Chavez Kalashnikov Factory Plan Stirs Fear

[cal04]

President Hugo Chavez's plans to build the first Kalashnikov factory in South America are stirring fears Venezuela could start arming his leftist allies in the hemisphere with Russian assault rifles.

Chavez denies such ambitions, saying his government bought 100,000 Russian-made AK-103 assault rifles and a license from Moscow to make Kalashnikovs and ammunition to bolster its defenses against ``the most powerful empire in history'' - the United States.

Some political opponents and critics suspect Chavez, a former paratrooper, has other intentions, such as providing allies like Bolivia and Cuba with arms while forging an anti-Washington military alliance.

``Our president has always had a warlike mentality, but now it appears this mentality is turning into a mission that could easily extend to other parts of Latin America,'' said William Ojeda, a presidential candidate who hopes to run against Chavez in the December election.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5895456,00.html

[Bobbieo]

1. If Bush and company had not been so wrapped up in Iraq

he and his administration would have seen what is coming South America - the dumb shits!!!!

[Mika]

5. The only thing that this admin sees..

.. are ways to create enemies and exploit suffering and death - preferably using bombs. :puke:


So wrapped up in Iraq? They're doing a pretty good job destroying the infrastructure and security of the US at the same time as Iraq.

[Endangered Specie]

2. You know, if we really wanted him gone... he'd be gone

no number of russian guns could stop that.

Which leads me to believe that these arms will be 'redirected' for other, more local uses

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

6. Why would we invade

his own army will kill him in a few years. That is the way it works in SA. He is just drawing attention to push a nationalist agenda, blame america because you are poor. Pay no attention to us pissing your citgo pump money away on migs and boats. And now a rifle factory.

Who cares about small arms. Who thinks america is going to invade, really?

[Judi Lynn]

8. You need to set aside some time to get up to date in your reading.

Apparently a lot has happened which has escaped you. You're going to have to take the initiative. That's one thing we can't do for you.

[Tempest]

15. It's easier to demonize Chavez

Than learn about what gains his people have seen under his leadership.

There's still a sizable group of Americans who want the U.S. to go back to supporting despotic dictatorships in Central and South America.

[saigon68]

27. au revoir

[Judi Lynn]

3. Lotsa luck to U.S. supported opposition campaign opponents.

They have their work cut out for them trying to convince the Venezuelan population that Hugo Chavez is a dangerous character.

That's closer to what U.S. right-wing power addicts would love to propagate for their own advantage in order to mold public perception among those who absolutely refuse to use their brains. If they can get some loud shrill voices whining that Chavez is a danger, it'll create a small body of support in case they are unable to overcome their blood lust in killing him and/or trying for a little "regime" change.

As the parade of comments from transient posters here has proven, there has been a small stream of easily lead right-wingers chomping at the bit to lay waste to some Latin American imaginary enemies, and let their blood flow across the ground just to prove their power they got from stealing American elections and getting their pResident in the White House.

[Saboburns]

7. So let me get this straight folks.

George Bush The Lesser is in charge of the LARGEST ARMORY IN the world.

And that's ok.

Hugo Chavez wants to build up his military.

And that's bad.

Ecspecilly when one considers that Hugo Chavez was once kidnaped under nefarious circumstances that some believe were tied to US interests.

I see that the anti Chavez PR blitz in working just fine.

See also: Saddam Hussein.

[HuffleClaw]

9. 'leftist allies' ! ! !

what totally fear-mongering neoconish spin. blech.

[MrPrax]

10. What a stupid hachet job...

This is a editorial from a country that has illegally invaded two countries and killed, wounded and tortured upwards of 100,000s of people.

The writer seems surprised that country, who their allie the US had tried to overthrow in 2002, might want to have a dependable source of guns to defend itself. What a dishonest idiot...

If anyone is interested to see just how low the Guardian/Observer has fallen...check out their Foreign Affairs editor's review of Chomsky's latest book.

Then look at the readers' startlingly well-informed comments, which I am surprised were not scrubbed.

Then have a look at the writers' response to the comments...guess what...people on the internet don't know anything and are generally crazy!!! :rofl:

The exchange is a classic and a real eye-opener as to what these 'media elites' really think of their customers...

It's a hoot in a half

[struggle4progress]

17. Civilian casualties might be in the 300,000 range

Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?

By Les Roberts, AlterNet
Posted February 8, 2006

... The resulting report, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, estimated around 100,000 and possibly far more civilians have died because of the invasion. Our study was based on 988 household interviews in 33 randomly picked neighborhoods from across the entire country, and covered the period between on the beginning of the war (March 2003) and September 2004.

Most disturbing and certain about the results, is that over 80 percent of violent deaths were caused by U.S. forces and that most of the people they killed were women and children. None of the deaths we recorded involved intentional wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers, instead being mostly from artillery and aerial weaponry. When I presented these results to about thirty Pentagon employees last fall, one came up to me afterwards and said, "We have dropped about 50,000 bombs, mostly on insurgents hiding behind civilians. What the did you think was going to happen?" Our survey team's 100,000 death estimate for the first 18 months after the U.S. led-invasion equates to about 101 coalition-attributed violent deaths per day.

The study received front page coverage in most European and Middle Eastern newspapers, but was barely covered in the United States. Our findings were not unique, however. A report in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2004, based on interviews with returning U.S. soldiers, suggests an unintentional non-combatant death toll of 133 deaths per day. A survey led by a group in Norway (see report at www.fafo.no) estimated 56 violent deaths per day over the first year of occupation but the authors speculate that the estimate is low. A widely cited survey by the People's Kifah (an Iraqi political group) estimated 152 violent deaths per day over the first seven months of occupation, but proper documentation of the supposed door-to-door record has not be obtained. The NGO Coordinating Committee for Iraq recorded approximately 50 violent deaths per day during 2004. All five of these sources suggest that many tens-of-thousands of Iraqis have died, and all but the FAFO survey (which did not identify perpetrators) agree that coalition forces are responsible for the lion's share of these deaths. The death toll most commonly cited in the news media is the Iraqbodycount.org estimate of 17 violent deaths per day. That estimate is largely based on news media accounts and is described by the organization itself as a lowest possible body count.

To demonstrate another source of accounting for fatalities commonly cited in the Middle-eastern press, Figure 1 represents the record of deaths made at the largest morgue in Baghdad for all of 2003 through September 2004. Before the war, about 10 percent of all Baghdad deaths were recorded in this morgue. (Data for December 2003 are missing.) While the use of morgues and the populations they serve can change over time and does not provide a true rate of death, the 2.7 fold increase of recorded deaths in the 18 months after the invasion is both dramatic and is almost all explained by the increase in gunshot and explosion-related wounds ...

Les Roberts is an epidemiologist who has worked in the past for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and the International Rescue Committee. He is a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University.

http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/

[ronnie624]

20. Very interesting. Thanks for the links.

Peter Beaumont doesn't seem to have much interest in addressing Chomsky's book. He's far too busy attacking ad hominem. In his last paragraph he tries the old "but at least we aren't as bad as they are" defense--because you see, it's not really a "human rights violation" when the U.S. slaughters people by the millions, thousands of miles away in another country, as long as you yourself are free to criticize such actions. Disgusting!

In the reader's comments section it was good to see not many were fooled by such drivel.

[Rex]

11. I can't decide if Chavez is an emerging caudillo or if he sees the writing

on the wall'? I wonder how many of his choices have been formed from the last two failed coup attempts by America? Are we really sure the BFEE wouldn't like another war?

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. Cool, hopefully when this all blows over...

We will be able to import AK parts kits from Venezuela like we do many other Eastern European nations.

Another source for parts an ammo will be great for American gun owners.

If only we could still pay our $200 tax and get a new AK with da switch.

[w4rma]

13. I really don't see a problem with a country building a factory to defend

itself.

[Zeroisanumber]

14. This is nothing to worry about.

Cool. Let him waste his money on a usless factory. The more cash he spends on BS invasion paranoia, the less he'll have to stir up trouble.

[Judi Lynn]

19. Feel free to use your space to elaborate upon the "trouble" Hugo Chavez

is likely to "stir up."

We could use some "f'r examples" and some links to actual information on what kind of trouble he stirs up, and what kind of damage he has created since being elected by a massive landslide, opposed by the right-wing idiot, asshole oligarchy.

[ronnie624]

22. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Awaiting a rational, factual post by some could be a long wait indeed.

[nick303]

16. I don't see anything wrong with him doing this.

However, it would be ridiculous to think that a couple of AKs will be sufficient in the event of an attack by any half-respectable military. Not that there is any credible reason to believe an attack is pending.

[MGD]

21. Right

because we've seen how useless "a couple of AKs" are in the hands of a determined enemy fighting in his homeland sooo many times. Our "big stick" is being whittled down in Iraq such that Hugo Chavez has nothing to fear from us and he knows it which is why he and so many others are maneuvering so openly against us these days.

[drduffy]

18. not invasion paranoia

the US empire is being checkmated by russia, china and the shanghai co-op with respect to Iran's oil/nat gas. Venezuela has the largest reserves in this hemisphere at the moment (easier than the sands up north or the shale....).

so I say viva la revolucion and

frankly, death to the empire.
Long live the Republic (without the corporatists and CIA and NSA)

[pinniped]

23. Well, the dumbshit in the wh is apparently trying to forge an....

anti-Venezuelan alliance.

Why else would that POS try to persuade Russia to not sell VE some MIGs?

while forging an anti-Washington military alliance.

[knight_of_the_star]

24. What arrogance

Why is the author implying that only the US is allowed to make serious military alliances? Oh wait, because if other people do, it's bad for us.

[Judi Lynn]

25. Insinuations have been made that Venezuela has no reason

to want to strengthen its national security. Most Venezuela-watching DU'ers are completely aware of evidence pointing to their need for more defense.

Here's a look at the elements at stake for those who absolutely have refused to be informed on this subject:

January 25, 2005

The Granda Kidnapping Explodes
The US / Colombia Plot Against Venezuela
By JAMES PETRAS

A major diplomatic and political conflict has exploded between Colombia and Venezuela after the revelation of a Colombian government covert operation in Venezuela, involving the recruitment of Venezuelan military and security officers in the kidnapping of a Colombian leftist leader. Following an investigation by the Venezuelan Ministry of Interior and reports and testimony from journalists and other knowledgeable political observers it was determined that the highest echelons of the Colombian government, including President Uribe, planned and executed this onslaught on Venezuelan sovereignty.

Once direct Colombian involvement was established, the Venezuelan government demanded a public apology from the Colombian government while seeking a diplomatic solution by blaming Colombian Presidential advisers. The Colombian regime took the offensive, launching an aggressive defense of its involvement in the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and, beyond that, seeking to establish in advance, under the rationale of "national security" the legitimacy of future acts of aggression. As a result President Chavez has recalled the Venezuelan Ambassador from Bogota, suspended all state-to-state commercial and political agreements pending an official state apology. In response the US Government gave unconditional support to Colombian violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and urged the Uribe regime to push the conflict further. What began as a diplomatic conflict over a specific incident has turned into a major, defining crises in US and Latin American political relations with potentially explosive military, economic and political consequences for the entire region.

In justifying the kidnapping of Rodrigo Granda, the Colombian leftist leader, the Uribe regime has promulgated a new foreign policy doctrine which echoes that of the Bush Administration: the right of unilateral intervention in any country in which the Colombian government perceives or claims is harboring or providing refuge to political adversaries (which the regime labels as "terrorists") which might threaten the security of the state. The Uribe doctrine of unilateral intervention echoes the preventive war speech, enunciated in late 2001 by President Bush. Clearly Uribe's action and pronouncement is profoundly influenced by the dominance that Washington exercises over the Uribe regime's policies through its extended $3 billion dollar military aid program and deep penetration of the entire political-defense apparatus.
Uribe's offensive military doctrine involves several major policy propositions:

1.) The right to violate any country's sovereignty, including the use of force and violence, directly or in cooperation with local mercenaries.

2.) The right to recruit and subvert military and security officials to serve the interests of the Colombian state.

3.) The right to allocate funds to bounty hunters or "third parties" to engage in illegal violent acts within a target country.

4.) The assertion of the supremacy of Colombian laws, decrees and policies over and against the sovereign laws of the intervened country.

The Uribe doctrine clearly echoes Washington's global pronouncements. While the immediate point of aggression involves Colombia's relations to Venezuela, the Uribe doctrine lays the basis for unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere. Uribe's doctrine is a threat to sovereignty of any country in the hemisphere: its intervention in Venezuela and the justification provides a precedent for future aggression.

http://www.counterpunch.org/petras01252005.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

December 29, 2004

Colombia- A Shill (proxy) Country For Us Intervention In Venezuela

By Sohan Sharma and Surinder Kumar

In a previous publication we discussed US attempts to topple president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela through various agencies within the country, aided and abetted by external (US) monetary and organizational support <1>. In the past few years one coup de etat by the Venezuelan military, four general strikes to disrupt its economy and a Recall Referendum on August 15, 2004, which allows a President to be removed from his /her office after mid-term, have failed. Now the imperialist forces are left with few avenues of toppling him. One of them is a military intervention, on some excuses(s) and through a shill or proxy country. But what excuses and which country? The two most likely ones are "war on terrorism (counterinsurgency) and war on drugs"; and the country likely to spearhead the military intervention is Colombia-a neighbor of Venezuela, struggling to defeat its own internal Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC, and others) who control a considerable part of Colombia. (See below).

To date Colombia has received the largest amount of US military aid in Latin America. The aid has grown ten-fold since 1995. Since 2003 there are 800 US military trainers and 600 civilian contractors. The US has provided $3 billion in military aid to Colombian in the past three years <2A> . An armada of 60 US made Huey II and Blackhawk attack helicopters are the main weapons bought for quick deployment of Colombian troops in FARC controlled southern Colombia to provide security for the planes doing aerial spraying of drug crops (coca plants) <3>. To protect the pipelines owned by the US-based Occidental Petroleum in Arauca department (province) on the land of indigenous U'wa tribe, a $98 million aid was given in 2002 for the purchase of 12 surveillance and attack helicopters. Occidental has spent years lobbying for military assistance to Colombia <4>. In July 2002 another $35 million was allocated for operation in Peru and areas of Paraguay, Argentine and Brazil where drug smugglers presumably operate <5>.
(snip)

Grounds for intervention

Venezuela and Colombia share a common, semi porous, 1370 miles border where drug trafficking, kidnapping and smuggling are common. Since 2003 there have been several incursions by Colombian paramilitary forces into Venezuela's western provinces of Zulia and Tachira killing civilians and National Guard troops, both a s a provocation and a threat. In July 2003 Chavez ordered an additional 2,700 troops to reinforce security, in addition to the 20,000 already posted along the Colombian border <28>. In 2001 the US State Department put two Colombian revolutionary groups, FARC and ELN on "terrorist list", accusing them of drug trafficking-smuggling, disrupting country's democratic process and sabotaging country's economy. US also charged that Venezuela facilitates Middle Eastern terrorist to enter the US via Venezuelan territory <30>. In contrast, in 2004, US removed Colombian paramilitary force, which has one of the worst human right recorded, from the terror list, where it had been placed three years previously <31>. This gives the US military a clean chit to supply paramilitary with arms.

Grounds are also being laid on a political-ideological level. In 2004, in his annual Posture Statement , US Southern Commander General James Hill identified "radical populism" (Venezuela) and gangs (revolutionary guerillas) as major dangers facing the region. At the same time a new doctrine, called Effective Sovereignty", was developed by the Bush administration which contends that the US national security is threaded by Latin American governments failure to exercise control over the "ungoverned spaces", such as Amazon basin, which invites unlawful elements of societies. This doctrine permits US to intervene in other countries to protect and maintain its security. And permits a steady flow of weapons and military personnel for this region <32>

In fact attempts to foment a revolt/coup started three months prior to Chavez's referendum victory in August 2004. In May 2004, about 120 members of Colombian paramilitary, wearing Venezuelan military uniform, landed clandestinely near Venezuelan capital to link up with other anti national groups and disgruntled unions within the country to foment revolt, sabotage and help remove Chavez. Most of them were apprehended by local police <33>.
(snip/...)

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=15402&printer=1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[krispos42]

26. Rifles are a small part in an overall military strategy

A modern army needs a lot of stuff. Rifles are but one thing among many. And rifles need to be in the hands of men in order to be effective. The only way those AK-103s could hurt us is if we invaded Venezuela and put our troops within the effective range of an AK-wielding infantryman. About 300 yards or so.

I'm sure Venezuela is going to be importing a lot of military hardware, like tanks and armored personnel carriers, mortars and artillery, anti-tank guided missiles, and other items that are technically sophisticated and require advanced manufacturing techniques. Rifles are fairly simple and easy to manufacture and are the basic building block on which an army is equipped, so why import when you can make yourself?

The pistol that the US Army uses is the Beretta model 92. It was designed in Italy, but when the US adopted it as the standard sidearm a licenced factory was built in Maryland to make them.

The Berettas used by the LAPD are Italian made. The ones used by the military are US-made. The reason that the ones used by the military are US-made is because is it a national security issue. Despite the fact that we are on good terms with Italy, we still prefer to make our military stuff here.

Same thing with Venezuela. Maybe Chavez can't make a TOW missile, but a servicable Kalishnikov copy in decent numbers should not be a stretch for even a lightly-industrialized nation like Venezuela.