- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,809
- Likes
- 4,619
and they got s300 from russia ?
Falkland Islands part deux
- Thread starter trackwhack
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
How many? They had a hard time launching 6 over Libya.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
I think UK will have a hard time asking for emergency Tomahawk supplies in case of war with Argentina. Many factors are on play, among which, are the strategic trade and political importance of Brazil (which under the present President is showing more cooperation with the US) and the waning UK importance with the US, in no small part due to the growing importance of France to Obama admin...
Of course we'll only know for certain the real score once the shooting starts...
Last edited:
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,858
- Likes
- 48,500
will they send in the Gorkhas this time??
panduranghari
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,786
- Likes
- 1,245
Apparently Chavez was clearly in the cross hairs before they decided to go for Saddams Jugular.
panduranghari
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,786
- Likes
- 1,245
Argentina: Falkands are Britain's 'last refuge of declining empire'
Argentina has claimed Britain is treating the Falkland Islands as the "last refuge of declining empire" as it urged the United Nations to stop the "militarisation" of the area.
Argentina: Falkands are Britain's 'last refuge of declining empire' - Telegraph
Hector Timerman, Argentina's foreign minister, accused the United Kingdom of using the wishes of the 2,500 citizens of the Falklands to remain under British sovereignty as an excuse to set up military bases in the south Atlantic.
His lodged an official protest at the UN in New York over the dispatching by Britain of state-of-the-art warships, war planes and, he claimed, a nuclear submarine.
Argentina also argued that military bases on the islands had been modernised to such an extent that they could be used to attack the whole of South America, including Brazil and Chile.
The claims were immediately dismissed by Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's ambassador to the UN, as "complete rubbish" and "manifestly absurd".
Saying that the only reason the UK had raised its "defensive profile" in the region in the first place was because of the 1982 illegal invasion of the islands, he accused Argentina of using the 30th anniversary of the war to ratchet up tensions over the issue of sovereignty.
"We are responsible for the security of the Falkland Islands and we will defend that robustly," he said.
"Nothing has changed in our defence posture in recent months or recent years.
"The only thing that appears to have changed is the politics in Argentina."
The two fiery press conferences came despite a plea from Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, to both countries to avoid an "escalation of the country".
Mr Timerman criticised David Cameron for recently accusing Argentina of acting like "colonialists," saying: "It is perhaps the last refuge of a declining power.
"It is the last ocean that is controlled by the United Kingdom - Britannia rules only the South Atlantic.
"Argentina can not lose a terrortory because there is a group .. that chooses to live a different fate. This population came after the invasion. This is not an indiginous population.
"The UK is using the unjust defence of self-detemination for 2,500 inhabitants as an excuse to become a military base.
Quoting John Lennon, who he described as the great musician, poet singer, he urged the British Government to "give peace a chance."
Mr Timerman displayed a map showing UK bases across the South Atlantic between South America and Africa, pointing out that the "Empire's capital" was 4,000 miles away.
He went on to show a series of photographs of what he claimed were state-of-the-art war ships, planes and a nuclear submarine he said was called the Vanguard, along with aerial shots of military bases and two runways in the Falkland Islands. The foreign minister also claimed that the British defence budget had been cut in every area except the South Atlantic.
Britain insists that current military operations in the Falklands, including the inclusion of Prince William as part of an RAF search and rescue mission and the deployment of a Royal Navy destroyer to the region, are "entirely routine".
Argentina has made much of Prince William's presence on the islands, with one government official comparing him to a "conquistador".
Tensions over the Falklands – which Argentina refer to as Las Malvinas – have been further fuelled by the discovery of possible oil fields in its territorial waters.
And the debate became increasingly heated in recent days after Mrs Kirchner gave a speech in which she claimed that UK "militarism "¦ implies a grave risk for international security"¦"
Mr Lyall Grant "It is not for Argentina and the UK to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands over the heads of the people who live there, some of whom have been there for over 200 years."
He added that nuclear submarines belonging to several nations patrolled international waters but, given the security issues involved, neither he nor the Argentinians would be aware of where they were at any one time.
Before meeting Mr Timerman, the UN secretary-general's office issued a statement in which he "expressed the hope that the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom will avoid an escalation of this dispute and resolve differences peacefully and through dialogue".
Argentina has claimed Britain is treating the Falkland Islands as the "last refuge of declining empire" as it urged the United Nations to stop the "militarisation" of the area.
Argentina: Falkands are Britain's 'last refuge of declining empire' - Telegraph
Hector Timerman, Argentina's foreign minister, accused the United Kingdom of using the wishes of the 2,500 citizens of the Falklands to remain under British sovereignty as an excuse to set up military bases in the south Atlantic.
His lodged an official protest at the UN in New York over the dispatching by Britain of state-of-the-art warships, war planes and, he claimed, a nuclear submarine.
Argentina also argued that military bases on the islands had been modernised to such an extent that they could be used to attack the whole of South America, including Brazil and Chile.
The claims were immediately dismissed by Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's ambassador to the UN, as "complete rubbish" and "manifestly absurd".
Saying that the only reason the UK had raised its "defensive profile" in the region in the first place was because of the 1982 illegal invasion of the islands, he accused Argentina of using the 30th anniversary of the war to ratchet up tensions over the issue of sovereignty.
"We are responsible for the security of the Falkland Islands and we will defend that robustly," he said.
"Nothing has changed in our defence posture in recent months or recent years.
"The only thing that appears to have changed is the politics in Argentina."
The two fiery press conferences came despite a plea from Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, to both countries to avoid an "escalation of the country".
Mr Timerman criticised David Cameron for recently accusing Argentina of acting like "colonialists," saying: "It is perhaps the last refuge of a declining power.
"It is the last ocean that is controlled by the United Kingdom - Britannia rules only the South Atlantic.
"Argentina can not lose a terrortory because there is a group .. that chooses to live a different fate. This population came after the invasion. This is not an indiginous population.
"The UK is using the unjust defence of self-detemination for 2,500 inhabitants as an excuse to become a military base.
Quoting John Lennon, who he described as the great musician, poet singer, he urged the British Government to "give peace a chance."
Mr Timerman displayed a map showing UK bases across the South Atlantic between South America and Africa, pointing out that the "Empire's capital" was 4,000 miles away.
He went on to show a series of photographs of what he claimed were state-of-the-art war ships, planes and a nuclear submarine he said was called the Vanguard, along with aerial shots of military bases and two runways in the Falkland Islands. The foreign minister also claimed that the British defence budget had been cut in every area except the South Atlantic.
Britain insists that current military operations in the Falklands, including the inclusion of Prince William as part of an RAF search and rescue mission and the deployment of a Royal Navy destroyer to the region, are "entirely routine".
Argentina has made much of Prince William's presence on the islands, with one government official comparing him to a "conquistador".
Tensions over the Falklands – which Argentina refer to as Las Malvinas – have been further fuelled by the discovery of possible oil fields in its territorial waters.
And the debate became increasingly heated in recent days after Mrs Kirchner gave a speech in which she claimed that UK "militarism "¦ implies a grave risk for international security"¦"
Mr Lyall Grant "It is not for Argentina and the UK to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands over the heads of the people who live there, some of whom have been there for over 200 years."
He added that nuclear submarines belonging to several nations patrolled international waters but, given the security issues involved, neither he nor the Argentinians would be aware of where they were at any one time.
Before meeting Mr Timerman, the UN secretary-general's office issued a statement in which he "expressed the hope that the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom will avoid an escalation of this dispute and resolve differences peacefully and through dialogue".
pankaj nema
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 10,148
- Likes
- 37,951
What are you talking man !!
On 19 March 2011 US fired 112 Tomahawks on 20 TARGETS in the opening phase of Libyan war
to enforce the No fly zone
pankaj nema
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 10,148
- Likes
- 37,951
Argentina will be making the biggest mistake if it thinks that US will not intervene in another UK Argentina spat
over the falklands
Just ONE CBG is enough for Argentina and Argentinian economy goes back to crisis days of 2001
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,236
US was always a neutral party in Falklands war first time. What makes you think that they will come for their British cousins this time? Just because of WOT?
Let's see why WOT had the coalition participating: Because NATO depends on US for critical military technologies. UK is significantly dependent on a lot of defense stuff US gives them. So they are obliged to be a part of NATO and join any US war. So US has no need to be grateful to UK for anything. They just have agreed to do something.
The reason why Boliviar nations are so firm this time is because they know US will not intervene as it has other more important concerns than some colonial era UK post in South America.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,236
Nope. Chavez has a double side of his; his nation is one of the largest suppliers of guaranteed oil to USA other than Canada. While Chavez might pretend to be anti-American, he isn't much. But most South American regimes dislike the European colonial regimes badly. Especially the British. Why would US spoil its backyard needlessly for UK?
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
You'd think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chávez's behind. Not only has Chávez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chávez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, "not too high, a fair price," he said—a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.
But our President has basically told Chávez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chávez has the power to pull it off—and the method in the seeming madness of his "take-my-oil-please!" deal.
Venezuela, Chávez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis' reserves.
However, most of Venezuela's mega-horde of crude is in the form of "extra-heavy" oil—liquid asphalt—which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil's price—and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago—would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chávez's offer: Drop the price to $50—and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela's investment in heavy oil.
But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn't like that one bit. It comes down to "petro-dollars." When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn't because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.
The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush's $2 trillion rise in the nation's debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.
Chávez would put an end to all that. He'll sell us oil relatively cheaply—but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chávez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.
Chávez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a "tropical IMF." And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an "International Humanitarian Fund," an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chávez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel's reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.
Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution," a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity—makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries' old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.
Chávez's government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chávez several times over charges brought against Súmate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chávez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican [Party] Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.
Bush's reaction to Chávez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chávez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, "In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region."
So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chávez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him," Robertson said, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chávez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chávez's crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.
Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?
Hugo Chávez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they're short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.
Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?
Chávez: It's not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It's up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can't allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.
Q: How do you respond to Bush's charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?
Chávez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people's affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d'état in Argentina thirty years ago.
Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?
Chávez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d'état, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.
Q: You don't interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?
Chávez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what's going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales [of Bolivia], for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula [of Brazil], which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner [of Argentina], which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What's happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus—a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.
Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation's oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?
Chávez: We are brothers and sisters. That's one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.
Q: And the Bronx?
Chávez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it's not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.
Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?
Chávez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn't matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.
Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as "Daddy Big Bucks"?
Chávez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.
Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?
Chávez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.
Q: Milk for oil.
Chávez: That's right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It's a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I'm not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.
Q: Speaking of the free market, you've demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?
Chávez: No, we don't want them to go, and I don't think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It's simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn't pay taxes. They didn't pay royalties. They didn't give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn't comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn't pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.
Q: You've said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?
Chávez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it's not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.
Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chávez simply collapse because there's no money to pay for the big free ride?
Chávez: I don't think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won't have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.
Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there's another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?
Chávez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.
Investigative reporter Greg Palast, who interviewed President Hugo Chávez for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), is the author of "Armed Madhouse: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War," from which this is adapted.
Hugo Chávez Interview | The Progressive
But our President has basically told Chávez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chávez has the power to pull it off—and the method in the seeming madness of his "take-my-oil-please!" deal.
Venezuela, Chávez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis' reserves.
However, most of Venezuela's mega-horde of crude is in the form of "extra-heavy" oil—liquid asphalt—which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil's price—and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago—would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chávez's offer: Drop the price to $50—and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela's investment in heavy oil.
But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn't like that one bit. It comes down to "petro-dollars." When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn't because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.
The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush's $2 trillion rise in the nation's debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.
Chávez would put an end to all that. He'll sell us oil relatively cheaply—but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chávez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.
Chávez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a "tropical IMF." And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an "International Humanitarian Fund," an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chávez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel's reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.
Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution," a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity—makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries' old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.
Chávez's government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chávez several times over charges brought against Súmate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chávez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican [Party] Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.
Bush's reaction to Chávez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chávez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, "In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region."
So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chávez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him," Robertson said, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chávez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chávez's crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.
Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?
Hugo Chávez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they're short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.
Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?
Chávez: It's not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It's up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can't allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.
Q: How do you respond to Bush's charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?
Chávez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people's affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d'état in Argentina thirty years ago.
Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?
Chávez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d'état, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.
Q: You don't interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?
Chávez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what's going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales [of Bolivia], for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula [of Brazil], which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner [of Argentina], which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What's happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus—a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.
Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation's oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?
Chávez: We are brothers and sisters. That's one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.
Q: And the Bronx?
Chávez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it's not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.
Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?
Chávez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn't matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.
Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as "Daddy Big Bucks"?
Chávez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.
Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?
Chávez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.
Q: Milk for oil.
Chávez: That's right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It's a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I'm not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.
Q: Speaking of the free market, you've demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?
Chávez: No, we don't want them to go, and I don't think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It's simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn't pay taxes. They didn't pay royalties. They didn't give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn't comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn't pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.
Q: You've said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?
Chávez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it's not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.
Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chávez simply collapse because there's no money to pay for the big free ride?
Chávez: I don't think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won't have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.
Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there's another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?
Chávez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.
Investigative reporter Greg Palast, who interviewed President Hugo Chávez for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), is the author of "Armed Madhouse: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War," from which this is adapted.
Hugo Chávez Interview | The Progressive
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
Argentina accuses Britain of sending nuclear missiles to Falklands
Argentina has stepped up its sabre-rattling rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by accusing Britain of sending nuclear missiles to the South Atlantic.
The South American country's foreign minister claimed that Trident nuclear missiles were being carried on board a submarine deployed to the region by the Royal Navy.
It comes as tensions continue to rise over the islands, which are claimed by the Argentinians as their territory.
The allegation was immediately rebuffed by a senior British diplomat, who also described claims by the Argentinians that military bases on the island could be used to launch attacks on South America as "absurd".
Hector Timerman, the Argentinian foreign minister, accused the British of sending the nuclear submarine into a nuclear-free zone and lodged a formal protest at the United Nations.
He said Britain was "militarising the region" after the Royal Navy sent one of its most advanced warship to the islands, and as Prince William enters the second week of his six-week tour of duty there as an RAF search and rescue pilot.
Related Articles
UK: Falklands accusations 'absurd'
11 Feb 2012
Falkands are Britain's 'last refuge of declining empire' claim
10 Feb 2012
UK and Argentina 'must stop escalating conflict over Falklands'
10 Feb 2012
'We will defend the Falklands properly', says Cameron
09 Feb 2012
Cameron: Falklands have a right to self-determination
09 Feb 2012
Falklands: ministers up the ante
09 Feb 2012
The Royal Navy has not confirmed the presence of any submarine near the Falklands, but was reported to have sent a Trafalgar-class vessel, which cannot carry nuclear weapons.
Mr Timerman, however, insisted that a Vanguard-class submarine, which carries Trident nuclear missiles, was operating in the region.
He produced maps and photographs to back up his claims, stating that the nuclear submarine posed a threat to regional security.
"Argentina has information that within the framework of the recent British deployment in the Malvinas Islands they sent a nuclear submarine ... to transport nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic," said Mr Timerman, at a press conference in New York.
"Thus far the UK refuses to say whether it is true or not. Are there nuclear weapons or are there not?
"The information Argentina has is that there are these nuclear weapons."
He said the deployment of nuclear arms in the region would violate the Treaty of Tlatelolco for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, designed to create a nuclear-free zone in the region.
The inflammatory claim appeared to be part of an aggressive attempt by Buenos Aires to isolate Britain at the United Nations in advance of the thirtieth anniversary of the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands and their successful recapture by a British task force.
Mr Timerman displayed a map showing UK bases across the South Atlantic between South America and Africa, pointing out that the "Empire's capital" was 4,000 miles away.
He went on to show a series of photographs of what he claimed were state-of-the-art war ships, planes and a nuclear submarine he said was Vanguard, flagship of the Vanguard fleet which carries Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.
He also produced aerial shots of military bases and two runways in the Falkland Islands. The foreign minister also claimed that the British defence budget had been cut in every area except the South Atlantic.
Mr Timerman said Britain was using an "unjustified defence of self-determination" to maintain a military base on the Falklands, which allowed it to dominate the Atlantic.
He criticised David Cameron for recently accusing Argentina of acting like "colonialists," saying: "It is perhaps the last refuge of a declining power.
"It is the last ocean that is controlled by the United Kingdom – Britannia rules only the South Atlantic.
"Argentina cannot lose a territory because there is a group . that chooses to live a different fate. This population came after the invasion. This is not an indigenous population.
"The UK is using the unjust defence of self-determination for 2,500 inhabitants as an excuse to become a military base."
Quoting John Lennon, who he described as the great musician, poet singer, he urged the British Government to "give peace a chance."
But the claims were dismissed by the British ambassador to the United Nations at his own press conference in New York.
Sir Mark Lyall Grant said "We do not comment on the disposition of nuclear weapons, submarines."
"I don't know how he knows about submarines. I certainly don't know. The whole point of nuclear submarines is that they go all around the world and you don't know where they are. That's why they're a deterrent."
Sir Mark described the idea that the UK was "militarising" the situation "manifestly absurd".
"Before 1982 there was a minimal defence presence in the Falkland Islands," he said.
"It is only because Argentina illegally invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 that since then we had to increase our defence posture.
"Nothing has changed in that defence posture in recent months or recent years."
Sir Mark said the UK had been in the Falklands since before Argentina existed, and the islanders were entitled to self-determination under the UN charter.
"We are responsible for the security of the Falkland Islands and we will defend that robustly," he said.
"Nothing has changed in our defence posture in recent months or recent years.
"The only thing that appears to have changed is the politics in Argentina."
Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner has ramped up her rhetoric over the Falklands in recent weeks and is preparing for a re-election campaign, leading to claims she is trying to exploit the issue for her own political gain.
The Argentinian accusations of nuclear force came despite a plea from Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, to both countries to avoid an "escalation".
Before meeting Mr Timerman, the UN secretary-general's office issued a statement in which he "expressed the hope that the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom will avoid an escalation of this dispute and resolve differences peacefully and through dialogue".
Britain insists that current military operations in the Falklands, including the presence of Prince William as part of an RAF search and rescue mission and the deployment of the Royal Navy destroyer Dauntless to the region, are "entirely routine".
Argentina has made much of Prince William's presence on the islands, with one government official comparing him to a "conquistador".
Tensions over the Falklands – which Argentina refer to as Las Malvinas – have been further fuelled by the discovery of possible oilfields in its territorial waters.
And the debate became increasingly heated in recent days after Mrs Kirchner gave a speech in which she claimed that UK "militarism "¦ implies a grave risk for international security "¦"
Sir Mark said: "It is not for Argentina and the UK to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands over the heads of the people who live there, some of whom have been there for over 200 years."
Argentina accuses Britain of sending nuclear missiles to Falklands - Telegraph
Argentina has stepped up its sabre-rattling rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by accusing Britain of sending nuclear missiles to the South Atlantic.
The South American country's foreign minister claimed that Trident nuclear missiles were being carried on board a submarine deployed to the region by the Royal Navy.
It comes as tensions continue to rise over the islands, which are claimed by the Argentinians as their territory.
The allegation was immediately rebuffed by a senior British diplomat, who also described claims by the Argentinians that military bases on the island could be used to launch attacks on South America as "absurd".
Hector Timerman, the Argentinian foreign minister, accused the British of sending the nuclear submarine into a nuclear-free zone and lodged a formal protest at the United Nations.
He said Britain was "militarising the region" after the Royal Navy sent one of its most advanced warship to the islands, and as Prince William enters the second week of his six-week tour of duty there as an RAF search and rescue pilot.
Related Articles
UK: Falklands accusations 'absurd'
11 Feb 2012
Falkands are Britain's 'last refuge of declining empire' claim
10 Feb 2012
UK and Argentina 'must stop escalating conflict over Falklands'
10 Feb 2012
'We will defend the Falklands properly', says Cameron
09 Feb 2012
Cameron: Falklands have a right to self-determination
09 Feb 2012
Falklands: ministers up the ante
09 Feb 2012
The Royal Navy has not confirmed the presence of any submarine near the Falklands, but was reported to have sent a Trafalgar-class vessel, which cannot carry nuclear weapons.
Mr Timerman, however, insisted that a Vanguard-class submarine, which carries Trident nuclear missiles, was operating in the region.
He produced maps and photographs to back up his claims, stating that the nuclear submarine posed a threat to regional security.
"Argentina has information that within the framework of the recent British deployment in the Malvinas Islands they sent a nuclear submarine ... to transport nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic," said Mr Timerman, at a press conference in New York.
"Thus far the UK refuses to say whether it is true or not. Are there nuclear weapons or are there not?
"The information Argentina has is that there are these nuclear weapons."
He said the deployment of nuclear arms in the region would violate the Treaty of Tlatelolco for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, designed to create a nuclear-free zone in the region.
The inflammatory claim appeared to be part of an aggressive attempt by Buenos Aires to isolate Britain at the United Nations in advance of the thirtieth anniversary of the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands and their successful recapture by a British task force.
Mr Timerman displayed a map showing UK bases across the South Atlantic between South America and Africa, pointing out that the "Empire's capital" was 4,000 miles away.
He went on to show a series of photographs of what he claimed were state-of-the-art war ships, planes and a nuclear submarine he said was Vanguard, flagship of the Vanguard fleet which carries Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.
He also produced aerial shots of military bases and two runways in the Falkland Islands. The foreign minister also claimed that the British defence budget had been cut in every area except the South Atlantic.
Mr Timerman said Britain was using an "unjustified defence of self-determination" to maintain a military base on the Falklands, which allowed it to dominate the Atlantic.
He criticised David Cameron for recently accusing Argentina of acting like "colonialists," saying: "It is perhaps the last refuge of a declining power.
"It is the last ocean that is controlled by the United Kingdom – Britannia rules only the South Atlantic.
"Argentina cannot lose a territory because there is a group . that chooses to live a different fate. This population came after the invasion. This is not an indigenous population.
"The UK is using the unjust defence of self-determination for 2,500 inhabitants as an excuse to become a military base."
Quoting John Lennon, who he described as the great musician, poet singer, he urged the British Government to "give peace a chance."
But the claims were dismissed by the British ambassador to the United Nations at his own press conference in New York.
Sir Mark Lyall Grant said "We do not comment on the disposition of nuclear weapons, submarines."
"I don't know how he knows about submarines. I certainly don't know. The whole point of nuclear submarines is that they go all around the world and you don't know where they are. That's why they're a deterrent."
Sir Mark described the idea that the UK was "militarising" the situation "manifestly absurd".
"Before 1982 there was a minimal defence presence in the Falkland Islands," he said.
"It is only because Argentina illegally invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 that since then we had to increase our defence posture.
"Nothing has changed in that defence posture in recent months or recent years."
Sir Mark said the UK had been in the Falklands since before Argentina existed, and the islanders were entitled to self-determination under the UN charter.
"We are responsible for the security of the Falkland Islands and we will defend that robustly," he said.
"Nothing has changed in our defence posture in recent months or recent years.
"The only thing that appears to have changed is the politics in Argentina."
Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner has ramped up her rhetoric over the Falklands in recent weeks and is preparing for a re-election campaign, leading to claims she is trying to exploit the issue for her own political gain.
The Argentinian accusations of nuclear force came despite a plea from Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, to both countries to avoid an "escalation".
Before meeting Mr Timerman, the UN secretary-general's office issued a statement in which he "expressed the hope that the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom will avoid an escalation of this dispute and resolve differences peacefully and through dialogue".
Britain insists that current military operations in the Falklands, including the presence of Prince William as part of an RAF search and rescue mission and the deployment of the Royal Navy destroyer Dauntless to the region, are "entirely routine".
Argentina has made much of Prince William's presence on the islands, with one government official comparing him to a "conquistador".
Tensions over the Falklands – which Argentina refer to as Las Malvinas – have been further fuelled by the discovery of possible oilfields in its territorial waters.
And the debate became increasingly heated in recent days after Mrs Kirchner gave a speech in which she claimed that UK "militarism "¦ implies a grave risk for international security "¦"
Sir Mark said: "It is not for Argentina and the UK to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands over the heads of the people who live there, some of whom have been there for over 200 years."
Argentina accuses Britain of sending nuclear missiles to Falklands - Telegraph
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 7,869
- Likes
- 23,236
There goes the wall of nuke free South America. If this is to be believed, now Brazil and Argentina would plan to become the nuke vanguards of South America.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Royal Navy only fired 6 before it ran out and had to wait to station another sub.
pankaj nema
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 10,148
- Likes
- 37,951
Hell with Royal navy It is just ONE US Navy CBG that will bring Argentina to its knees
US will NEVER Abandon UK
pankaj nema
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 10,148
- Likes
- 37,951
US UK relations are not based on just WOT
They BOTH want to showcase their special relationship to the whole world
And if US can go to war for Israel ie with Iran ;then UK is even more dearer to it
Last Falklands war was in 1982 when COLD war was at its peak and US involvement would have
invited USSR involvement too
Last edited:
