[rockwool]

and Equadorian president Rafael Correa wants the IMF and the World Bank to take the rap for what the economic policies they've imposed has led to in his country.

Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, asked for support from ALBA member countries as he seeks international tribunals to relieve Ecuador of debt incurred by past governments which operated according to the values of U.S.-dominated international financial institutions.

“We ask the ALBA to back us. It is necessary to make the truth known… this debt is illegitimate and we have no reason to pay,” said Correa.

Chavez explained how that project would start and later develop to:

"We are going to create a proposal for a monetary zone of solidarity-based commercial exchange,” said Chávez. “The hegemony of the dollar must end.”

The currency would start out as a virtual compensation system, and later become a hard currency, Chávez explained. It would make Latin American countries less susceptible to the effects of the world financial crisis, he said.

While Evo Morales explained why the currency was needed:

Bolivian President Evo Morales also advocated mutual support among countries in the region, which is one of the ALBA’s principles. “Those of us who believe in life have no other path than to choose to work together and complement each other for the benefit of all,” said Morales.

“In Capitalism, there are no human beings, but consumers, there is no Mother Earth, but raw materials, and great assymetries exist among families, countries, and continents,” Morales asserted.

Honduran and Nicaraguan presidents Manuel Zelaya and Daniel Ortega also joined in, read more below.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3994



So inevitably, the questions for the, from me, differently thinking people of this forum will be;

Are these acts of politicians of the kind that are stuffing them selves, or of the kind that go beyond old paths of previous (democraticly elected) L.A. presidents, who naturally did 'every thing they could', to further the interests of the people that have elected them?

Are the actions of these presidents constituting a threat to the US hegemony and therefore the true reason to why the US has re-activated its Fourth Fleet, which had been inactive for half a century, to patrol Latin American waters?

And in turn, is this the true reason to the US media demonization of those politicians, and also with time to prepare the citizens of the US for future US "interventions" in those countries?

 

[rockwool]

Whoops, "Amercan" error noted. oster_oops:

 

[Samirol]

Are these acts of politicians of the kind that are stuffing them selves, or of the kind that go beyond old paths of previous (democraticly elected) L.A. presidents, who naturally did 'every thing they could', to further the interests of the people that have elected them?

This question will be answered about Chavez when we see what happens to the budget with the new price of oil. A lot of programs will have to suffer, because a lot of their income is in oil.

Are the actions of these presidents constituting a threat to the US hegemony and therefore the true reason to why the US has re-activated its Fourth Fleet, which had been inactive for half a century, to patrol Latin American waters?

The blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan represent the weaknesses in the military power of the United States. If history is any judge, states will go to great lengths to preserve their hegemony, and spending 700 billion dollars on the military is the beginning of the end.

As for the Fourth Fleet, I think it is to back up Colombia's actions. Chavez is making substantial increases to his country's military, so maybe the U.S feels that they will be a threat to Colombia, or want to discourage any action by Chavez with regards to Colombia.

And in turn, is this the true reason to the US media demonization of those politicians, and also with time to prepare the citizens of the US for future US "interventions" in those countries?

The reason that they are demonized is because people like Chavez and Morales are popular leaders with an aggressive anti-American message. They are the South American faces of anti-imperialism, anti-free market, and anti-American attitudes. I don't think that an invasion or intervention would suit U.S interests at this point, due to the massive backlash.

 

[rockwool]

This question will be answered about Chavez when we see what happens to the budget with the new price of oil. A lot of programs will have to suffer, because a lot of their income is in oil.

So you don't think that my question was answered by his nationalization (with a 60% stake) of PDVSA (and also other for their country strategical companies), and therefore nationalizing 60% of PDVSA's profits that before whent into the hands of a very small rich minority?
It was afterall those nationalizations (mostly PDVSA though) that made those 11 or 13 social programs possible, right?

If the countrys income decreases it should mean that they have to hold back on some of the spending, where ever that is. How does that differ from your familys budget and what you can spend with them? Depending on how much that income decreases you will first have to cut back on a, or some, of the luxury stuff. Hopefully you won't have to cut back on the childrens nessesities, but even if you have to does that mean that you're stuffing your own pocket with that money?

That was the case with previous governments; they took their childrens nessesities and put them in their own pockets.

The blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan represent the weaknesses in the military power of the United States. If history is any judge, states will go to great lengths to preserve their hegemony, and spending 700 billion dollars on the military is the beginning of the end.

Agree that the acme of the US hegemony has been passed. We may even live to see the end of it. That has partially to do with that peoples general knowledge have risen, and continously do so, and because of the information age we live in; internet has provided alternative sources of information to those controlled by whealthy capitalists, it has made communication cheaper/free, and thus it has precticly shrunk the world. We're not semi/illiterate peasants that are totally controlled by Rome and the landlord any more.

As for the Fourth Fleet, I think it is to back up Colombia's actions. Chavez is making substantial increases to his country's military, so maybe the U.S feels that they will be a threat to Colombia, or want to discourage any action by Chavez with regards to Colombia.

Although we think that Chavez has started to spend alot on the military, he hasn't actually which is obvious when comparing the actual numbers.

Venezuelas Military expenditures: 1.2% of GDP (2005 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity): $334.3 billion (2007 est.)

Colombias Military expenditures: 3.4% of GDP (2005 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity): $327.7 billion (2007 est.)

Except for the spending, Colombia has almost the double amount of men available/fit for military service.

Colombia
Manpower available for military service:
males age 16-49: 11,478,109
females age 16-49: 11,809,279 (2008 est.)

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 8,056,336
females age 16-49: 9,919,952 (2008 est.)


Venezuela
Manpower available for military service:
males age 16-49: 6,647,124
females age 16-49: 6,801,133 (2008 est.)

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 5,280,974
females age 16-49: 5,768,814 (2008 est.)

What these figures show is that it's Colombia that is constituting a potential threat in that region; almost 3 times the military spending of VE. Don't forget that CO is the sole major befeficiary of US military financing in the Americas for many years now.

I have also seen actual GDP percentage comparisson between the military spending figures of today and pre Chavez 90's. There hasn't been any drastic increase, if any at all. But I hope I can find that article again so I can show you real facts.

The reason that they are demonized is because people like Chavez and Morales are popular leaders with an aggressive anti-American message. They are the South American faces of anti-imperialism, anti-free market, and anti-American attitudes. I don't think that an invasion or intervention would suit U.S interests at this point, due to the massive backlash.

I agree that that is how they are displayed in US/western media, but is that nessesarily true or are they just pro VE/BO and S.A? Considering that they are the first presidents (except fo my bro Fidel irate2: ) in the region to put their own countries interests before those of the USA, they're bound to take heat from those that are losing billions upon billions of petro dollars (and it seems to worsen by the year for those magnates), and that that is the true reason for all demonization and lying going on (foremost from the NY Times, WSJ and the W. Post)?

And I didn't mean that they're preparing for an invasion at this point, nor in the near future. No way that it'll happen as long as they're tied up in Iraq. But an intervention don't nessesarilly have to mean an infantry and panzer invasion. But commandos, airstrikes and a naval blockade could be enough for them to reach their goals.

 

[Samirol]

It was in his country's and his best interests to nationalize the oil, definitely.

As for his military spending, he is spending what he has to spend because the Colombians have shown that they don't give a damn about the sovereignty of those around them. I wasn't saying that he was wasting the money, but when budgets get tight, that the military is what he should restrict it on.

I consider the social programs he has implemented a bigger necessity than the military, and if he pours more money into the military instead of decreasing funding, then I would be concerned about where his priorities are.

I didn't mean to imply that he is spending a lot on the military, just that he is increasing funding to match Colombia's, which is a threat.

My stance on Chavez is summed up as optimistic but cautious.

When you say stuff like "the devil was here" and "I smell sulfur" and referring to Bush, I would say that it is an anti-Bush message. Anti-Bush is probably a more appropriate term than anti-American.

 

[rockwool]

It was in his country's and his best interests to nationalize the oil, definitely.

As for his military spending, he is spending what he has to spend because the Colombians have shown that they don't give a damn about the sovereignty of those around them. I wasn't saying that he was wasting the money, but when budgets get tight, that the military is what he should restrict it on.

I consider the social programs he has implemented a bigger necessity than the military, and if he pours more money into the military instead of decreasing funding, then I would be concerned about where his priorities are.

I didn't mean to imply that he is spending a lot on the military, just that he is increasing funding to match Colombia's, which is a threat.

My stance on Chavez is summed up as optimistic but cautious.

When you say stuff like "the devil was here" and "I smell sulfur" and referring to Bush, I would say that it is an anti-Bush message. Anti-Bush is probably a more appropriate term than anti-American.

Mmm, and with Bush being anti-world I see, and support, the how and why's of the sulfur talk. Bush has ideed been the Devil for millions of people during his years in that powerful position. That was figurative speech from Chavez, and the fact that how controversial it has been among those who can make their voices heard only shows how whacky uneven our world is.

I'm with you on that the military is the first thing a country should cut back on when the budget gets tight, as for Sweden. Greece is in another situation, mostly because of Turkey and their agressiveness domesticly and with their neighbours. Venezuela is in a similar situation, probably even worse as the US constantly show signs, verbally as well as physicly, to achieve controll of other countries natural resourses.

Take into account Colombia who is as it is, but also that an attack against VE will most likely involve them, and that the AFB that the US currently has in Equador will have to move after the end of 2009 and probably end up in eastern CO, then you actually have a good reason to keep purchasing/modernizing your defense like Chavez does. Unlike for Sweden I don't see VE's military spending mostly as a crazy expenditure, but as a necessity for survival. If my life was depending on it, I would even eat meat.

I understand your caution, living in the media climate that you do, but as Chavez (and Morales and others) constitute a resistance (or a threat, looking at it with from above) to US imperialism in the world he is a target of a lot of false descriptions comming from them who stand to lose influence as the South gets more independent by the day.

Those writing those articles don't think like you and I, they don't think there's anyhing wrong with US imperialism and the effects it has for the majority of the worlds people.

That said, I will post some actual numbers of VE's military spending.

 

[rockwool]

Here's some facts on military spending from SIPRI.

Military expenditure of Venezuela

In constant ( 2005 ) US$ m.Year
Value 1988
.. 1989
.. 1990
.. 1991
[1,862] 1992
[1,721] 1993
[2,147] 1994
1,574 1995
1,512 1996
1,092 1997
1,791 1998
1,254 1999
1,028 2000
1,126 2001
1,489 2002
1,237 2003
1,125 2004
1,419 2005
1,894 2006
1,884 2007
2,004


As percentage of gross domestic productYear
Value 1988
.. 1989
.. 1990
.. 1991
[1.8] 1992
[1.6] 1993
[2.1] 1994
1.6 1995
1.5 1996
1 1997
1.8 1998
1.4 1999
1.2 2000
1.2 2001
1.5 2002
1.3 2003
1.2 2004
1.2 2005
1.3 2006
1.2


Footnote:
The figures for Venezuela for 1998, 2006 and 2007are for the adopted budget rather than for actual expenditure.

Military expenditure of Colombia

In constant ( 2005 ) US$ m.Year
Value 1988
[1,000] 1989
[1,118] 1990
[1,150] 1991
[977] 1992
[1,184] 1993
[1,433] 1994
[2,766] 1995
[3,131] 1996
[3,667] 1997
4,181 1998
[3,244] 1999
[3,338] 2000
[4,211] 2001
[4,626] 2002
3,864 2003
4,312 2004
4,589 2005
4,932 2006
5,240 2007
5,329


As percentage of gross domestic productYear
Value 1988
[1.4] 1989
[1.6] 1990
[1.3] 1991
[1.1] 1992
[1.3] 1993
[1.5] 1994
[2.8] 1995
[3.1] 1996
[3.6] 1997
4.1 1998
[3.2] 1999
[3.4] 2000
[4.1] 2001
[4.5] 2002
3.7 2003
3.9 2004
3.9 2005
4 2006
4


Footnote:
The figures for Colombia in 2002–2004 include a special allocation of 2.6 billion pesos from a war tax decree of 12 August 2002.

Military expenditure of USA
In local currency ( m.dollars )Year
Value 1988
293,093 1989
304,085 1990
306,170 1991
280,292 1992
305,141 1993
297,637 1994
288,059 1995
278,856 1996
271,417 1997
276,324 1998
274,278 1999
280,969 2000
301,697 2001
312,743 2002
356,720 2003
415,223 2004
464,676 2005
503,353 2006
527,660 2007
578,315


In constant ( 2005 ) US$ m.Year
Value 1988
483,994 1989
479,060 1990
457,648 1991
401,949 1992
424,705 1993
402,375 1994
377,867 1995
357,382 1996
337,946 1997
336,185 1998
328,611 1999
329,421 2000
342,172 2001
344,932 2002
387,303 2003
440,813 2004
480,451 2005
503,353 2006
511,187 2007
546,786


As percentage of gross domestic productYear
Value 1988
5.7 1989
5.5 1990
5.3 1991
4.7 1992
4.8 1993
4.5 1994
4.1 1995
3.8 1996
3.5 1997
3.3 1998
3.1 1999
3 2000
3.1 2001
3.1 2002
3.4 2003
3.8 2004
4 2005
4 2006
4


Footnote:
The figures for the USA are for financial year (1 Oct.–30 Sep.) rather than calendar year.

http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

The military spending of Venezuela has been stressed many times in the mainstream media, and in this forum as well, but these numbers speak for them selves. To compare the most recent year, 2007, when VE was all up in Russian arms purchases:

VE $1.884 million or 1.2 of GDP
CO $5.240 million or 4.0 of GDP
USA $511.187 million or 4.0 of GDP
Turkey $11.066 million or 2.8 of GDP
Greece $9.346 million or 3.8 of GDP


So, can we agree that VE's aleged huge military spending to be a western media and politician lie?

 

[rockwool]

This is interesting for comparissons:

Military expenditure of Russia

In constant ( 2005 ) US$ m.Year
Value 1988
[218,436] 1989
[202,543] 1990
[171,349] 1991
.. 1992
[42,527] 1993
[37,569] 1994
[36,613] 1995
[21,683] 1996
[19,148] 1997
[21,246] 1998
[13,557] 1999
[14,045] 2000
[19,141] 2001
[21,245] 2002
[23,604] 2003
[25,111] 2004
[26,119] 2005
[28,492] 2006
[31,181] 2007
[35,369]


As percentage of gross domestic productYear
Value 1988
[15.8] 1989
[14.2] 1990
[12.3] 1991
.. 1992
[5.5] 1993
[5.3] 1994
[5.9] 1995
[4.4] 1996
[4.1] 1997
[4.5] 1998
[3.3] 1999
[3.4] 2000
[3.7] 2001
[4.1] 2002
[4.3] 2003
[4.3] 2004
[3.8] 2005
[3.7] 2006
[3.6]

Military expenditure of China

In constant ( 2005 ) US$ m.Year
Value 1988
.. 1989
[12,282] 1990
[13,153] 1991
[13,698] 1992
[16,542] 1993
[15,339] 1994
[14,614] 1995
[14,994] 1996
[16,614] 1997
[16,808] 1998
[19,273] 1999
[21,636] 2000
[23,778] 2001
[28,010] 2002
[33,060] 2003
[36,552] 2004
[40,278] 2005
[44,322] 2006
[51,864] 2007
[58,265]


As percentage of gross domestic productYear
Value 1988
.. 1989
[2.6] 1990
[2.6] 1991
[2.4] 1992
[2.5] 1993
[2] 1994
[1.7] 1995
[1.7] 1996
[1.7] 1997
[1.6] 1998
[1.7] 1999
[1.8] 2000
[1.8] 2001
[2] 2002
[2.1] 2003
[2.1] 2004
[2] 2005
[1.9] 2006
[2.1]

Fricken China is spending quite a lot more than Russia, who in turn spent less than Turkey during a few years...

 

[rockwool]

Some quotes about the role of the Fourth Fleet.

"Reconstituting the Fourth Fleet recognizes the immense importance of maritime security in the southern part of the Western Hemisphere, and sends a strong signal to all the civil and military maritime services in Central and Latin America," said Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead. "Aligning the Fourth Fleet along with our other numbered fleets and providing the capabilities and personnel are a logical execution of our new Maritime Strategy."

Rear Adm. James W. Stevenson Jr., Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (NAVSO). "As a numbered fleet, we will be in a better position to ensure the Combatant Commander has the right assets available when needed."

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=36606

So the US has a new strategy, and feel that their Combatant Commander will need something that hasn't been available before, and they're out to make a statement.

Why?



From Jacksonville:

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. said several factors have prompted admirals to conclude Latin American and Caribbean waters require a fleet dedicated to them: the rising economic strength of Brazil, the belligerence of Venezuela, the increasing trade moving through the Panama Canal, and Cuban leader Fidel Castro's age.

Whoa, a Fleet to battle Fidels age!



An alternative voice:

Frank Mora, a professor at the U.S. War College in Leavenworth Kansas told the Miami Herald, he thought the Fleet could be used in "environmental emergencies" and to control "youth gangs."

Beauty!



History lessons:

the Brazilian Senate about the Fourth Fleet's revival - one lawmaker recalled how in 1964, U.S. ambassador Lincoln Gordon had threatened to land marines stationed right off the Brazilian coast if leftist president Joao Goulart did not resign.

Ex-Brazilian president Jose Sarnay warned of U.S. Fourth Fleet designs on the enormous Tupi deep-water oil field that may hold as many as five to eight billion barrels and could turn Brazil into one of the top five petroleum producers on the planet.

Those attentive to Latin American history do not view the U.S. Fourth Fleet's intentions as "non-hostile." U.S. Naval blockades of Cuba in 1963 during the Soviet-American missile crisis and of revolutionary Mexico in 1914, stir bitter memories. The U.S. Navy turned the Caribbean into an "American lake" from 1914 through the late 1920s, parking its fleet in Santo Domingo and repeatedly invading Nicaragua.

and to borrow the words of a mexican La Journada journalist form the same article:

The sailing of the Fourth Fleet is "naked aggression by Washington to regain its hegemony" on a continent where U.S. influence has been impressively diminished by the serial victories of the Latin American electoral left.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ross07292008.html



From Bloomberg:

``This change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests,'' Roughead said.

So aparantly there are threats in the region.

The fleet could ``certainly bring a lot more stature to the area and increase our ability to get things done,'' Rear Admiral James Stevenson said in a telephone interview with reporters today.

Yeh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ahYX94CKdPRA&refer=latin_america




Here's a schoolbook example on how disinformation works:

In the last decade, Venezuela’s military expenditure has increased fivefold, pushing the country into the list of the top 25 arms importers in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

He's refering to this quote:

Venezuela increased its arms imports dramatically in 2003-2007, taking it from the 56th biggest importer in the world in 1998-2002 to the 24th. Some 92 per cent of Venezuela's imports came from Russia.

from this link: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/PR_AT_data_2007.html/view?searchterm=venezuela

Looking at 2000 Chavez didn't yet feel threatened by the US and were solely consentrating on social spending. So compared to 2000 the military spending has pretty much doubled (to 1/250 of that of USA's), but it is still less than what it was in 1994.

 

[Transcend]

Venezuela and Iran both need the price of oil to be above $90 USD, otherwise their budgets do not balance and they go heavily into the red. As of last week, oil was about $54 a barel.

Ya, they are screwed. The other opec nations, including Saudi Arabia believe that oil would be at a "fair" price at about $65-70 USD in order to maintain current investment and exploration levels. Of course, they'll achieve this with price fixing in about 30 days at the next big meeting.

edit: open != opec

 

[Transcend]

Awesome, they are going to shell Florida and Louisiana and get rid of those youth gangs. Gang Banger Uzis vs 4th fleet main guns. Crackhouse elimination via full broadside.

 

[rockwool]

It will be interesting to see how the price of oil will go because of the upcomming recession during this comming year or two.

 

[Transcend]

It will be interesting to see how the price of oil will go because of the upcomming recession during this comming year or two.

I doubt it will rise too much due to demand with a slow economy. It will be manipulated by OPEC of course, but It looks like Riyadh is trying to keep the rogues from screwing with it too much.

 

[Samirol]

So, can we agree that VE's aleged huge military spending to be a western media and politician lie?

If I read your numbers correctly, the percentage of GDP that they spent stayed the same, it is just with the rising cost of oil, that they were able to put more into it.

Any chance you have the source on hand so I can bookmark it for future Chavez discussions?

 

[rockwool]

I doubt it will rise too much due to demand with a slow economy. It will be manipulated by OPEC of course, but It looks like Riyadh is trying to keep the rogues from screwing with it too much.

That's what I meant; hard years up ahead due to slow economy. The OPEC I have little knowledge of but you're probably right about Riyadh. I find your description of Riyadhs adversaries funny though, rogues. I wonder how the price curve of oil would have looked like if the US was one of the OPEC members. =)

If I read your numbers correctly, the percentage of GDP that they spent stayed the same, it is just with the rising cost of oil, that they were able to put more into it.

Any chance you have the source on hand so I can bookmark it for future Chavez discussions?

Sure, but GNP isn't the only comparisson as we can see the actual money in a steady 1995 dollar currency. There it's obvious that VE has had larger military spedning in 1994 (?) and quite little in the first ruling years of Chavez.

I thought I linked the source?!! Checking.


EDIT: I did link it, just above the sentence you just quoted, but here you go again. Pick a country of choise:

http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

 

[Samirol]

EDIT: I did link it, just above the sentence you just quoted, but here you go again. Pick a country of choise:

oops, thanks

 

[Transcend]

That's what I meant; hard years up ahead due to slow economy. The OPEC I have little knowledge of but you're probably right about Riyadh. I find your description of Riyadhs adversaries funny though, rogues. I wonder how the price curve of oil would have looked like if the US was one of the OPEC members. =)
]

They're rogues due to how they act in relation to the rest of the opec nations. Most of them don't want absurd oil prices, as they know that will cut demand, and eventually, eat into margins. A few states are on razor thin budgets and anything that will reduce net profits is really bad. A nice equlibrium price keeps the oil flowing and the money pouring in and they know this.

As soon as gas dropped to reasonable levels again, American's started driving all over in their gigantic death machine SUVs all over again. It really is insane.

 

[rockwool]

They're rogues due to how they act in relation to the rest of the opec nations. Most of them don't want absurd oil prices, as they know that will cut demand, and eventually, eat into margins. A few states are on razor thin budgets and anything that will reduce net profits is really bad. A nice equlibrium price keeps the oil flowing and the money pouring in and they know this.

As soon as gas dropped to reasonable levels again, American's started driving all over in their gigantic death machine SUVs all over again. It really is insane.

I don't know, and I'm not convinced. I do know of the role the US has in keeping the Saudi Royal family in power, as well as that scenarios like this one was the true reason that the UK/US got every country to back them in the first Gulf War. Who knows how many other sheiks the US has their hands under their robes. That's reason enough for those leaders to play it our way.

 

[rockwool]

Military expenditure of Canada
In local currency ( m.dollars )Year
Value 1988
12,181 1989
12,725 1990
13,318 1991
12,991 1992
13,041 1993
13,248 1994
13,079 1995
12,595 1996
11,748 1997
11,001 1998
11,495 1999
12,199 2000
12,326 2001
12,972 2002
13,332 2003
13,952 2004
14,749 2005
15,739 2006
16,800 2007
19,105


In constant ( 2005 ) US$ m.Year
Value 1988
15,097 1989
15,021 1990
15,007 1991
13,859 1992
13,706 1993
13,671 1994
13,470 1995
12,699 1996
11,658 1997
10,748 1998
11,122 1999
11,603 2000
11,412 2001
11,709 2002
11,771 2003
11,984 2004
12,441 2005
12,986 2006
13,588 2007
15,155


As percentage of gross domestic productYear
Value 1988
2 1989
1.9 1990
2 1991
1.9 1992
1.9 1993
1.8 1994
1.7 1995
1.6 1996
1.4 1997
1.2 1998
1.3 1999
1.2 2000
1.1 2001
1.2 2002
1.2 2003
1.1 2004
1.1 2005
1.1 2006
1.2

Canada's increased their defence budget with almost 50% in the last 10 years!

 

[Samirol]

Canada's increased their defence budget with almost 50% in the last 10 years!

obviously setting up to attack the U.S, I think an intervention needs to happen

 

[Transcend]

You can thank the conservative government for that. It isn't like they spend that much to begin with though.

 

[rockwool]

Selected quotes from an article that has so far had the best analysis of those I've read on the matter.

“Rear Admiral James Stevenson, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, said the re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet will send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela,” AHN news reported.

Inbetween the PR talk about combating narco trafficking et al the actual meaning comes out.

The thrust of this decision is to give the US Navy a far broader role than it currently plays in Latin America. While Washington can point to no imminent military threat in the region, the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet has a powerful symbolic significance, indicating a return to gunboat diplomacy.

It is a demonstration of US intentions to maintain absolute military dominance over the region, and in particular over those countries with large reserves of petroleum and natural gas

According to the Pentagon, in recent years the Colombian drug cartels have gone so far as to utilize secretly built submarines to get their product to foreign markets.

"Ain't no walk in the park no more, you know, they've got satellite dishes, submarines, frogmen..." I wonder if the pentagon is homing in on VE's submarines with this cus I'm having a hard time imagening how those submarines got in the hands of Tony Montana.

(about the 9 VE subs) According to the Pentagon, the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet is also justified by this change in the correlation of forces in the region.

To lend this expansion of military power in the region a veneer of legitimacy in international circles, the Pentagon needs to promote the pretext that the Colombian FARC or the crisis-ridden government of Hugo Chavez represent a similar danger to the world and “democracy” as that which Washington has attributed to Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups in the Middle East.

For a number of years, it has sought to establish new military bases in the region. /...../The US appears likely to lose its only permanent military base in South America - located in Ecuador’s port city of Manta - when the Pentagon’s lease on the air force facility expires in November of next year. /..../

In the meantime, the American military is searching for other possible bases, including in Paraguay. “We’re always looking for opportunities for what I call lily pads — places we can go in for a week or two and then get out,” Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, commander of US Air Forces Southern Command told the US military newspaper Stars and Stripe. “It increases our presence, and makes us more unpredictable in operations.”

Behind the resurrection of the Fourth Fleet lie the same fundamental tendencies underlying the explosion of American militarism on a world scale. It is the attempt by US imperialism to offset its relative decline as an economic power by reliance on its continuing military supremacy. Europe and increasingly China are playing a growing role in Latin American trade and investment at the expense of US interests.

Trade between Latin America and China topped $100 billion last year, a 46 percent increase over 2006. Meanwhile, the European Union, which is second only to the US in terms of Latin American trade and foreign investment, is increasingly outstripping Washington in the negotiation of free trade agreements on the continent. Today, the US accounts for less than 20 percent of the exports from Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/navy-m07.shtml

 

[rockwool]

obviously setting up to attack the U.S, I think an intervention needs to happen

You like shoot bear? In Kazachstan we shoot bear!

You can thank the conservative government for that. It isn't like they spend that much to begin with though.

Everything's relative. It's about 3 times of what Sweden spends, and we're a very wide variety producer of arms (and therefore the politicians feel forced to keep the orders comming in). But at least it's little compared to your GDP.