Shipment of 100,000 AK-47s to Venezuela... U.S. is upset.

[T.Stahl]

BTW, Venezuela is the only country in South America with F-16s.
Apparently the United States didn't see a problem selling those fighter planes 20 years ago, knowing that South America isn't exactly a classic example for stability. Now they are protesting the sale of 100,000 rifles.

What are they going to do about the fighters they sold Venezuela in the past, now that they no longer like their government? Sabotage them?

 

[GoRon]

What are they going to do about the fighters they sold Venezuela in the past, now that they no longer like their government? Sabotage them?

I think fighter jets are high maintenance. All we have to do is not sell them parts.

cropcirclewalker,
The idea of no entangling alliances was abandoned a looong time ago. Walking away from the alliences we now have would cause world chaos.

 

[Art Eatman]

We had sold F4s (IIRC) to the Shah of Iran. After Khomeini took over, spare parts became unavailable to Iran.

Look: The biggest problem with Chavez and his doings is long-term economic. Bad for Venezuelans, bad for the world at large.

Why the world at large? Simple. Oil. Chavez' style of operating will inevitably lead to a reduction in output. That has always happened. It will affect Colombia as well as Venezuela.

That will further increase the world price of oil. That increase will inhibit the economic growth of developing nations as well as the already-industrialized countries.

The U.S. gets some 11% of its imported oil from Venezuela. Citgo is a wholly-owned Venezuelan company. I don't know how much Venezuelan oil or refined products wind up in England, France, Spain or Brazil--or elsewhere. IOW, it's not just huffing and puffing between the U.S. and Chavez over who no longer wants to hug whose neck.

All governments want people as round pegs in round holes in order that there be a generally quiescent population. Similarly, business and government combine to want the same sorts of situations in trade--particularly when that trade involves a necessity.

Anybody who thinks national security and economic security are not irretrievably intertwined is fooling himself. When those two begin rubbing together, the sparks tend to burn up the paperwork speaking to national sovereignty. "Governments don't have friends. Governments have interests." True 150 years back, true now.

Always has been.

Art

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. GoRon said:

The idea of no entangling alliances was abandoned a looong time ago. Walking away from the alliences we now have would cause world chaos.

I sure am glad that we don't have world chaos now. It could cause instability.

Next thing you know, among others too numerous to mention, there would be 13 revolutions going on in Africa, war and disruption in the Middle East, war and disruption in parts of the old Soviet Union, North Korea building nukes, dogs and cats living in harmony and maybe even some disconsternation in the Western Hemisphere which would make it nearly impossible for an ordinary USofA person to be able to smoke a Cuban Cigar. Except for the cigar part, all the above would be bad.

If there was chaos now, maybe even the Swiss would be involved.

Not!

 

[carebear]

I think the "working against the interests or security of the US, isn't so much about the rifles as it is the continuing lean of the Chavez government toward anti-American behaviour and diatribe and the apparent intent to export Marxist revolution and destabilization to other countries in the hemisphere.

We have an interest in preventing the overthrow of free, humane, democratic governments, particularly those so hard won against our prior worst violations of international decency, by the failed dogma of Marxist/Stalinist tyranny.