Chavez is too out of control and determined.

What better way to make Venezuelans forget their problems than to whip up populist sentiment against Colombia. It also is noteworthy that he’s rousing military support against the neighboring state, something he may really find use for as rebellion grows at home.

Weekend polls showed that ever since the king of Spain publicly told him to “shut up” in Chile two weeks ago, support for Chavez’s move to seize absolute power in Venezuela has fallen below 50%. (IBD)

What a wonderful way for noble, historic Spain to get in the news again. What a marvelous insight into the way a population, as a field of wheat, can be observed to inexorably lean in the direction the breeze is blowing.

Blow back, Colombia. Blow back.

TheSitRep on November 27, 2007 at 9:22 PM

First thought that entered my mind.

Or am I just hoping?

What’s today’s over/under on when the actual political violence erupts in Venezuela?

thirteen28 on November 27, 2007 at 3:56 PM

I’d bet it’s not too far off…civil war in Venezuela in 4…3…2…1.

The other question is once civil war does break out in Venezuela, how long before the left-tards like Penn, Glover, et al start blaming Boooosh for fomenting it so Darth-Cheney/Halliburton can get Venezuela’s oil…answer, they’ve probably already started printing protest signs!

Please explain why it would be The United States’ fault for a war in Venezuela to be bloody.

Agrippa2k is merely (an facetiously, I presume) applying the Noam Chomsky doctrine dictating that anything wrong in the world today is such as the direct result of U.S. foreign policy.

On another note: thanks for this post, Bryan. And I thank Blaise, as well, for the additional information. I haven’t been here in a while and it’s nice to see something internationally important rather than atheist/believer and Thompson/Giuliani flamewar bait.

I really appreciate you taking the time to make good comments.

Another very interesting, well-thought post by Bryan Preston. I was hoping he would write a good article on Chavez. Lately, I have been reading up on Hugo Chavez, studying the situation in Venezuela with concern.

I wonder IF, and when, Hugo Chavez would ever encourage the development of a negative South American trend of Hezbollah bases
in Venezuela?

Maybe farfetched?

But Hugo Chavez does hate Bush and the Capitalist West that much.

Of course the entire process was a farce from the get-go. Apart from whether Uribe would have allowed hundreds of legally imprisoned FARCs out of jail (he might have…he allowed 144 FARC out last summer…145 if you count Granda, and about 20,000 paramilitaries will get off virually scot-free under the Law of Peace and Justice)is the fact that the FARC would NEVER have let their hostages go. Good grief…after almost 4 months, they couldn’t even get a picture from them to show that any of the prisoners were even alive.

That is the cruelty of the process because it carried with it an element of the families being led-on. In reality, this is why I think Uribe allowed the process to begin…it would have allowed him to say, after it had failed, that even Chavez couldn’t do anything. This would have got Sarkozy off his back, he hoped.

As for Cordoba, I tend to cut her a bit of slack, even though, as you say, her connections with the FARC are suspicious. First, she is a member of the Liberal Party, not the Polo…so she identifies with one of the traditional parties.

More importantly, she is a person of great personal courage. Historically,in Colombia, to hold views such as hers has carried some risk. You may know that she was kidnapped a number of years ago by the paramilitaries…by Carlos Castaño in fact. She stood up to him…defying him to kill her (which would have been nothing for him). Ultimately she was let go. So, though I disagree with her, and distrust her even, I do respect her.

As for the “smoking gun”, as I said, I read that Uribe gave Chavez photos of FARC encampments inside Venezuela. You can draw a lot of conclusions from that.

Perhaps there wasn’t a smoking gun, but that doesn’t mean Uribe didn’t rightly suspect Chavez’ support for the guerillas based on the accumulated evidence and the shared ideology. The negotiations were a farce from the get-go, anyway. Uribe had to play along for political reasons, but does anyone think he would unleash 500 FARC terrorists to resume murdering the Colombian people?

Also, maybe Uribe was wrong about Cordoba’s discussion, but she is and always has been a tool of the FARC, as Uribe has pointed out. I’m sure you saw the photos of her smiling with the savages, receiving flowers from them and wearing their same beret in solidarity. She’s also a much beloved figure on the international Left scene, by the way. Check out the roster from this forum she attended, for example. It’s an all-star lineup up of communists, Islamofascists, and various other loathesome enemies of civilization.

Blaise on November 27, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Don’t apologize for the comment’s length. That’s good and useful on-the-ground reporting you’re giving us. Thank you.