Putin arrives in Venezuela to meet U.S. foes

Quote:

---

CARACAS (Reuters) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin arrived in Caracas on Friday to meet with the two main South American foes of the United States and launch a $20 billion venture to tap the Orinoco heavy oil belt.
Putin will discuss energy, agriculture and defense issues with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez and later meet Bolivian President Evo Morales, both fierce critics of what they call U.S. "imperialism" in Latin America.
Chavez said Moscow and Caracas will strengthen security ties to "continue increasing Venezuela's defense capability" and look at cooperating on nuclear energy.
"We are not going to build the atomic bomb but we will develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have to prepare for the post-petroleum era," Chavez said at a cabinet meeting on Thursday evening.

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100402/...nezuela_russia

lol @ Venezuela "defense capability". Who do they need to defend themselves against these days?

Great point Chamberlain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

lol @ Venezuela "defense capability". Who do they need to defend themselves against these days?

---

Haven't you heard? They plan to invade the USA. The right has been warning us about the evil dictator hugo chavez.

We should all be frightened!

Everybody gets nukes!! All our enemies, sell arms to countries openly stockpiling for America. It's ok. It's someone else's family member who will get hit with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Everybody gets nukes!! All our enemies, sell arms to countries openly stockpiling for America. It's ok. It's someone else's family member who will get hit with it.

---

so your proposal is to stop the entire world from getting nukes? how do you propose we do that? What exactly will Venezuela do to us with their nukes?

You will never get an answer from SnC. Bitch and run seems to be his M.O. these days.

So the consensus is...it sucks that Russia is sticking its dick in our hemisphere, but We have no reason to fear nukes. They can't threaten us, no one can threaten us. We'll fucking bomb the whole world (rightfully so, might I add).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Didn't you guys see that episode of 24 where Chavez personally buys a nuke and sets it off, and it's ticking?

---

:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

So the consensus is...it sucks that Russia is sticking its dick in our hemisphere, but We have no reason to fear nukes. They can't threaten us, no one can threaten us. We'll fucking bomb the whole world (rightfully so, might I add).

---

It's like containment and nuclear deterrence never happened, and never will again.

Honestly, I don't get it. It worked against a real Soviet threat for over 40 years. Assuming it wouldn't work against the likes of an Iran or a Venezuela makes very little sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's like nuclear deterrence never happened, and never will again.

Honestly, I don't get it. It worked against a real Soviet threat for over 40 years. Assuming it wouldn't work against the likes of an Iran or a Venezuela makes very little sense.

---

It goes back to the fear mongering about our foes. They're not people with different foreign policy goals but their foaming at the mouth crazies. When your leaders give no legitimacy to the enemy's state of mind how are they going to paint them as rational enough to responsibly hold onto these types of weapons?

And more so, the United States government doesn't WANT a deterrent situation because it places severe limits on what the US itself can do when compared the current situation. Its probably not so much that deterrence won't avoid nuclear war WH; its more that such a situation represents a power loss for the United States.

I would say this goes a little farther than mongering. This should be true fear. The naivete of anyone who thinks this is without concequence of america's safety is scary in itself. Mutual destruction worked, barely, in that we are all alive. However that was with two countries. That was also a policy I completely disagree with, and would vote anyone out who did think that policy acceptable. Russia going and making deals with the two dictators- Chavez and Morales, should at the least be questioned. At the most challenged.

I'll ask you this question: Why would Putin want to give other countries the bomb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I would say this goes a little farther than mongering. This should be true fear. The naivete of anyone who thinks this is without concequence of america's safety is scary in itself. Mutual destruction worked, barely, in that we are all alive. However that was with two countries. That was also a policy I completely disagree with, and would vote anyone out who did think that policy acceptable. Russia going and making deals with the two dictators- Chavez and Morales, should at the least be questioned. At the most challenged.

---

And what should they do when we go make deals with dictators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

And what should they do when we go make deals with dictators?

---

i don't understand your question. Is it just to say we deal with dictators? I think all of Venezuela's neighbors would want Russia out of their waters and Venezuela away from nukes. Same for Iran's neighbors and N. Korea's neighbors. I would also think that all of our trading partners who are democracies and all our allies would want this as well.
Who is they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'll ask you this question: Why would Putin want to give other countries the bomb?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'll ask you this question: Why would Putin want to give other countries the bomb?

---

Give? Nobody gives anything away. Russia wants oil revenue. Chavez wants to fluff his ego and is perfectly willing to sell out his country to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Give? Nobody gives anything away. Russia wants oil revenue. Chavez wants to fluff his ego and is perfectly willing to sell out his country to do so.

---

Not to mention all the arms Chavez is getting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Not to mention all the arms Chavez is getting.

---

Which countries has Putin given the actual bomb to?

And why are you so scared of Chavez?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Everybody gets nukes!! All our enemies, sell arms to countries openly stockpiling for America. It's ok. It's someone else's family member who will get hit with it.

---

Shamelessly fear monger much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

Shamelessly fear monger much?

---

wtf are you talking about exactly. Except for trying to find a reason to use the term fear mongering? What exactly did I say that is playing into false fears of americans ( unemployment going over 8%; our financial sector collapsing)?

What does that have to do with Venezuela?

Quote:

---

“The fact that Russian companies are active in four oil fields in the largest crude reserve in the world is important not only for Russia, but for the world.” -Chavez

---

Please explain your spokesman Chavez's words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's like containment and nuclear deterrence never happened, and never will again.

Honestly, I don't get it. It worked against a real Soviet threat for over 40 years. Assuming it wouldn't work against the likes of an Iran or a Venezuela makes very little sense.

---

The problem with nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not the nuke-a-city and mass destruction via fallout type shit that we worried about in the containment era.

The problem is a small tactical nuke combined with modern day rocketry available to states such as Iran, S. Korea, and any douche South American country poses a threat in the form of an EMP. Any small nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the earth will completely fry the entire electrical grid and all electronic devices on the earth's surface in a wide range.

This is also why the Iranian bomb is in fact a threat. As is the N. Korean bomb. Our leaders do a totally totally shitty job of explaining the threats to the people, instead relying on republican jingoistic babble 101.

It's bad enough N. Korea has the ballistic missle capabilities of reaching LA, if they kept advancing, and a small nuke was exploded in the atmosphere above LA, a huge chunk of the country's westside electrical grid would be totally shut down, and thousands if not millions would die. It's not as simple as just turning the juice back on.
Problem is people think it's just a problem of part of a city getting nuked....that's not the true nature of the threat in the 21st century. Containment in that aspect is still fully functional.

Manny touched on this but I think its an even bigger loss of power than most would think if we allowed a state in our own hemisphere to become a nuclear power.
It would be a huge huge deal from a security standpoint if we allowed this to happen.

I guess we should invade (or just bomb the hell out of) every country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Can't_Be_Faded

The problem with nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not the nuke-a-city and mass destruction via fallout type shit that we worried about in the containment era.

The problem is a small tactical nuke combined with modern day rocketry available to states such as Iran, S. Korea, and any douche South American country poses a threat in the form of an EMP. Any small nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the earth will completely fry the entire electrical grid and all electronic devices on the earth's surface in a wide range.

---

And risk nuclear annihilation by the US? Why would anyone do it? It seems to me this is where massive nuclear deterrence plays a part, unless you're suggesting rogue states with limited nuke capabilities can prevent our nuclear response.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Can't_Be_Faded

Manny touched on this but I think its an even bigger loss of power than most would think if we allowed a state in our own hemisphere to become a nuclear power.

It would be a huge huge deal from a security standpoint if we allowed this to happen.

---

Sure. But this recurs to ElNono's point: can we really prevent it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent proliferation of nukes, only that the odds are not in our favor over time, against determined adversaries with the technical means of doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

I guess we should invade (or just bomb the hell out of) every country.

---

There's this too.

Is it practical or wise to wage war preemptively against everyone we perceive as a nuclear threat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

And risk nuclear annihilation by the US? Why would anyone do it? It seems to me this is where massive nuclear deterrence plays a part, unless you're suggesting rogue states with limited nuke capabilities can prevent our nuclear response.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Sure. But this recurs to ElNono's point: can we really prevent it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent proliferation of nukes, only that the odds are not in our favor over time, against determined adversaries with the technical means of doing it.

---

So then we should invest whole heartedly in missile shields. Lasers from satellites and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

There's this too.

Is it practical or wise to wage war preemptively against everyone we perceive as a nuclear threat?

---

strike and destroy their nuclear program - yes

attacking and then "rebuilding" - no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4cc

Is it ever right to go to war, over sandwiches?

Aha! See that's where I thought you were going. The answer is no.

---

Are we talking about roast beef with that cool dipping saunce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

The problem with nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not the nuke-a-city and mass destruction via fallout type shit that we worried about in the containment era.

The problem is a small tactical nuke combined with modern day rocketry available to states such as Iran, S. Korea, and any douche South American country poses a threat in the form of an EMP. Any small nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the earth will completely fry the entire electrical grid and all electronic devices on the earth's surface in a wide range.

This is also why the Iranian bomb is in fact a threat. As is the N. Korean bomb. Our leaders do a totally totally shitty job of explaining the threats to the people, instead relying on republican jingoistic babble 101.

It's bad enough N. Korea has the ballistic missle capabilities of reaching LA, if they kept advancing, and a small nuke was exploded in the atmosphere above LA, a huge chunk of the country's westside electrical grid would be totally shut down, and thousands if not millions would die. It's not as simple as just turning the juice back on.
Problem is people think it's just a problem of part of a city getting nuked....that's not the true nature of the threat in the 21st century. Containment in that aspect is still fully functional.

Manny touched on this but I think its an even bigger loss of power than most would think if we allowed a state in our own hemisphere to become a nuclear power.
It would be a huge huge deal from a security standpoint if we allowed this to happen.

---

N. Korea launches a nuke at the US and Pyongyang becomes a bowl of slowly cooling glass. N. Korea aint gonna play this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

strike and destroy their nuclear program - yes.

---

If they have the technical know how, wouldn't this just steel their resolve to rebuild it?

Do you see any drawbacks to a policy that requires a notionally infinite number of preemptive strikes against a rival's technical base?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

And risk nuclear annihilation by the US? Why would anyone do it? It seems to me this is where massive nuclear deterrence plays a part, unless you're suggesting rogue states with limited nuke capabilities can prevent our nuclear response.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Sure. But this recurs to ElNono's point: can we really prevent it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent proliferation of nukes, only that the odds are not in our favor over time, against determined adversaries with the technical means of doing it.

---

The point is, if our electrical grid is out and all electrical devices with it
how do we even issue orders to nuke something much less do the actual nuking


All it would take to devestate the US for decades is three nukes
one over the west, one over the south, and one over the east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

If they have the technical know how, wouldn't this just steel their resolve to rebuild it?

Do you see any drawbacks to a policy that requires a notionally infinite number of preemptive strikes against a rival's technical base?

---

with Iran, it would need boots on the ground, because of how far underground it is, i think. But yeah they would just rebuild. I think for Iran's case, embargo might be a better option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

The point is, if our electrical grid is out and all electrical devices with it
how do we even issue orders to nuke something much less do the actual nuking


All it would take to devestate the US for decades is three nukes
one over the west, one over the south, and one over the east.

---

We have nuclear subs all over the globe that contain far more nukes than a silo in america. I would hope that they have a back up plan if we were hit with that electric bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

The point is, if our electrical grid is out and all electrical devices with it
how do we even issue orders to nuke something much less do the actual nuking
.

---

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=NI000451&page=1

The more countries get nukes, the more nukes in existence, the more nukes in existence, the easier for someone or a group of somebodies not aligned with any country to get ahold of said nukes.

If America fucking let three nukes mysteriously dissapear and end up in new orleans a few years ago do you really want to trust Iran and countries with dubious political stability like Venezuela with them?

If Venezuela attacks us, yes we can attack them but what if they lose a nuke and a few people act of their own accord with the nuke

According to ChumpDumper the 9/11 commission report is gospel, if that's the case then it's indeed possible for terrorists to mastermind an insanely intricate and low probability plot with near perfect execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

So then we should invest whole heartedly in missile shields. Lasers from satellites and all.

---

Not gonna help you with a nuke in a suitcase scenario. You know, tech makes things smaller and smaller, and we still have that leaking border...

And BTW, the EMP scenario is easily worked around, unless you can knock down every spy satellite circling the globe. Not to mention that an EMP would be localized, at worst, over the entire country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

If Venezuela attacks us, yes we can attack them but what if they lose a nuke and a few people act of their own accord with the nuke

---

That will never happen. Ever. And for one simple reason, oil. The U.S. accounts for 65 percent of the oil exports of Venezuela. So like I said, that would NEVER happen.

Chavez like all men wants power. To keep it as long as he can, and he'll never be allowed to do that if he decides to 1) Cut off the U.S. or 2) Attack the U.S.

"it sucks that Russia is sticking its dick in our hemisphere"

Maybe Russia thinks it sucks that US is installing missiles in Eastern Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

That will never happen. Ever. And for one simple reason, oil. The U.S. accounts for 65 percent of the oil exports of Venezuela. So like I said, that would NEVER happen.

Chavez like all men wants power. To keep it as long as he can, and he'll never be allowed to do that if he decides to 1) Cut off the U.S. or 2) Attack the U.S.

---

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Everything with Chavez returns to his insecurity and consequent narcissism. Basically, he wants to be internationally liked and respected for his noble gestures, even if his noble gestures come at the cost of his citizens.

If he's a threat to the United States, it's more on the level of an extremely deep pocket for socialist candidates in Latin American politics, as has been shown in the most recent Mexican, Peruvian, Colombian, Bolivian, and Argentine (to greater or lesser degrees of success) elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"it sucks that Russia is sticking its dick in our hemisphere"

Maybe Russia thinks it sucks that US is installing missiles in Eastern Europe?

---

Wow, you are extremely late to the party, Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago.

"Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago"

The Russians know the war-mongering, murderous Repugs will put them back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago"

The Russians know the war-mongering, murderous Repugs will put them back.

---

Even if this were the case, it's doubtful that the E. Europeans would allow this again.

why? US military imperialistic boondoggles mean $Bs to the local economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

why? US military imperialistic boondoggles mean $Bs to the local economies.

---

So the war-mongering, murderous locals get the assist? :lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Wow, you are extremely late to the party, Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago.

---

Not exactly.

As I recall, (from heart, right -- I can supply links later) missile subs will stand in for the interceptors we were going to put in Poland and the Czech Republic while Obama seeks approval in Hungary and Turkey (and probably elsewhere) for the placement of new interceptors.

"So the war-mongering, murderous locals get the assist"

no, they know MAD worked for 50 years. It's free money, and probably special trade deals with US, too.

brb moving to Jericho, Kansas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

That will never happen. Ever. And for one simple reason, oil. The U.S. accounts for 65 percent of the oil exports of Venezuela. So like I said, that would NEVER happen.

Chavez like all men wants power. To keep it as long as he can, and he'll never be allowed to do that if he decides to 1) Cut off the U.S. or 2) Attack the U.S.

---

You didn't read what you quoted


i didn't once imply that chavez would attack us
thats understood

what i said was if they develop nukes, it increases the chances for someone not even related to the venezuelan regime to get their hands on them

that in itself is a huge power loss for the us not even considering the state-to-state relationship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Chavez like all men wants power. To keep it as long as he can, and he'll never be allowed to do that if he decides to 1) Cut off the U.S. or 2) Attack the U.S.

---

Even if using logic with an irradic dictator turns out to be right, I think the bigger problem in all this is letting Russia in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Even if using logic with an irradic dictator turns out to be right, I think the bigger problem in all this is letting Russia in.

---

How so? What exact threat does Russia pose? None. Their economy is crap and so is their outdated military.

And by the way, we aren't "letting" Russia in, if I recall Venezuela, like Cuba and every other Latin American country is a soverign nation free to do business with who it chooses.

I know W had a hard time defining soverignty and by the looks of it so do you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

How so? What exact threat does Russia pose? None. Their economy is crap and so is their outdated military.

And by the way, we aren't "letting" Russia in, if I recall Venezuela, like Cuba and every other Latin American country is a soverign nation free to do business with who it chooses.

I know W had a hard time defining soverignty and by the looks of it so do you.

---

I am not talking about us going to russia and venezuela and saying "that's not fair". I'm talking about grown up stuff. It seems you cannot get past some naive idea of us allowing to build armies against america and the only time we can do anything is when it is too late and we are already attacked. What is scary is now this has become your battle cry for nukes. Let everyone build nukes because it wouldn't be fair for us to tell another country hell bent on attacking us that they shouldn't have nukes.

So we should have allowed USSR to put nukes, pointed at US, in Cuba? If you believe so, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Chavez has stated he is stockpiling arms for Americans. Not to mention the guy is trying to rule Venezuela for life and is making deals with another dictator in Putin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

How so? What exact threat does Russia pose? None. Their economy is crap and so is their outdated military.

---

Do you have any proof to back that up? Also how many nukes do they already have? Have you been paying attention to what Russia has been doing throughout the world with oil, in the past 5 or so years? Did your professor discuss that with you in between his bush bashing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I am not talking about us going to russia and venezuela and saying "that's not fair". I'm talking about grown up stuff. It seems you cannot get past some naive idea of us allowing to build armies against america and the only time we can do anything is when it is too late and we are already attacked. What is scary is now this has become your battle cry for nukes. Let everyone build nukes because it wouldn't be fair for us to tell another country hell bent on attacking us that they shouldn't have nukes.

So we should have allowed USSR to put nukes, pointed at US, in Cuba? If you believe so, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Chavez has stated he is stockpiling arms for Americans. Not to mention the guy is trying to rule Venezuela for life and is making deals with another dictator in Putin.

---

Grown-ups wait for the facts to come in. You're just shrilly assuming the worst for reasons that probably relate to your top secret clearance and logical acumen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Do you have any proof to back that up? Also how many nukes do they already have? Have you been paying attention to what Russia has been doing throughout the world with oil, in the past 5 or so years? Did your professor discuss that with you in between his bush bashing?

---

Read up on anything about Russias military and their economy. Their military is outdated, and can not compete with the United States' military for economic reasons. They simply don't have the economic power to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I am not talking about us going to russia and venezuela and saying "that's not fair". I'm talking about grown up stuff. It seems you cannot get past some naive idea of us allowing to build armies against america and the only time we can do anything is when it is too late and we are already attacked. What is scary is now this has become your battle cry for nukes. Let everyone build nukes because it wouldn't be fair for us to tell another country hell bent on attacking us that they shouldn't have nukes.

So we should have allowed USSR to put nukes, pointed at US, in Cuba? If you believe so, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Chavez has stated he is stockpiling arms for Americans. Not to mention the guy is trying to rule Venezuela for life and is making deals with another dictator in Putin.

---

It's not fair for us to tell another country what to do. In fact it's wrong, straigt up wrong. But that's been the policy of the United States since it's existence. It probably always will be.

Chavez has stated he is stockpiling arms for Americans? Where did he say that? Do you have proof or are you again using anecdotal evidence with nothing to back it up?

Yeah he is trying to rule Venezuela for life, and that's exactly why he'd never attack the United States or cut us off from our oil addiction. Because his own party members and supporters would turn on his ass in two days and he'd be booted out of office.