Arm the poor?

[DC]

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/americas/US-Warns-Venezuela-on-Weapons-Purchase-89947007.html

More wartoys for Hugo.

do they need it? what are your thoughts?

The U.S. State Department is questioning Venezuela's need to buy billions of dollars in weapons from Russia, voicing concern the arms may end up elsewhere in Latin America.

[DC]

wonder how long it takes untill western press has lies as headlines like that

Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World’s Top Ranks
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/world/americas/25venez.html

[DC]

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

[funk de fino]

Why is the dear leader talking about spending huge amounts of money on Space stuff when he cannot even guarantee power for his population?

Priorities or what..........

It would help if you could keep your years straight as well.

[Captain.Sassy]

Why is the dear leader talking about spending huge amounts of money on Space stuff when he cannot even guarantee power for his population?

Didn't the drought affect the hydroelectric dams?

Without the infrastructure in place to buy power from other LA countries, would spending this money on importing electricity (which I'm assuming you're suggesting) even be a feasible option?

[Captain.Sassy]

"The issue remains delicate after the Brazilian company Embraer lost a deal to sell military aircraft to Venezuela because the planes included American technology."

(From DC's first link)

This is interesting to me. Can the US executive order its companies not to sell certain technologies to certain countries, even if the parts themselves are manufactured in other countries; e.g. would a GE plant in Brazil manufacturing avionics be subject to export restrictions to Venezuela?

[Peephole]

Pretty hilarious that the U.S. is questioning another country's war spending.

[funk de fino]

Didn't the drought affect the hydroelectric dams?

Without the infrastructure in place to buy power from other LA countries, would spending this money on importing electricity (which I'm assuming you're suggesting) even be a feasible option?

I am not suggesting options for him to fix it. That is his job. Not spending money on a space race would be a good start.

[funk de fino]

Pretty hilarious that the U.S. is questioning another country's war spending.

True

[DC]

I am not suggesting options for him to fix it. That is his job. Not spending money on a space race would be a good start.

wow, i agree with FDF

[Fishstick]

I am not suggesting options for him to fix it. That is his job. Not spending money on a space race would be a good start.

Maybe he plans to send half the population into space, thus solving the hunger problems.

[Captain.Sassy]

I am not suggesting options for him to fix it. That is his job. Not spending money on a space race would be a good start.

And how much money has he spent on the space program so far?

Is this anything other than long-term 'friendship and amity' talks so far?

What about him asking the Ivans to help out with developing nuclear power plants? Perhaps this will help improve the security of the Venezuelan electricity supply.

As for the arms purchases, what is a reasonable share of GDP for Venezuela to spend on weapons?

I know in Canada, when capital purchases are made, they are amortized in the budget for the expected lifetime of the piece of equipment. So if a 10$ tank is supposed to last 10 years, this is counted as 1$ per year. If some Venezuelan capital arms purchases are not amortized like this then Venezuela's current round of purchases could look quite high, especially if compared to countries that do amortize their arms purchases reporting.

[Darth Rotor]

Pretty hilarious that the U.S. is questioning another country's war spending.

Who is Venezuela at war with?

Hugo isn't war spending, you need to learn some new words, and what words mean.

But I appreciate that, seen from a third party, a criticism of another nation's defense spending habits comes from Washington.

To answer another question, a great number of US defense contracts with foreign nations have specific clauses against tech transfer. Among others, Israel has violated these agreed terms, and if you have been following the news on this stuff for the past few decades, you find it crops up with some regularity.

This opens the door for French or Russian or Israeli or South African or Chinese firms/partnerships to sell arms where we won't, as they rarely have as many strings attached to arms sales.

DR

[Zep]

"The issue remains delicate after the Brazilian company Embraer lost a deal to sell military aircraft to Venezuela because the planes included American technology."

(From DC's first link)

This is interesting to me. Can the US executive order its companies not to sell certain technologies to certain countries, even if the parts themselves are manufactured in other countries; e.g. would a GE plant in Brazil manufacturing avionics be subject to export restrictions to Venezuela?Generally, yes.

Comes under the heading of "Restricted Technology". The US Department of Commerce forbids certain classes of US-made technology ending up in certain countries regardless of how it gets there. Usually known as restricted-license technology.

E.g. Consider someone who builds restricted-license super-chips into toaster controllers which go into toasters built in Mexico. Mexico can sell those toasters back to the USA or to Europe or Australia, but sales from Mexico to North Korea would be forbidden.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

[Captain.Sassy]

Thanks for the info, DR and Zep.

Since you guys seem to be up on this issue, I hope you won't mind fielding another question.

Can the US gov't restrict the kinds of technology US headquartered companies are allowed to develop under license from a foreign gov't? Like, say I'm Ukraine, or even say I'm Canada; if I tried to contract with GE to develop new avionics that were not directly under US gov't license, could the US gov't step in and tell GE 'no'? I'm assuming such technology wouldn't fall under the 'restricted license' clause, since the US gov't wouldn't have contracted for its development in the first place...

[funk de fino]

And how much money has he spent on the space program so far?

Bejesus. It's not what he has spent, it's that he is even thinking of spending it when the country is in such a mess.

Is this anything other than long-term 'friendship and amity' talks so far?

What about him asking the Ivans to help out with developing nuclear power plants? Perhaps this will help improve the security of the Venezuelan electricity supply.

I am not disagreeing with the help with Nuclear.

As for the arms purchases, what is a reasonable share of GDP for Venezuela to spend on weapons?

Not my bag.

[Captain.Sassy]

Bejesus. It's not what he has spent, it's that he is even thinking of spending it when the country is in such a mess.

Many countries with socio-economic problems that need to be addressed spend some of their money on weapons. As soon as you accept that Venezuela has any legitimate reason to buy arms, then you accept that some level of military spending is necessary. The question becomes one of how much military spending is justifiable, which is a question that can only be answered by, in part, looking at how much money is available to spend. This is why considering military expenditures as a share of GDP is important, and also why considering whether these expenditures (a lot of capital expenditures, as I understand it, to make up for the declining useability of US weapons systems since further arms exports to Venezuela are now blocked) are 'one-offs' or continuous (the amortization question).

If it's 'not your bag' to hazard a guess as to what a reasonable level of GDP to spend on arms would be for Venezuela, then I have a hard time taking your assertion that Venezuela is spending too much at face value.

I hope this comment isn't coming off as rude or anything.

Cheers!
CS

[Darth Rotor]

As for the arms purchases, what is a reasonable share of GDP for Venezuela to spend on weapons?


I cannot judge what Hugo "should" spend on weapons/defense since his process isn't alike enough to the process I am familiar with in America to understand why a given year's budget is the size it is.

The US gets yelled at for spending over 4% GDP on defense, by the usual dipsticks the world over. Many of the European allies of the US spend around 2% of GDP, more or less, on Defense spending.

If Hugo is undergoing a huge modernization program, he'd have a few years of well over his normal GDP percentage, whatever that is: 2%, 5%, 10%.

From a budget office prospective, one would hope that after a five year plan of higher expenditures to modernize, he'd reduce a bit and allocate funds in other programs.

We see the ups and downs of US defense spending, and while Hugo isn't bound by the way we, or anyone else do things, he still ought to look at his risks versus his capability versus all the other areas of public expenditures that help Venezuela achieve its goals.

How good he is at all that is open to question.

DR

[Captain.Sassy]

The US gets yelled at for spending over 4% GDP on defense, by the usual dipsticks the world over. Many of the European allies of the US spend around 2% of GDP, more or less, on Defense spending.

I think Sweden spends around that much too, actually.


If Hugo is undergoing a huge modernization program, he'd have a few years of well over his normal GDP percentage, whatever that is: 2%, 5%, 10%.

One of the links said he was buying Sukhois to replace F-16s since Venezuela can't buy replacement parts for the latter anymore.


he still ought to look at his risks versus his capability versus all the other areas of public expenditures that help Venezuela achieve its goals.


Of course, this is both basic strategy and basic public policy and was the point I was trying to make. I don't know how smart buying SU-35s is. They're probably pretty expensive. Of course, Russia is anxious to keep exports up to maintain its arms industry, so they may be willing to subsidise the cost of the planes somewhat. Still, if the threat is the US (which the Venezuelans have suggested is why they're acquiring fighter planes), they have little hope of beating the US at air superiority in a hot war so I can't imagine fighters being of much use, no matter how advanced. SAMS would probably be a much better investment.

[Darth Rotor]

One of the links said he was buying Sukhois to replace F-16s since Venezuela can't buy replacement parts for the latter anymore.
Much to the chagrin of the F-16's manufacturer, no doubt. :cool:
I don't know how smart buying SU-35s is.
About as smart as the Shah buying F-14s. :cool:

[quote] Still, if the threat is the US (which the Venezuelans have suggested is why they're acquiring fighter planes), they have little hope of beating the US at air superiority in a hot war so I can't imagine fighters being of much use, no matter how advanced. SAMS would probably be a much better investment.
My guess is Hugo wants to do some dick measuring vis a vis local powers: Colombia, Brazil, Argentina.

I agree with this: if he worries about US air strikes, he needs SAMS, though you can't just cede the skies to US airplanes. You need to have something up there for an integrated air defense posture, and Air to Air platforms have a flexibility that SAMs don't. It's a matter of force balancing.

What Hugo is doing is for political effect as much as it is for capability augmentation.

DR

[Michael Redman]

Fighters are more effective than SAMs in convincing the people that you're doing something about the external threat you're convoluting to keep them scared. You can fly fighters fast and low over the people and impress the hell out of them.

[Captain.Sassy]

I agree with this: if he worries about US air strikes, he needs SAMS, though you can't just cede the skies to US airplanes. You need to have something up there for an integrated air defense posture, and Air to Air platforms have a flexibility that SAMs don't. It's a matter of force balancing.

Well I'm rapidly exhausting my limited knowledge of air defence strategy, so I'll concede that airplanes might be needed. Nonetheless, I would still point to a fairly solid track record of the US blowing up enemy fighters before they have a chance to scramble. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, all the losses of US aircraft that I can remember in recent years have been to ground fire (talking about Iraq and Serbia, here).[/quote]


What Hugo is doing is for political effect as much as it is for capability augmentation.

DR

This is entirely possible.

The fighter planes might also be useful if he's worried about a possible war with one of his neighbours, assuming the US wouldn't involve itself. Referral to a possible US threat might be an easier / more prudent way to justify the purchases than invoking possible regional opponents.

[Darth Rotor]

The fighter planes might also be useful if he's worried about a possible war with one of his neighbours, assuming the US wouldn't involve itself. Referral to a possible US threat might be an easier / more prudent way to justify the purchases than invoking possible regional opponents.

Good point. :)

[funk de fino]

Many countries with socio-economic problems that need to be addressed spend some of their money on weapons. As soon as you accept that Venezuela has any legitimate reason to buy arms, then you accept that some level of military spending is necessary. The question becomes one of how much military spending is justifiable, which is a question that can only be answered by, in part, looking at how much money is available to spend. This is why considering military expenditures as a share of GDP is important, and also why considering whether these expenditures (a lot of capital expenditures, as I understand it, to make up for the declining useability of US weapons systems since further arms exports to Venezuela are now blocked) are 'one-offs' or continuous (the amortization question).

If it's 'not your bag' to hazard a guess as to what a reasonable level of GDP to spend on arms would be for Venezuela, then I have a hard time taking your assertion that Venezuela is spending too much at face value.

I hope this comment isn't coming off as rude or anything.

Cheers!
CS

Please read my posts again. I mentioned the space race. I tried to stay to that subject. You are saying I am mentioning arms spending.

Do you have me mixed up with another poster? If not then bring the posts where I criticise their military spending.

[Captain.Sassy]

My bad.

I thought we were talking about the arms spending in this thread, so I didn't realise you didn't consider the weapons purchases a waste of money. Looking back, when you said 'not my bag' I guess you meant 'I'm not talking about the arms', but I thought you meant 'I don't consider the question relevant'.

Of course, since Venezuela hasn't actually spent any money on a 'space race' yet, and since it has apparently spent money on weapons, I can perhaps be forgiven for my oversight given that you suggested not spending money on some things might be a good way to address the power shortage (which may be contestable, depending on the set up of their power grid, as I pointed out above).

[funk de fino]

Hey, if Uncle Hugo doesnt buy military hardware he then cannot bully companies into giving him their property and equipment at knockdown prices while facing the barrel of a gun eh?

That just wouldnt be gentlemanly............

[DC]

Hey, if Uncle Hugo doesnt buy military hardware he then cannot bully companies into giving him their property and equipment at knockdown prices while facing the barrel of a gun eh?

That just wouldnt be gentlemanly............

nonsence, they could do that with baseball bats.

[DC]

My bad.

I thought we were talking about the arms spending in this thread, so I didn't realise you didn't consider the weapons purchases a waste of money. Looking back, when you said 'not my bag' I guess you meant 'I'm not talking about the arms', but I thought you meant 'I don't consider the question relevant'.

Of course, since Venezuela hasn't actually spent any money on a 'space race' yet, and since it has apparently spent money on weapons, I can perhaps be forgiven for my oversight given that you suggested not spending money on some things might be a good way to address the power shortage (which may be contestable, depending on the set up of their power grid, as I pointed out above).

Actually Venezuela has an own communications satelite, the Chineses send it to space for Venezuela. i cannot know if they really needed it. but sounds somewhat usefull.

[DC]

for me we can include the space programm in this topic. hungry people dont need satelites.

[DC]

more about the Venezuelan Satelite.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/3911

[Captain.Sassy]

for me we can include the space programm in this topic. hungry people dont need satelites.

Well, just as with arms spending vs. food spending, there is a marginal benefit to any increased spending on any priority that must be weighed against the marginal cost of reducing spending on another priority. By the logic of 'no space spending until everyone is well fed and educated', there would be no spending on space programmes anywhere in the world. In the case of communications satellites, there are decided developmental benefits to having access to communications channels, so saying 'no spending on communications infrastructure until everyone has more food' may in fact hamper development goals of reaching a certain level of wellbeing (HDI or GDP/Capita or however you want to measure it). Look at what India's doing with regards to trying to get wireless broadband to poor rural villages, by way of example.

[funk de fino]

AFAIK he was not talking about Russia or China putting a comms satellite up.

He wants a space industry to lauch his own.

Nice logic when the country is falling apart and his popularity is on the wane.

[DC]

Well, just as with arms spending vs. food spending, there is a marginal benefit to any increased spending on any priority that must be weighed against the marginal cost of reducing spending on another priority. By the logic of 'no space spending until everyone is well fed and educated', there would be no spending on space programmes anywhere in the world. In the case of communications satellites, there are decided developmental benefits to having access to communications channels, so saying 'no spending on communications infrastructure until everyone has more food' may in fact hamper development goals of reaching a certain level of wellbeing (HDI or GDP/Capita or however you want to measure it). Look at what India's doing with regards to trying to get wireless broadband to poor rural villages, by way of example.

you arent that wrong i guess :D

well aslong the poor also benefit from it, its ok, and its not like there is a huge Famine in Venezuela.

[DC]

AFAIK he was not talking about Russia or China putting a comms satellite up.

He wants a space industry to lauch his own.

Nice logic when the country is falling apart and his popularity is on the wane.

what do you mean with falling apart?

and how low is his current popularity?

[funk de fino]

what do you mean with falling apart?

Take your pick. Oil industry. Power shortages. Violence. State debts.

and how low is his current popularity?

Depends who you talk to but even his supporters know his popularity is dropping.

[Captain.Sassy]

AFAIK he was not talking about Russia or China putting a comms satellite up.

He wants a space industry to lauch his own.

Nice logic when the country is falling apart and his popularity is on the wane.

True, but we were talking about actual money spent. DC pointed out that Venezuela had put up a satellite.

The rocket-ship program talks (as opposed to the actual Venezuelan space presence) could be looked at a few ways:
1) 'friendship and amity, motherhood and freedom' diplomatic posturing with Russia
2) longer term development plans (I agree, probably not the best use of public funds right now but not a crazy idea in the longer term)
3) foolish posturing vis. US concerns about missile and nuclear weapon proliferation

I worry that it's #3. He mentioned a longer term space program along with Russia-Venezuela cooperation on nuclear power plants. The combination of the two technologies is exactly why everyone's so pissed at Iran right now.

[funk de fino]

True, but we were talking about actual money spent. DC pointed out that Venezuela had put up a satellite.

The rocket-ship program talks (as opposed to the actual Venezuelan space presence) could be looked at a few ways:
1) 'friendship and amity, motherhood and freedom' diplomatic posturing with Russia
2) longer term development plans (I agree, probably not the best use of public funds right now but not a crazy idea in the longer term)
3) foolish posturing vis. US concerns about missile and nuclear weapon proliferation

I worry that it's #3. He mentioned a longer term space program along with Russia-Venezuela cooperation on nuclear power plants. The combination of the two technologies is exactly why everyone's so pissed at Iran right now.


True, but I was not. I was talking about him mouthing off about a program that could potentially cost billions when his priorities at the moment should be elsewhere. That's all. If nuclear power is a solution to what we see now then I am al for it. I believe that he will be gone well before any of this comes to fruition so the #3 would not concern me.

[DC]

Take your pick. Oil industry. Power shortages. Violence. State debts.



Depends who you talk to but even his supporters know his popularity is dropping.

yeah from over 60% to over 50% .

[WildCat]

This story is from 2007?

[DC]

approval rating.

Pro Chavez:
dropped from 62% to 60%
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5049

opposition:
dropped to 47%
http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/04/08/en_pol_esp_poll:-hugo-chavezs_08A3710971.shtml

ratings most European politicans are dreaming of.

[DC]

This story is from 2007?

the OP? no from April 2010

[WildCat]

approval rating.

Pro Chavez:
dropped from 62% to 60%
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5049

opposition:
dropped to 47%
http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/04/08/en_pol_esp_poll:-hugo-chavezs_08A3710971.shtml

ratings most European politicans are dreaming of.
Well if the Chavez fanbois say so it must be true!

And Ron Paul's polls always show him to be by far the most popular US politician ever.

[WildCat]

the OP? no from April 2010

Your NYT story was from 2007.

Anyway, if Chavez wants to spend billions on inferior Russian arms while grocery store shelves are bare that's what he should do. Maybe the poor Venezuelans can eat fighter planes.

[DC]

Well if the Chavez fanbois say so it must be true!

And Ron Paul's polls always show him to be by far the most popular US politician ever.

hehe, thats why i posted a pro chavez poll, and one from the opposition.
you fail

[DC]

Your NYT story was from 2007.

Anyway, if Chavez wants to spend billions on inferior Russian arms while grocery store shelves are bare that's what he should do. Maybe the poor Venezuelans can eat fighter planes.

while we can argue about how empty the shelfs indeed are today.
i actually agree with you :)

Hell must be frozen :D

[DC]

Your NYT story was from 2007.

Anyway, if Chavez wants to spend billions on inferior Russian arms while grocery store shelves are bare that's what he should do. Maybe the poor Venezuelans can eat fighter planes.

and yes the NYtimes articel was from 2007. and like my post indicates i was merely pointing out the headline, wich was a lie.

[WildCat]

and yes the NYtimes articel was from 2007. and like my post indicates i was merely pointing out the headline, wich was a lie.
How was it a lie? Does Venezuela spend more money on arms than any other Latin American country?

[DC]

How was it a lie? Does Venezuela spend more money on arms than any other Latin American country?

the headline was

Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World’s Top Ranks

not SA.

and to your question, No, Brazil spends more.

[DC]

On 15 September 2009 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that Venezuela’s recent arms acquisitions outpaced those of any other country in South America and raised questions about whether an arms race was looming in the region. While it is important to draw attention to disturbing military trends, identifying workable solutions to them depends on characterizing them correctly. So are Clinton’s fears justified?

Two recent events sharpened concerns about South American arms acquisitions: Venezuela’s plan to acquire air defence systems and battle tanks, supported by a $2.2 billion loan from Russia, and Brazil’s agreement with France, worth $12 billion, for a submarine development programme and for the construction of helicopters. Both were signed in September 2009.

http://www.sipri.org/media/newsletter/essay/jan10/?searchterm=south%20america

lies and propaganda. (From Hilary, not the SIPRI)

[WildCat]

http://www.sipri.org/media/newsletter/essay/jan10/?searchterm=south%20america

lies and propaganda.
The NYT story was in 2007. Brazil didn't sign the deal with France until 2009.

Was it "lies and propaganda" in 2007, when the story was written?

[DC]

The NYT story was in 2007. Brazil didn't sign the deal with France until 2009.

Was it "lies and propaganda" in 2007, when the story was written?

was Venezuelas arms spending in 2007 anywhere near the top ranks of the world?

and this time with lies and propaganda i ment Hilary in 2009.........
was Hilary incorect in her claim or not?

[DC]

and in case you want to do the NYTimes job, and backup their claims.

here ya go

yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf (yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf)

but its a waste of time, because you cant backup their lie.

[WildCat]

and in case you want to do the NYTimes job, and backup their claims.

here ya go

yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf (http://yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf)

but its a waste of time, because you cant backup their lie.
How about you just show a factual error in the NYT story. Can you do that?

[DC]

How about you just show a factual error in the NYT story. Can you do that?

yes, read the yearbook. and then read the title of the NYT story.

was hilary wrong?

[DC]

The 15 countries with the highest military
expenditure in 2007 in market exchange
rate terms

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World share (%)
1 USA 547 45
2 UK 59.7 5
3 China 58.3 5
4 France 53.6 4
5 Japan 43.6 4
6 Germany 36.9 3
7 Russia 35.4 3
8 Saudi Arabia 33.8 3
9 Italy 33.1 3
10 India 24.2 2
11 South Korea 22.6 2
12 Brazil 15.3 1
13 Canada 15.2 1
14 Australia 15.1 1
15 Spain 14.6 1


yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf



and now compare to the title of the NYT.

Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World’s Top Ranks

[DC]

and next time, ask Hilary and the NYT for backup of their claims, not me. thanks.

[funk de fino]

yeah from over 60% to over 50% .

Yet, it is still dropping even with his supporters polls. Month on month. Thats what I claimed and I was correct.

Care to comment on the state of the country? Or do you just ask me for stuff to ignore it? You just like to talk about made up stuff like stealing elections that I do not even claim?

[funk de fino]

The 15 countries with the highest military
expenditure in 2007 in market exchange
rate terms

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World share (%)
1 USA 547 45
2 UK 59.7 5
3 China 58.3 5
4 France 53.6 4
5 Japan 43.6 4
6 Germany 36.9 3
7 Russia 35.4 3
8 Saudi Arabia 33.8 3
9 Italy 33.1 3
10 India 24.2 2
11 South Korea 22.6 2
12 Brazil 15.3 1
13 Canada 15.2 1
14 Australia 15.1 1
15 Spain 14.6 1


yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf



and now compare to the title of the NYT.

I'm gonna a cut you a break here and assume this was a mistake and not deliberate. The article was written in early 2007. It talks about spending in the previous 2 years. If you want to call the article lies then you have to look at the 2 year period prior to 2007. That would be 2005 and 2006.

OK?

CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 24 — Venezuela’s arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion in the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America’s largest weapons buyer and placing it ahead of other major purchasers in international arms markets like Pakistan and Iran.


Try again.

;)

[DC]

Yet, it is still dropping even with his supporters polls. Month on month. Thats what I claimed and I was correct.

Care to comment on the state of the country? Or do you just ask me for stuff to ignore it? You just like to talk about made up stuff like stealing elections that I do not even claim?

state of the country?
well yes crime is a huge problem, and they better act on it soon.
PdVSA has a pretty high debt after tha fall of oil price. bad for the people.
they seem to work on the power shortage problem. like so many others they somehow didnt see that coming, stupid, just stupid.
the debt is stupid, but still not to worse i thought compared to other south american countrys.

and do you want to comment on the archievments of the current government in Venezuela? or didnt they archieve anything good?

[DC]

I'm gonna a cut you a break here and assume this was a mistake and not deliberate. The article was written in early 2007. It talks about spending in the previous 2 years. If you want to call the article lies then you have to look at the 2 year period prior to 2007. That would be 2005 and 2006.

OK?




Try again.

;)
yes and now deliver evidence to backup that claim. show me how they are anywhere near the WORLDS TOP spenders!!

[WildCat]

The 15 countries with the highest military
expenditure in 2007 in market exchange
rate terms

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World share (%)
1 USA 547 45
2 UK 59.7 5
3 China 58.3 5
4 France 53.6 4
5 Japan 43.6 4
6 Germany 36.9 3
7 Russia 35.4 3
8 Saudi Arabia 33.8 3
9 Italy 33.1 3
10 India 24.2 2
11 South Korea 22.6 2
12 Brazil 15.3 1
13 Canada 15.2 1
14 Australia 15.1 1
15 Spain 14.6 1


yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf



and now compare to the title of the NYT.
Try reading for comprehension.

The subject is spending on arms, not total defense expenditures.

Would you like to try again?

[DC]

Try reading for comprehension.

The subject is spending on arms, not total defense expenditures.

Would you like to try again?

why dont you ask the NYTimes for backup of the claims?
the burdon of proof lies on the NYT.

but maybe that part clears up alot of the fuss.

Correction: March 9, 2007

An article on Feb. 25 about an escalation in Venezuela’s arms spending referred incorrectly to a statistic cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States as evidence of a rapid arms buildup. It was a 12.5 percent increase in Venezuela’s 2006 defense budget, not an increase in the value of arms purchased by Venezuela last year.

[WildCat]

why dont you ask the NYTimes for backup of the claims?
the burdon of proof lies on the NYT.
They did back up their claims. They showed that Venezuela outspent even Iran and Pakistan (far larger countries) on arms.

You claim they are lying, yet you are apparently unable to show any evidence of this.

[DC]

They did back up their claims. They showed that Venezuela outspent even Iran and Pakistan (far larger countries) on arms.

You claim they are lying, yet you are apparently unable to show any evidence of this.

what was their evidence?

[DC]

They did back up their claims. They showed that Venezuela outspent even Iran and Pakistan (far larger countries) on arms.

You claim they are lying, yet you are apparently unable to show any evidence of this.

and this means they are now near the world top ranks..... when the NYtimes sais it, it must be true eh :)

[DC]

but yes they didnt lie, they were misstaken.

[DC]

but now its time to go out.
i dont runn away, ill be back next week :)

have a nice weekend.

[funk de fino]

yes and now deliver evidence to backup that claim. show me how they are anywhere near the WORLDS TOP spenders!!

I never made the claim. You said it was lies. You have to prove it is false. You used the wrong data. Don't slip into truther mode and try and shift the burden of proof.

[funk de fino]

state of the country?
well yes crime is a huge problem, and they better act on it soon.
PdVSA has a pretty high debt after tha fall of oil price. bad for the people.
they seem to work on the power shortage problem. like so many others they somehow didnt see that coming, stupid, just stupid.
the debt is stupid, but still not to worse i thought compared to other south american countrys.

and do you want to comment on the archievments of the current government in Venezuela? or didnt they archieve anything good?

The price of oil is not the main reason that PDVSA are in a mess. The firing of the top guys is the biggest reason.

Give me an achievemnt and I will comment on it. I don't see many nowadays.

[Captain.Sassy]

The subject is spending on arms, not total defense expenditures.



Like I pointed out above, any country's arms expenditures may bounce up when they make a major capital expenditure. That's why you have to know if these expenditure figures are amortized or not.

If you actually compare the capital in Venezuela's air force to the capital in Pakistan's air force, you'll notice that Pakistan has quite a larger number of fighter jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Pakistan_Air_Force#Combat_ aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory

[WildCat]

Like I pointed out above, any country's arms expenditures may bounce up when they make a major capital expenditure. That's why you have to know if these expenditure figures are amortized or not.

If you actually compare the capital in Venezuela's air force to the capital in Pakistan's air force, you'll notice that Pakistan has quite a larger number of fighter jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Pakistan_Air_Force#Combat_ aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory
None of that disproves anything the NYT said.

[Captain.Sassy]

None of that disproves anything the NYT said.

True, but it gives the context for why the implications of the article *might* be overblown.

If you have four Mercedes-Benzes in your driveway that you bought last year three years ago, and I buy a Yaris this year, my car expenditures this year have not catapulted me into the top ranks of people pursuing a car buildup, at least not in any reasonable sense.
:P

[funk de fino]

True, but it gives the context for why the implications of the article *might* be overblown.

If you have four Mercedes-Benzes in your driveway that you bought last year, and I buy a Yaris this year, my car expenditures this year have not catapulted me into the top ranks of people pursuing a car buildup, at least not in any reasonable sense.
:P


That all very well but the Chavista said the article is lies and it has been shown he cannot back that up. It has been shown he used the wrong data to try and disprove it. The article was based on 2 years expenditure, I suggest you amend your analogy.

[Captain.Sassy]

done

[funk de fino]

done


Now reread the article.

[Captain.Sassy]

My point is unchanged. The big jump in Venezuelan defence expenditures is due to the big capital purchases.

[funk de fino]

My point is unchanged. The big jump in Venezuelan defence expenditures is due to the big capital purchases.

So what? It takes nothing away from the piece.

[Captain.Sassy]

It does to the extent that any country purchasing a large number of capital pieces to replace existing military capital would have to increase its defence budget, at least temporarily. If you look at it over a short period (which the article does) this is a poor comparator of relative arms expenditures between countries.

Look at it this way: the US puts an arms embargo on Venezuela, so Venezuela can't maintain its existing F-16 fleet. Venezuela then buys Sukhois to replace the F-16s, and the US decries their growing military expenditures. In fact, in large part, the Venezuelan arms expenditures are just maintaining Venezuela's existing capability.

There are new expenditure in there too, probably (like the subs), but again these are one-off capital expenditures. Unless the figures for Venezuela other comparator countries are amortized for the expected life of the capital, then it's nonsensical to compare them. They might be amortized, but from what I looked up about Pakistan and Venezuela's air forces, they probably aren't.

[Darth Rotor]

It does to the extent that any country purchasing a large number of capital pieces to replace existing military capital would have to increase its defence budget, at least temporarily. If you look at it over a short period (which the article does) this is a poor comparator of relative arms expenditures between countries.

Look at it this way: the US puts an arms embargo on Venezuela, so Venezuela can't maintain its existing F-16 fleet. Venezuela then buys Sukhois to replace the F-16s, and the US decries their growing military expenditures. In fact, in large part, the Venezuelan arms expenditures are just maintaining Venezuela's existing capability.

There are new expenditure in there too, probably (like the subs), but again these are one-off capital expenditures. Unless the figures for Venezuela other comparator countries are amortized for the expected life of the capital, then it's nonsensical to compare them. They might be amortized, but from what I looked up about Pakistan and Venezuela's air forces, they probably aren't.
Did you figure out the % GDP for arms/defense expenditure for Venezuala? That might be a more insightful look at what Hugo is doing, to and for his nation, for the past year, two years, four years, etc. I also think it might put Ms Clinton's remarks in a more useful context ... given that she is a politician, it is not beyond reason to think she might have been engaging in hyperbole.

DR

[Captain.Sassy]

Did you figure out the % GDP for arms/defense expenditure for Venezuala? That might be a more insightful look at what Hugo is doing, to and for his nation, for the past year, two years, four years, etc. I also think it might put Ms Clinton's remarks in a more useful context ... given that she is a politician, it is not beyond reason to think she might have been engaging in hyperbole.

DR

No I didn't, and I don't have the understanding of the life and costs for maintenance of capital military expenditures to venture a guess.

But, I do have a confession to make to you:

Earlier in the thread you noted the US spends like 4% GDP on defence, and I said 'I think Sweden spends something like the same amount, actually.' I got this impression from a defence analyst I talked to once. I asked him why Canada couldn't have a thriving domestic arms industry, since Sweden seems to be able to develop and field its own tanks and fighter planes. He told me that he talked to someone from the Swedish defence agency and asked him the same question, and that person's answer was 'we spend a LOT'.

So, that was how my retarded post got made.

[Darth Rotor]

No I didn't, and I don't have the understanding of the life and costs for maintenance of capital military expenditures to venture a guess.

But, I do have a confession to make to you:

Earlier in the thread you noted the US spends like 4% GDP on defence, and I said 'I think Sweden spends something like the same amount, actually.' I got this impression from a defence analyst I talked to once. I asked him why Canada couldn't have a thriving domestic arms industry, since Sweden seems to be able to develop and field its own tanks and fighter planes. He told me that he talked to someone from the Swedish defence agency and asked him the same question, and that person's answer was 'we spend a LOT'.

So, that was how my retarded post got made.
Actually, if you look at defense expenditures divided by GDP for a series of years, say five years, or ten years, you will often notice a trend, upward or downward, of defense outlays as a consistent pattern, or some changes, of spending from funds available. The US had a negative trend for most of the 1990's, due to the political assessment of requirements going down, and the economy growing during that period. Both factors contributed, though IMO the requirements downgrade was the more significant factor.

If a country like Venezuela is also going through a significant change in the economy in general, very strong (relatively) or very weak, that might skew the perception.

I think a comparison along those (GDP) lines would be a useful way to put some context and perspective around Hugo's latest expenditures, though I appreciate your wanting to also fold in the longer term capital commitments any hardware purchases will demand.

Maybe I should be encouraging DC to make that analysis, since he tossed some numbers out that didn't shed much light on the conversation.
Not sure if this site is biased or not, but take a look at these two graphs:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2007/06/image001-6.gif
http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2007/06/image002-4_p.gif

Granted, that only takes us to 2007, but if you look at the gross dollar amounts spent, first graph, and then look at the recent purchases, it looks as though he's made a non trivial upward change in the last couple of years, but I suspect that analysis and numbers for 2008 and 2009 might need a bit more time/effort.

Put another way: Hugo, if he thinks he needs to counter US military capability, is doing nothing but buy targets for the US Army, Navy, and Air Force to practice on.

"Men mean more than guns in the rating of a ship." -- John Paul Jones --

DR

[Captain.Sassy]

Checked this Stockholm Int'l PEace Research Institute database:
http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

In 2005 USD, there is a definite rise in Venezuelan expenditures from 2003-2006. I checked some old news articles and apparently they bought a bunch of helicopters over this time.

In terms of share of GDP, expenditures followed a fairly downward trend from 1991-2006.

http://img697.imageshack.us/i/venezuelaw.jpg

[Captain.Sassy]

Well apparently I can't even hotlink to an Imageshack image, so here's the link of the two graphs I made with SIPRI data if you're interested.

http://img697.imageshack.us/i/venezuelaw.jpg/

[funk de fino]

Checked this Stockholm Int'l PEace Research Institute database:
http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

In 2005 USD, there is a definite rise in Venezuelan expenditures from 2003-2006. I checked some old news articles and apparently they bought a bunch of helicopters over this time.

In terms of share of GDP, expenditures followed a fairly downward trend from 1991-2006.

http://img697.imageshack.us/i/venezuelaw.jpg

The piece was looking at 2 years. It rose.

[DC]

I never made the claim. You said it was lies. You have to prove it is false. You used the wrong data. Don't slip into truther mode and try and shift the burden of proof.

that the article is wrong, is out of question.

the article itself has a correction at the end. it was wrong.
i have already posted it. the burdon of proof was always on the NYtimes side. they claimed they soar the world rank, and they came to the conclusion by citing a wrong statistic from the defence department.

so like i already said, its not a lie, they were misstaken.

the NYTimes used the wrong data, they even say that at the end of the article.

[DC]

The price of oil is not the main reason that PDVSA are in a mess. The firing of the top guys is the biggest reason.

Give me an achievemnt and I will comment on it. I don't see many nowadays.

yeah firing top guys will take a while untill they have the knowledge again. but im sure they can do it.

how about healthcare in Venezuelas Barios? just one example.

[DC]

i think the NYtimes is cleared from wrongdoing, but how about miss Clinton.
anyone want to defend her claim?

they spend most in SA, an this she said in the year where Venezuela has spend 3 billions and Brazil has spend 12 Billion.

[DC]

the Yearbook from SIPRI points out that there is no armsrace in SA, but that Venezuela and others in the region are updating theyr up to 20 year old wartoys.

[DC]

Maybe I should be encouraging DC to make that analysis, since he tossed some numbers out that didn't shed much light on the conversation.

i think they make alot sence once you read the SIPRI yearbook.

[funk de fino]

that the article is wrong, is out of question.

the article itself has a correction at the end. it was wrong.
i have already posted it. the burdon of proof was always on the NYtimes side. they claimed they soar the world rank, and they came to the conclusion by citing a wrong statistic from the defence department.

so like i already said, its not a lie, they were misstaken.

the NYTimes used the wrong data, they even say that at the end of the article.

You said they lied. You have yet to prove that, after the correction, the point did not stand. You used wrong data.

[funk de fino]

yeah firing top guys will take a while untill they have the knowledge again. but im sure they can do it.

Not while their debts are piling up to service companies. They are getting worse.

how about healthcare in Venezuelas Barios? just one example.

Improvements no doubt.

[DC]

You said they lied. You have yet to prove that, after the correction, the point did not stand. You used wrong data.

but i corrected myself later.
i said, they didnt lie, they were misstaken. i didnt use wrong data, the NYTimes did, or the US defence department

[funk de fino]

but i corrected myself later.
i said, they didnt lie, they were misstaken. i didnt use wrong data, the NYTimes did, or the US defence department

Yes, you did. You used data from 2007. It should have been data from 2005 and 2006. You cannot be that dumb surely?

[DC]

Yes, you did. You used data from 2007. It should have been data from 2005 and 2006. You cannot be that dumb surely?

they used wrong data


An article on Feb. 25 about an escalation in Venezuela’s arms spending referred incorrectly to a statistic cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States as evidence of a rapid arms buildup. It was a 12.5 percent increase in Venezuela’s 2006 defense budget, not an increase in the value of arms purchased by Venezuela last year.

[funk de fino]

they used wrong data

It was still the wrong year you used to try and prove them wrong. They used the data the wrong way.

You made a mistake. You used the wrong data to make your point. Just admit it.

[Darth Rotor]

You made a mistake. You used the wrong data to make your point. Just admit it.
Maybe he'd prefer the spanking continues ... :eye-poppi

[funk de fino]

Maybe he'd prefer the spanking continues ... :eye-poppi

Now, that didnt put a nice image in my head

Damn you

[DC]

It was still the wrong year you used to try and prove them wrong. They used the data the wrong way.

You made a mistake. You used the wrong data to make your point. Just admit it.

yes the NYT and I used wrong data.

misstakes, if you only would harp on Hillarys misstake that much. she is alot more influental than i am :)

[funk de fino]

yes the NYT and I used wrong data.

misstakes, if you only would harp on Hillarys misstake that much. she is alot more influental than i am :)

Now that was easy. They made a mistake. You made a mistake.

You are more influential on me than Hilary though ;)

[DC]

Now that was easy. They made a mistake. You made a mistake.

You are more influential on me than Hilary though ;)

hehe ;)