Venezuela aims for biggest military reserve in Americas

[Streathamite]

okey-chokey.
The brits is the 'Terriers'; the Territorial army or TA - entirely volunteer, has been so since conscription ended. recruitment done by advertsising, leaning on employers etc.
This makes it EXACTLY like Venezuela's programme except in size - ours is some 69,000 (UK pop; 56 million), whereas the Venezuelan one is rather larger. BUT: the UK military ethos is one of superbly trained and equipped small professional fighting forces which is why
a) the regular army hated peacetime conscription and conscripts, and created merry hell till they got their way and got it ended in 1964 (bad luck dad - too late for him! ).
and b) equally, they sneer at the TAs (the most printable one I've heard recently was 'bank clerks in khaki'!).
The venezuelans are, i imagine, the opposite; numbers high cos they'll never have UK or US levels of equipment or training, and because their most likely use is guerrilla or jungle war.
VP is more the man here, as he served in the forces, but that'smy assumption.
But in short Venezuela is doing ZERO that most other nations do, with voluntary reservist programmes. Many european countries still have compulsory national service - greece, germany, holland (I think).
Israel is the opposite to Venezuela, completely; compulsory military service and call-up for all; a nation in khaki. Even if you try to CO, your life is made very difficult (I believe there is a social stigma).

actually, i wouldn't laugh at the Canadian example, at all, because it is so very, very similar to switzerland; no enemies except the climate and the Terrain. No-one hates Canada or bears her a grudge; no-one has anything to gain by invading, or could do so without the US stopping it. equally, no army will invade the place half their country's govt stash their illicit assets.


E2A: f-ed this up earlier. meant to say Venezuela's doing NOTHING above what other nations with a military do

 

[spring-peeper]

Its not about the US. I would be concerned that Chavez might use such a group to maintain power for many years to come. Maybe to quash internal dissent over lack of elections.

There is a huge difference between such a group in places like Switzerland, Canada and the US forming. These countries have practiced elections for hundreds of years. When is the last time the military took over from a civilian government in the US, Canada or Switzerland? Exactly.

South America can't point to such a history of stable governments with defined relationships between democratically elected civilian governments and the military. That is the reason.

Mears, the army reports to the head of the government - I can't see Chavez using the military to overthrow itself.

Or are you concerned that this country is now going be to harder for you to invade?

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez's firm rebuff to those plotting to dismember his country in the interests of energy transnational corporations reflects, doubtless, the sentiments of the Venezuelan people.

Their government's ability to invest in education, health and economic development has been enhanced by Venezuela's appreciable oil and gas reserves.

But these riches are not simply a means of assisting national development. They are also a magnet for greedy overseas interests and their hangers-on in Venezuela.

US energy corporations are used to Washington using military force, both overt and covert, to overthrow Third World governments which adopt the view that their national resources ought to benefit their own people rather than foreign companies.

Rare is the Latin American state that has not witnessed US marines landing on its territory to make it safe for US corporations to run tropical fruit plantations or extract essential minerals.

Venezuela has learned a positive lesson from the people of Cuba, who have displayed their readiness over the past 47 years to arm themselves and defend their independence against any invader.

source

 

[spring-peeper]

It doesn't look like Venezuela is backing down in it's latest squabble with the USA.

The revocation of Venezuela’s category 1 rating in 1995 is at the center of a recent tiff between Caracas and Washington. Venezuela’s aviation authority claims this decade old categorization is unfair and that improvements to its airlines over the years have been ignored. Indeed, according to Les Dorr, a spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Venezuela hasn’t been reassessed in over a decade. But reassessments are generally only preformed for category 2 countries when the FAA is confident they will pass.

So, Venezuela has taken a hard-line stance: If the US doesn’t change its status by the end of the month, it will sharply decrease the number of flights allowed by US carriers into the country. This was a concession from a February 24 statement, which would have cut flights by March 1.

The list of countries that don’t meet IASA standards is certainly not a political one. Not only Venezuela, but Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Paraguay—all of which enjoy far more cordial relations with the US than Caracas—are on the list. But as with seemingly all dealings between the US and Venezuela, it has become politicized. The ultimatum came just a week after Condoleezza Rice announced that the US was striving to create a “united front” against Venezuela, and left State Department officials considering options for an “appropriate response.”

source

But you know all about this, right mears? This is being done in the name of "War on Drugs" - another one of your excuses to hassle countries that you don't like.

 

[nino_savatte]

The War on Drugs...what a success story.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Its not about the US. I would be concerned that Chavez might use such a group to maintain power for many years to come. Maybe to quash internal dissent over lack of elections.

So now you're having to pluck "what ifs" out of the air to support your reaction to this news?

Chavez has a better history in terms of elections delivered on time and conforming to international standards than his US-friendly predeccessors had, that's for ssure, and could you really have seen Chavez' oligarchic predecessors acceding to a "recall" like Chavez did?
I don't think so.

There is a huge difference between such a group in places like Switzerland, Canada and the US forming. These countries have practiced elections for hundreds of years. When is the last time the military took over from a civilian government in the US, Canada or Switzerland? Exactly.

South America can't point to such a history of stable governments with defined relationships between democratically elected civilian governments and the military. That is the reason.

Why is there a vast difference, besides you saying there is?

As for your sideswipe at latin-American democracy, given the level of interference in south and central American governance by your nation in the last century or so, it's little wonder they don't have the democratic history you're pretending is a precursor to the acceptability of the Chavez regime.

You don't like what Chavez is doing for ideological reasons, which is fair enough, but only insofar as you realise that your ideology isn't as important to the mass of Venezuelan people as it is to the small coterie of oligarchs who used to run the country. It's just a pity you don't have the cojones to admit that they're the ones you care about, and that Chavez and the majority of Venezuelans (who did, after all, democratically elect him to his position more than once, and who I've no doubt would submit him to another "recall" if they found themselves in disagreement with his military reserve policy) could curl up and die as far as you're concerned, as long as your ideological remit is fulfilled.

 

[ViolentPanda]

okey-chokey.
The brits is the 'Terriers'; the Territorial army or TA - entirely volunteer, has been so since conscription ended. recruitment done by advertsising, leaning on employers etc.
This makes it EXACTLY like Venezuela's programme except in size - ours is some 69,000 (UK pop; 56 million), whereas the Venezuelan one is rather larger. BUT: the UK military ethos is one of superbly trained and equipped small professional fighting forces which is why
a) the regular army hated peacetime conscription and conscripts, and created merry hell till they got their way and got it ended in 1964 (bad luck dad - too late for him! ).
and b) equally, they sneer at the TAs (the most printable one I've heard recently was 'bank clerks in khaki'!).
The venezuelans are, i imagine, the opposite; numbers high cos they'll never have UK or US levels of equipment or training, and because their most likely use is guerrilla or jungle war.
VP is more the man here, as he served in the forces, but that'smy assumption.
But in short Venezuela is doing ZERO that most other nations do, with voluntary reservist programmes. Many european countries still have compulsory national service - greece, germany, holland (I think).
Israel is the opposite to Venezuela, completely; compulsory military service and call-up for all; a nation in khaki. Even if you try to CO, your life is made very difficult (I believe there is a social stigma).

actually, i wouldn't laugh at the Canadian example, at all, because it is so very, very similar to switzerland; no enemies except the climate and the Terrain. No-one hates Canada or bears her a grudge; no-one has anything to gain by invading, or could do so without the US stopping it. equally, no army will invade the place half their country's govt stash their illicit assets.

Chavez's plan makes good sense.
Venezuela has already been not-too-subtly threatened with military incursions from Colombia to the west, the (discredited) excuse being that FARC has rest camps and supply dumps within Venezuelan territory.
The Colombia/Venezuela land border is long, as is Venezuela's northern (coastal) border, both of which would benefit from a large military reserve "freeing up" trained soldiers for "rapid reaction" work, in fact just relieving border posts of the need for regular troops by staffing them with reservists would considerably strengthen Venezuela's ability to rapidly deploy in strength.
Given the (near-perennial) instability in Colombia, combined with escalating interest in Venezuelan mineral wealth, a bolstering of the military is good strategy, both at the political and the purely military level. It may annoy some people, but the only opinions that count are those of the electorate, not some whining policy wonk in an air-conditioned office several thousand miles to the north.

 

[nino_savatte]

Now if I remember correctly, it was the US that caused Colombia to become unstable back in the early 60's by interfering in the elections. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Now if I remember correctly, it was the US that caused Colombia to become unstable back in the early 60's by interfering in the elections. The rest, as they say, is history.

Yep, that's why I mentioned the century or so of interference in central and south America in my reply to mears. We'll probably never be able to calculate how much of the shit that has showered on Latin-American heads is down to direct interference, but what we can say is that it has happened and still happens.

 

[Streathamite]

Chavez's plan makes good sense.
Venezuela has already been not-too-subtly threatened with military incursions from Colombia to the west, the (discredited) excuse being that FARC has rest camps and supply dumps within Venezuelan territory.
The Colombia/Venezuela land border is long, as is Venezuela's northern (coastal) border, both of which would benefit from a large military reserve "freeing up" trained soldiers for "rapid reaction" work, in fact just relieving border posts of the need for regular troops by staffing them with reservists would considerably strengthen Venezuela's ability to rapidly deploy in strength.
Given the (near-perennial) instability in Colombia, combined with escalating interest in Venezuelan mineral wealth, a bolstering of the military is good strategy, both at the political and the purely military level. It may annoy some people, but the only opinions that count are those of the electorate, not some whining policy wonk in an air-conditioned office several thousand miles to the north.

oh, don't get me wrong, i think it's a terrif idea, with one caveat, and that is the slight risk of the militia joining the army to bring down the republic if the oligarcicos ever rise again.
However - as this hasn't even happened in argentina, I'd say chavez & co look safe.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yep, that's why I mentioned the century or so of interference in central and south America in my reply to mears. We'll probably never be able to calculate how much of the shit that has showered on Latin-American heads is down to direct interference, but what we can say is that it has happened and still happens.

He can only speak your weight. Insert coin.

 

[mears]

So now you're having to pluck "what ifs" out of the air to support your reaction to this news?

Chavez has a better history in terms of elections delivered on time and conforming to international standards than his US-friendly predeccessors had, that's for ssure, and could you really have seen Chavez' oligarchic predecessors acceding to a "recall" like Chavez did?
I don't think so.

Why is there a vast difference, besides you saying there is?

As for your sideswipe at latin-American democracy, given the level of interference in south and central American governance by your nation in the last century or so, it's little wonder they don't have the democratic history you're pretending is a precursor to the acceptability of the Chavez regime.

You don't like what Chavez is doing for ideological reasons, which is fair enough, but only insofar as you realise that your ideology isn't as important to the mass of Venezuelan people as it is to the small coterie of oligarchs who used to run the country. It's just a pity you don't have the cojones to admit that they're the ones you care about, and that Chavez and the majority of Venezuelans (who did, after all, democratically elect him to his position more than once, and who I've no doubt would submit him to another "recall" if they found themselves in disagreement with his military reserve policy) could curl up and die as far as you're concerned, as long as your ideological remit is fulfilled.

I am sorry but didn't I say on this thread I respect the fact Chavez is trying to help the poor?

It might be the only mention of the welfare of Venezuleans on this thread.

 

[spring-peeper]

I am sorry but didn't I say on this thread I respect the fact Chavez is trying to help the poor?

Glad you mentioned that.

Why just to-day, he set up an agricultural disease control commission, entered into an agreement with Brazil and Argentina for more than US$9 million (euro7.5 million) on a natural gas pipeline and bought a Uruguayan bank for $10M.

He helps the poor in less fortunate countries as well.

From a click glance at the headlines, I see them setting up free eye care in one of Mexico poorest areas and 15,000 low-income citizens of Connecticut will get discounts for the past winter's oil bills.

The rest of the day, he spent slamming the US their 2005 Human Rights Report.

This country is

 

[nino_savatte]

I am sorry but didn't I say on this thread I respect the fact Chavez is trying to help the poor?

It might be the only mention of the welfare of Venezuleans on this thread.

No, you didn't and you couldn't care less about the poor - as your farrago of dishonest posts shows us.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am sorry but didn't I say on this thread I respect the fact Chavez is trying to help the poor?

It might be the only mention of the welfare of Venezuleans on this thread.

* * * * *

Post #9 "...a much poorer country like Venezuela increases military spending and you think its a good idea?"

Post #14 "I don't know the cost of those arms, but thats money used for arms and not education, health care or infrastructure"

Post #24 "Lets try this. I respect Chavez as the demoratically elected leader in Venezuela. I believe the US government respects this, though Chavez is not popular in Washington as Bush is not in Caracas. I have not seen any proof the US engineered a coup in Venezuela though tacit support after the fact may have been given. That is a clear difference. I don't support the US government working in any way to overthrow Chavez.

I respect the fact Chavez is trying to help the poor, of which there are many. I hope he succeeds in this endeavor.

However, when I hear any leader elected by the people like Chavez is creating a private milita it raises red flags. It tells me it could become a future weapon to quash internal dissent, maybe over future elections.

But it could just be the cynic in me"

* * * * *

Now that's just page one of this thread, three examples where your expressions of concern for the welfare of the poor or for Venezuelans generally are actually thinly-veiled digs at Chavez's regime.

Pardon me for doubting your sincerity, but you'd have to do better than that to convince me you actually give a damn.

 

[spring-peeper]

However, when I hear any leader elected by the people like Chavez is creating a private milita it raises red flags. It tells me it could become a future weapon to quash internal dissent, maybe over future elections.

*screams in frustration*

There's that word again - "private".

Why is everyone convinced this is a private army? I thought the government was running it?

What am I missing on this?

 

[ViolentPanda]

*screams in frustration*

There's that word again - "private".

Why is everyone convinced this is a private army? I thought the government was running it?

What am I missing on this?

Calm down dear.

That wasn't me saying Chavez is building a privvate militia, it was me quoting Mears saying that.

I don't believe Chavez is building a "private militia" at all, I believe he's made a very sensible choice to expand his nation's civil defence capabilities in line with possible threat of incursion by regional rivals, and that he's done so in such a way that ultimate command of the reserve devolves to the civil powers rather than the military, which is as it should be.

Mears bleats about the possibility of Chavez turning rogue and becoming a despot, but Chavez's history as head of government doesn't support that possibility, because Chavez has participated a damn sight more in electoral democracy than any of his predecessors, even going so far as to face a "recall" vote a few years ago, something none of his (US-sponsored) neighbours have ever done.

 

[spring-peeper]

Calm down dear.

That wasn't me saying Chavez is building a privvate militia, it was me quoting Mears saying that.

*goes back and re-reads thread*
*still mis-interprets quoted section*

Ok, then - as long as we agree on this.

 

[ViolentPanda]

*goes back and re-reads thread*
*still mis-interprets quoted section*

Ok, then - as long as we agree on this.

See the bit between the

* * * * *



* * * * *
?

They're quotes (including the numbers of the posts they come from) of stuff mears has said on the first page of this thread (including his "private militia" comment in the third paragraph of the quote from post #24), which I quoted in order to debate with him whether his expressions of concern for the Venezuelan poor were sincere, or merely (as I suspect) an "angle" so that he can make snide remarks about the Chavez regime.

 

[Streathamite]

I believe the US government respects this, though Chavez is not popular in Washington as Bush is not in Caracas. I have not seen any proof the US engineered a coup in Venezuela though tacit support after the fact may have been given.

then don't you think the administration should be having a wee word with messrs abrams & reich - that looks like connivance to me, or at least foreknowledge
E2A: surely, if one democracy knows in advance of an attempt to topple another, then they have a democratic duty to tip the other off against the anti-democrats?

 

[Streathamite]

Lets try this. I respect Chavez as the demoratically elected leader in Venezuela. I believe the US government respects this, though Chavez is not popular in Washington as Bush is not in Caracas. I have not seen any proof the US engineered a coup in Venezuela though tacit support after the fact may have been given. That is a clear difference. I don't support the US government working in any way to overthrow Chavez.

you STILL think this?
and the Bush administration were a little disingenuous, weren't they?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Interesting Zmag article on this here.

 

[spring-peeper]

*** bump***

Seemed better to bump than start a new thread.

In keeping with the Venezuela arms build up, Venezuala just signed a $2B deal to buy patrol boats and planes from Spain.

The US tried to stop the deal on the basis that some of the technology involved was American and that Chavez is a source of instability in the region. But...

Speaking in Caracas, Mr Bono said Spain was a "sovereign and autonomous country" and that there was not any embargo in place barring the sale.

The arms deal was agreed during Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's a two-day visit to Venezuela last March.

President Chavez said at the time that the boats would be used to step up Venezuela's coastal patrols against the drugs trade, while the transport planes would be used mainly for humanitarian missions inside and outside the country.

Tensions between Washington and Caracas have grown in recent months, in part because of US criticism over Venezuela's purchases of military equipment.

Earlier this year, the South American country signed deals for Brazilian aircraft, and for Russian automatic rifles and helicopters.

source