quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo against whom then should Chavez be afraid of? who is going to take his precious oil? and why?

Without much in terms of changing the subject, I'll give you quick names ... Bay Of Pigs ... Iraq ... Saudi Arabia ... Kuwait (how many US troops in those countries guarding oil fields?)

US has attempted on at least one occasion to overthrow Chavez, seen in '02 or '03 when he was briefly overthrown in a coup that was US backed that later shortfired.

quote:

why are you so quick to defend this guy? he's a rebel without a cause or clue. i'll be honest with you, if he does want to become the new Castro of the Western Hemisphere then he's got a lot more to worry about economically than defending his coastline. which, BTW, has been undefended since Venezuela became a founding member of OPEC half a century ago.

I dont support Chavez much, but to me he's less of a threat that US is to world's stability, peace and security. Who is Chavez buying these weapons to be protected from? From mosquitos in the jungle????

quote:

ask yourself how long Neocons will be in office soon and what Chavez's motivations will be once they are gone.

It doesnt matter much who will be in the US office, but their foreign policy will change little if any. Both Democrats and Republicans bombed the hell out of Iraq, Serbia, attempted AND ooverthrowed governments, installed brutal puppet regimes, etc. etc. etc. Makes no difference to Chavez. For him to hope that next US leader will be pro-Chavez and pro-communist and let him live in peace is a joke to assess anyway. Its impossible.

quote:

i don't care what he's buying Einstien, i'm trying to figure out his motivations or why he's buying it. he's buying a lot more than subs.

Is he buying nukes? Is he buying missiles/ACBM/Anti-aircraft land-based systems? Is he buying ANYTHING that will directly threaten US? Maybe subs. But they are not exactly the kind that Russian military uses to arm with nukes to patrol American waters. So there's no threat to US, and these weapons are more of defense capability. 12 helicopters is NOT enough for a major campaign against Colombia or Panama.

quote:

i have personally tracked three export Kilos in my lifetime. i was on US submarines for 10 years. i know how quiet they can be when properly crewed. i know how vulnerable ANY platform can be when they are put to sea by a proper crew, but it takes years to get to that level.

OK, agreed ... I think thats where I've been getting through as well.

quote:

their own. Germany has been at the forefront of submarining since the turn of last century. Germany never "wiped their technology clean" wtf? their entire military industrial complex was restricted in the fifties and their restrictions for U-boats have been in size since the sixties but they still make the some of the finest conventional boats around like the 212. they were the first to implement AIP (air independent propulsion) and production hydrogen cell technology underwater. German 209's are have been upgrading and selling for decades. they're not as capable over-the horizon as Russian Kilos or as capable period but you'll find a 209 in just about every smaller sub navy in the world. just pick up a Janes.

Yes, listen to yourself SINCE the 1950s / 1960s. German submarines have been around since 1960 judging by the image you posted. Thats my point. Their massive and top-of-the-line Nazi military machine was almost wiped out after WW2. Surely even today Germany is a big player in weapons sales, but nowhere as close to other big players like USA, Russia, UK, France ... Germany makes good quality stuff no doubt about it, they have decent military and decent military exports, but nowhere near some of the other big players, who dont just include Russia and US. I dont know where you pulled the below info, out of your arse I guess, you links dont show that:

quote:

the German arms industry is one of the largest and most successful in world and they consistently produce some of the finest weapons systems in the world. Germany is third behind Russia in terms of Billions of $ exported. USA: 7.9 Russia: 6.7 Germany: 3.9 France: 1.6 Britain: 1.1 Netherlands: 1.5 Italy: 0.9 China: 0.6 Sweden: 0.5 Israel: 0.2

quote:

again youre pulling shit out of your ass, kid. stop it. you think you know but really, you know nothing about anything. and i'm beginning to suspect you don't know how to read.

LOL ... he's some info you'd like to see to disprove your sentiment on how big of a military arms seller Germany is, so its YOU who should stop pulling shit out of your own ass, or at least make sure you're 100 percent right before proceeding with silly words like you did:

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armst..._data.html#supp
Section: Values by supplier country > The financial value of national arms exports, 1994-2005 (excel - 76kb)

Government and industry data on the financial value of national arms exports, 1998-2005, in current US$
Updated 15 May 2007
Copyright: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Country - Currency unit - 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 Explanation of data
France - USD - 7712 - 4633 - 2776 - 3065 - 4434 - 5046 - 9010 - 4744 Value of arms exports (constant 2005 prices)
Germany - USD - 760 - 1549 - 626 - 328 - 300 - 1504 - 1402 - 2027 Value of 'war weapons' exports
Israel - USD - 1879 - 1606 - 1764 - 2000 - 2000 - 2350 - 2600 - 2600 Value of arms exports
Italy - USD - 1116 - 944 - 556 - 496 - 459 - 711 - 596 - 1034 Value of arms exports
Netherlands - USD - 480 - 390 - 384 - 583 - 425 - 1299 - 775 - 1461 Value of licences for arms exports
Russia - USD - 2600 - 3390 - 3680 - 3705 - 4820 - 5400 - 5780 - 6126 Value of arms exports
Sweden - USD - 558 - 472 - 624 - 484 - 674 - 1182 - 1408 - 1416 Value of arms exports
Sweden - USD - 442 - 442 - 477 - 296 - 353 - 801 - 992 - 1155 Value of exports of military equipment and other equipment, services and software to military users
UK - USD - 9987 - 6877 - 6666 - 6069 - 6177 - 7421 - 9451 - 12985 Value of arms exports
UK - USD - 3259 - 1587 - 2604 - 2207 - 1412 - 1620 - 2547 - 2527 Value of exports of defence equipment and additional aerospace equipment and services
USA - USD - 15224 - 17542 - 10912 - 12822 - 10581 - 12043 - 18299 - . . Value of foreign military sales deliveries added to the value of commercial exports licensed under arms export act (covers the period 1 Oct. 2003 to 30 Sep. 2004)
USA - USD - 15578 - 17013 - 12647 - 9023 - 9848 - 10523 - 11440 - 11552 Value of arms exports

LOL ... according to these stats, Germany doesnt even make it to the top 5. LOL, UK's DEFENSE EQUIPMENT / AEROSPACE EQUIPMENT sales are bigger than that, not even talking about UK's arms exports, LOL ...

That was my entire point. Germany is a 'player', but not a frontrunner. All McDonalds restaurants in Hamilton, Ontario employ more people than that German submarine "kick-ass" company. I mean, sales of 300 million euros for that submarine company last year???? LOL ... thats pathetic for a FRONTRUNNER best German arms sales ... Its not bad of a business, but not frontrunner.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Dollar value of weapons exported has little to do with the quality of a weapons system. German weapons systems are consistently among the highest quality in the world.

Let him spend as much oil money on Russian military surplus as he wants, who cares. Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good, didn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Didn't someone tell Chavez that Russkie high tech mil hardware mostly suck?

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that armed looters in New Orleans held law enforcement at bay for days on end and all they had were some miserable small arms.

Small "threats" are much bigger when your best toys are sitting in the desert 5 - 10 days steaming time away.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Not to mention they were buying small arms stuff like AK47, RPG 7 because buying tanks and fighters would require a bigger logistic support than most of these tin pot dictator/rebel types have available, or have money to build. As for the Chinese, they've already used Russian gear for long time. Why would they want to introduce new gear that they aren't as proficient at and they've already have tech base to build and improve at home, plus not to mention US wouldn't sell to China?

The exact number of AK47's purchased in 2004/05 was 100,000. That's the insurance that any act of occupation will see a nasty insurgency emergy.

Other arms purchases that I rember are helicopters from Russia Mexico I think, and then there was an attempted buy of naval/air power by Ven. from Spain. It was blocked by the US as they have some kind of trade deal with Spain limiting exporting military tech.

The Russian equipment apears to be an off the shelf standard, say like your Bud Beer or Coors. Countries buy it to feed the masses while they set up micro brewries to turn out regional specialties when needed.

China and Iran have both developed significant tech on thier own, including a wide array of ship destroying missiles and even jet fighters.

The disturbing thing is we don't really know how good any of this shit is until it's used.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Dollar value of weapons exported has little to do with the quality of a weapons system. German weapons systems are consistently among the highest quality in the world. Let him spend as much oil money on Russian military surplus as he wants, who cares. Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good, didn't it?

I'm going to tailor this so it's not misleading:

quote:

Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good sitting in the open desert, didn't it?

Or one might also be interested to note that the Russian AK47's of Saddam's area continue to kill US and British troops.

Agreed, a sub in the hands of a poorly trained navy is nothing but a potential big metal mass grave for its sailors. And Chavez's military has a long way to go before it could even be seen as on par with Saddam's. Having advanced weapons is nice, but you need trained, skilled. professional soldiers to operate them.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Dollar value of weapons exported has little to do with the quality of a weapons system. German weapons systems are consistently among the highest quality in the world. Let him spend as much oil money on Russian military surplus as he wants, who cares. Saddam's Russian military equipment did him a fat lot of good, didn't it?

NO SHIT. Chemical and biological weapons systems sold by France, Germany, UK, etc. did far better for the Iraqi military ;-)

How good are the Russian tanks in the battlefield when they are not backed by good airforce? A good example for that is the 1967 Arab War. Israeli air force stopped the Soviet-made tanks long before they could kick arse because of the lack and early destruction of the Arab air forces. And without the sufficient air support, Arab states were forked. But thats not the topic. Russian weapons system are very good, not the best, though some are, and perform very good in the hands of properly and well trained people. I already made that point. Good enought for the buck to succeed, especially in urban, guerilla warfare and in jungle surroundings like Venezuela has.

US military had an upper hand in military technology in Vietnam war, but how good did that get them? Better military technology gives an advantage, but not an advantage enough to win a battle or a war. Its whoever has better brains and better use of ther equipment. Some people still have 20-year-old cars that run just as good if not better than new cars. That doesnt make them worse than new cars on the market. Your brand new top of the line car can break down tomorrow, but those 20-year-old well-maintained by professionals vehicles can run as smooth for another 10-20 years.

EDIT: On an interesting note, Soviet Union and China mainly armed Iran in 1980s to defeat Iraq and its armies that were mainly armed by western countries ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Jul-03-2007 at 22:51

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium US military had an upper hand in military technology in Vietnam war, but how good did that get them? Better military technology gives an advantage, but not an advantage enough to win a battle or a war.

The US could have won the Vietnam war back in the 1970s had it been properly executed. The US military had then and still has now the highest quality weapons in the world, but when they are not used correctly due to poor tactics and incorrect military strategies then you get what happened in Vietnam.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX The US could have won the Vietnam war back in the 1970s had it been properly executed. The US military had then and still has now the highest quality weapons in the world, but when they are not used correctly due to poor tactics and incorrect military strategies then you get what happened in Vietnam.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! You must be f@kcing kidding me! Best quality weapons?? HAHAHAHA!!!

Oh boy! just compare M16 and AK47 and you will understand everything.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX The US could have won the Vietnam war back in the 1970s had it been properly executed. The US military had then and still has now the highest quality weapons in the world, but when they are not used correctly due to poor tactics and incorrect military strategies then you get what happened in Vietnam.

I don't buy it, any of it.

To win the Vietnam war they would have had to create an opressive police state. Check out www.pinkyshow.org to get a nice picture of that conflict.

The US has the upper hand in space superiority which leads to the quick destruction of any visible enemy. The only things that have been tested in the past 15-20 years are the US recon abilities and guidance systems (which performed well). But even saying that they are the best is a stretch. The US just happens to be one of the only countries to have actually use thier weapons.

It's easy to be the top in a feild of one.

If any opponent were to either disable or match the US recon + guidance tech then we would actually get a chance to see if the rest of thier equipment is worth the billions it cost.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller HAHAHAHAHA!!! You must be f@kcing kidding me! Best quality weapons?? HAHAHAHA!!! Oh boy! just compare M16 and AK47 and you will understand everything.

Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I don't buy it, any of it. To win the Vietnam war they would have had to create an opressive police state. Check out www.pinkyshow.org to get a nice picture of that conflict.

Go google Linebacker 2. If the US had properly used its advantage of having strategic air power at the start of the war instead of the end it would have been a whole different story.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons. Go google Linebacker 2. If the US had properly used its advantage of having strategic air power at the start of the war instead of the end it would have been a whole different story.

You didn't watch the movie did you.

The problems with Vietnam had little to do with how many bombs hit where. The amount of armaments dumped into the country were astronomical, dwarfing the ordinance use in the entirety of wwII. The problem was that the people who lived in the country did not support the US or the political class allied with the US, they supported, in a democratic majority type of way, Ho Chi Min.

Ok, so maybe more bombs might have helped. If it weren't for all those Vietnamese people in Vietnam the war would have been won.

PS. the article on Linbacker II makes no mention of being improperly carried out, it only notes that weather was a limiting factor. It also calls the mission a sucess. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...inebacker-2.htm