Chavez to sell our F-16s to Iran (1 Viewer)

[easyt65]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/16/D8HL07900.html

Venezuela Weighs Selling U.S. Jets to Iran
CARACAS, Venezuela

Venezuela is considering selling its fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to another country, perhaps Iran, in response to a U.S. ban on arms sales to President Hugo Chavez's government, a military official said Tuesday.

Gen. Alberto Muller, a senior adviser to Chavez, told The Associated Press he had recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela consider selling the 21 jets to another country.

Muller said he thought it was worthwhile to consider "the feasibility of a negotiation with Iran for the sale of those planes."

You know how that country is troubled with guerilla fighters/terrorists - hope they keep those F-16s secure! It would be a shame if they somehow started blowing/blew up on their runway!

 

[python416]

Too bad the GOP's energy policies have put so much power in the hands of the oil producers that there is no much the US could do if Chavez did decide to sell them to Iran. They can't get too pissy with Chavez, cause the US still needs their oil.

That is national security and patriotism - GOP style!

 

[easyt65]

Too bad the GOP's energy policies have put so much power in the hands of the oil producers that there is no much the US could do if Chavez did decide to sell them to Iran. The US still needs their oil.

That is national security and patriotism - GOP style!

Nice anti-Bush/GOP spin there, pal! I post a thread about an Anti-American (Not Anti- BUSH) Communist who just nationalized (STOLE) over $3 Billion in U.S. investments in their country and is now conspiring to sell our aircraft to the enemy that aided the perpetrators of 9/11, and you make this a biased 'party' thing! :roll:

FYI, only 15% of the U.S.'s oil comes from this country and can be easily off-set by purchasing more from other countries. While you are blaming Bush's 6-year administration for the U.S.'s entire history of oil consumption and 'failed' energy policies, maybe you can explain why the DNC-controlled congress or previous Democratic Presidential administrations over a period of MANY YEARS failed to do anything about our dependence on oil?! On second thought - DON'T! I'm allergic to BS!

Anyway, back to the REAL topic - a communist nation threatening to sell our military aircraft to an enemy nation......

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Chavez will do anything to piss off Bush. Well from his point of view he means emperor Bush

 

[easyt65]

Well from his point of view....

And you know this HOW?:thinking

 

[python416]

Nice anti-Bush/GOP spin there, pal! I post a thread about an Anti-American (Not Anti- BUSH) Communist who just nationalized (STOLE) over $3 Billion in U.S. investments in their country and is now conspiring to sell our aircraft to the enemy that aided the perpetrators of 9/11, and you make this a biased 'party' thing! :roll:

I am not a fan of communism, which is why I think the US shouldn't be proping up Chavez by continuing to fail to curb demand for oil.

FYI, only 15% of the U.S.'s oil comes from this country and can be easily off-set by purchasing more from other countries. While you are blaming Bush's 6-year administration for the U.S.'s entire history of oil consumption and 'failed' energy policies, maybe you can explain why the DNC-controlled congress or previous Democratic Presidential administrations over a period of MANY YEARS failed to do anything about our dependence on oil?! On second thought - DON'T! I'm allergic to BS!

We are all aware that only 15% of oil comes from this country, but you can't just offset it by purchasing from other countries, because most of them still have the same issues.

The failure is squarly on Bush because it has always been Bush policy that Americans are entitled to consume as much gas as they want (even after September 11th), despite the political capital to change everything on September 12th.

Anyway, back to the REAL topic - a communist nation threatening to sell our military aircraft to an enemy nation......

Sure, back to it. What do you recommend they do about it? Send a nasty letter to Chavez? Or maybe send it to Iran? (Opps forgot it is a no no to speak directly to Iran) Cause that is all you can do given both countries hold over energy security - thanks to the GOP's broken energy policies.

Your post about two countries (enemies of the US) trading weapons (made by the US) against the wishes of the US. But the reality is that the reason the US is powerless to anything about it is because of the "addiction to oil" that Bush just realized a few months back. This isn't offtopic.

 

[Kandahar]

As long as Chavez keeps the oil flowing, he is entirely irrelevant to American security concerns. Is he a douchebag? Absolutely. Is he destabilizing South America? Most definitely. But can he possibly inflict any real harm on the United States short of stopping oil sales? No.

I agree that we should've stopped selling him weapons long ago, but if he sells them to Iran it'll be only a symbolic gesture of support. Chavez doesn't have enough weapons to seriously help Iran.

 

[easyt65]

I am not a fan of communism, which is why I think the US shouldn't be proping up Chavez by continuing to fail to curb demand for oil.

The U.S. was not buying oil from Chavez to prop up a communist goverment. Exxon sunk $3 billion into those oil fields not to prop up Chavez but for those last 2 consecutive quarters of $11+ Billion and $8+ Billion PROFIT, my friend!

The failure is squarly on Bush because it has always been Bush policy that Americans are entitled to consume as much gas as they want (even after September 11th), despite the political capital to change everything on September 12th.....But the reality is that the reason the US is powerless to anything about it is because of the "addiction to oil" that Bush just realized a few months back. :spin:

That's right - I forgot the United States didn't use oil When the Democrats ran congress or when Clinton was President. Of course, the country's population was not growing that whole time either! :shock: D@mn that Bush - as soon as he got into the White House, the population exploded, we reverted to an oil-based energy policy, and started consuming it like a drunken sailor on shore leave! Good gosh, and to think we only began this binge 6 years ago!

That's your freakin' explanation of how the Democrats had nothing to do with where we are today? :rofl
While you are at it, Why don't you join that Dem DA running for office in re-writing the holocaust story!

Sure, back to it. What do you recommend they do about it? Send a nasty letter to Chavez? Or maybe send it to Iran? (Opps forgot it is a no no to speak directly to Iran) Cause that is all you can do given both countries hold over energy security - thanks to the GOP's broken energy policies.

Everytime you open up your mouth, the two most obvious things that come out are your hatred for Bush and your ignorance, as in things like diplomacy issues. :2razz:

 

[Captain America]

And everytime you open your mouth it is offensive and inflammatory to our fellow posters here and I, for one, am getting damn sick and tired of it.

Can you possibly attack a message without attacking the messenger or diverting the message into a lib/dem bashing spectacle?

Can't you mods do ANYTHING about this member?

:blastem:

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Diplomacy?

Can't the planes just "accidentally" blow up while sitting on the runway? BUt on the other hand... 16 iranians in f-16s that we already got paid for..... Sounds like target practice to me. IT would be no serious threat. Although I still like plan "A"

 

[Captain America]

Might as well sell 'em. They sure as hell ain't gettin' no replacement parts for 'em.:mrgreen:

Besides, don't Iran have all those Iragi jets Saddam hid over there back during Gulf War I? Or did they give them all back to Iraq?

 

[python416]

The U.S. was not buying oil from Chavez to prop up a communist goverment. Exxon sunk $3 billion into those oil fields not to prop up Chavez but for those last 2 consecutive quarters of $11+ Billion and $8+ Billion PROFIT, my friend!

Yes they profit, and Chavez is proped up in the process. Are you trying to suggest that oil profits are not part of the equation in Chavez's power?

That's right - I forgot the United States didn't use oil When the Democrats ran congress or when Clinton was President. Of course, the country's population was not growing that whole time either! :shock: D@mn that Bush - as soon as he got into the White House, the population exploded, we reverted to an oil-based energy policy, and started consuming it like a drunken sailor on shore leave! Good gosh, and to think we only began this binge 6 years ago!

First off all, 911 changed things a bit. Did it not?

I don't remember any of Clinton's press secrataries getting up and saying that American's were entitled to consume as much oil as they wanted to, like Ari did back in 2002.

That's your freakin' explanation of how the Democrats had nothing to do with where we are today? :rofl
While you are at it, Why don't you join that Dem DA running for office in re-writing the holocaust story!

Again, things were different after 911. Bush was the one who declared a war on terrorism. So he is the one that should make sure the US isn't paying for both sides of the war (the US side and the terrorist side through oil)

Everytime you open up your mouth, the two most obvious things that come out are your hatred for Bush and your ignorance, as in things like diplomacy issues. :2razz:

Yes, you have really stumped me with your excellent research and eloquent expression. I feel embarassed.

Oil is at the center of most of the big problems in the US, and those problems could have been made less after 911. But what do you expect when you got an oil croonie designing national (and international) energy policy behind closed doors with a bunch os his croonie buddies.

I expect that you might get situations like being impotent to do anything about one enemy country selling US F-16s into the "Axis of Evil".

Ohh look, that is what is probably about to happen.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Might as well sell 'em. They sure as hell ain't gettin' no replacement parts for 'em.:mrgreen:

Besides, don't Iran have all those Iragi jets Saddam hid over there back during Gulf War I? Or did they give them all back to Iraq?

More things for us to shoot at ...LOL

Not like there going to ever actually get off the ground.

One broken part and the billion dollar plane is a playground...lol

 

[python416]

More things for us to shoot at ...LOL

Not like there going to ever actually get off the ground.

One broken part and the billion dollar plane is a playground...lol

Single engine F-16 A/Bs are no match for most of the fighters now in service, and certainly no match for the F-22A which went into service in December 2005.

 

[The_Real_ElRoi]

Nice anti-Bush/GOP spin there, pal! I post a thread about an Anti-American (Not Anti- BUSH) Communist who just nationalized (STOLE) over $3 Billion in U.S. investments in their country and is now conspiring to sell our aircraft to the enemy that aided the perpetrators of 9/11, and you make this a biased 'party' thing! :roll:

FYI, only 15% of the U.S.'s oil comes from this country and can be easily off-set by purchasing more from other countries. While you are blaming Bush's 6-year administration for the U.S.'s entire history of oil consumption and 'failed' energy policies, maybe you can explain why the DNC-controlled congress or previous Democratic Presidential administrations over a period of MANY YEARS failed to do anything about our dependence on oil?! On second thought - DON'T! I'm allergic to BS!

Anyway, back to the REAL topic - a communist nation threatening to sell our military aircraft to an enemy nation......

You should read a little history and stop listening to Rush so much. Crawl out of that Neo-Con bubble you and the rest of those flag waving delusionals are living and maybe, just maybe, you might actually come to the realization of what is really going on in the world.

Read all three of these books and you will have a pretty good understanding of why things are so screwed up around the world, how they got to be that way, and that, unfortunately, there is very little hope for change.

First read, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155

Then, Noam Chomsky's "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/ (This is the entire book online)

Or Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance," which expands considerably on the theme's of the former work.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155 much expanded

Finally, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155



Enjoy

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Single engine F-16 A/Bs are no match for most of the fighters now in service, and certainly no match for the F-22A which went into service in December 2005.

Exactly... NOt to mention the pilots that would be flying them I doubt are going to be the elite of the elite

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You should read a little history and stop listening to Rush so much. Crawl out of that Neo-Con bubble you and the rest of those flag waving delusional are living and maybe, just maybe, you might actually come to the realization of what is really going on in the world.

Read all three of these books and you will have a pretty good understanding of why things are so screwed up around the world, how they got to be that way, and that, unfortunately, there is very little hope for change.

First read, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155

Then, Noam Chomsky's "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/ (This is the entire book online)

Or Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance," which expands considerably on the theme's of the former work.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155 much expanded

Finally, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155



Enjoy

CHomsky eh..... imagine that ....:rofl

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't remember any of Clinton's press secrataries getting up and saying that American's were entitled to consume as much oil as they wanted to, like Ari did back in 2002.

You mean Americans don't have the freedom to buy as much oil as they can afford? Why not?

Again, things were different after 911. Bush was the one who declared a war on terrorism. So he is the one that should make sure the US isn't paying for both sides of the war (the US side and the terrorist side through oil)

That's right. We should be building nuclear reactors, eliminating all internal barriers to domestic oil exploitation, and eliminating all silly rules from the EPA creating ever more expensive specialized blends of motor fuel. We need more hydroelectric damns, and screw the tree huggers that complain. We should strip mine more and more coal, until the nuclear plants come on line, especially on the east coast, where the acidic smoke plumes can go out over the Atlantic and bother Europe. It's all Bush's fault that none of this has been done.

Oil is at the center of most of the big problems in the US, and those problems could have been made less after 911.

Oh...? How?

But what do you expect when you got an oil croonie designing national (and international) energy policy behind closed doors with a bunch os his croonie buddies.

What'd they do, resurrect Bing Crosby?

I expect that you might get situations like being impotent to do anything about one enemy country selling US F-16s into the "Axis of Evil".

Well, let's look at the real world.

We could exercise the clause of the contract I'm sure exists, and stop the sale via the World Commie Courts. The birds will be in Tehran before that sorry process is barely started, of course. But liberals like suing, so this would make them happy, especially if it highlights the impotence of the other socialist party.

We could spend a million bucks for each cruise missile to blow them up on the runway, and face a whole bunch of boo-hoo-hooing from important places like France at the risks we took with civillian lives (not that I care), and hear yakety-yak about "unilateral agression" etc, 'til some of us will yak for real.

Since the Venusians probably lack in-flight refueling technology, we can probably just find the ship they're riding on and sink it with a torpedo...oops, that poor ship had a boo-boo. Must have been an unsecured warhead with the aircraft Venuzuela "forget" to put on the manifest. (my preferred method)

If they do fly over, well, F117A's won't show up on their radar, perhaps the inexperienced Venusian pilots aren't any better than the dumb Chinese that ran into our EP3, and Venezuela has an unfortunate unprecendented but not impossible string of 16 in-flight fatal accidents?

Okay they get to Iran. So what? They're obsolete aircraft, after all. We know everything there is to know about them. Venuzeula is out 16 birds, Iran has sixteen more that we can blow up on Iran runways just as easy as Venusian runways, can't we? Needless to say, we have more assets in place near Iran to do the job than we do near Venezuela. All in all, let them get sold. It's just pointless posturing by a petty tin-pot sparrow trying to bolster his image by taunting the eagle. Why pay any attention at all?

 

[The_Real_ElRoi]

Can one of you "patriots" explain to me from where did those F-16's originate?

The US, I do believe.

 

[oldreliable67]

And everytime you open your mouth it is offensive and inflammatory to our fellow posters here and I, for one, am getting damn sick and tired of it.

Can you possibly attack a message without attacking the messenger or diverting the message into a lib/dem bashing spectacle?

Can't you mods do ANYTHING about this member?

:blastem:

Just speaking for myself, I have yet to find easy's post "offensive or inflammatory".

 

[oldreliable67]

Can one of you "patriots" explain to me from where did those F-16's originate?

The US, I do believe.

You got me, there is something I'm not seeing there. So maybe you can explain the relevance of that post?

 

[The_Real_ElRoi]

You got me, there is something I'm not seeing there. So maybe you can explain the relevance of that post?

I guess maybe my point is that we shouldn't have ever sold them in the first place, huh? Oh, wait a minute, if we had done that some military contractor wouldn't have had the opportunity to make millions of dollars on the sales so that they could pump large amounts of that profit back into the coffers of politicians who gladly in turn create legislation to financially benefit the military contractor and somehow it always costs the American tax payers.

 

[python416]

You mean Americans don't have the freedom to buy as much oil as they can afford? Why not?

The Ari Fletcher quote was more to the point that there is no need to conserve. American's have the right to burn what they want to. My comment is not a dig a market economies; it is a dig at basically telling the public that they don't need to conserve at all. (which implies that no one should be concerned about the side effects of burning oil - such as proping up autocratic regimes that hate America).

That's right. We should be building nuclear reactors, eliminating all internal barriers to domestic oil exploitation, and eliminating all silly rules from the EPA creating ever more expensive specialized blends of motor fuel. We need more hydroelectric damns, and screw the tree huggers that complain. We should strip mine more and more coal, until the nuclear plants come on line, especially on the east coast, where the acidic smoke plumes can go out over the Atlantic and bother Europe. It's all Bush's fault that none of this has been done.

What needs to be done is starting (although about 5 years too late) the migration from oil based energy.

Oil is at the center of most of the big problems in the US, and those problems could have been made less after 911.

Oh...? How?

Um maybe you are missing my bigger point:

The current configuration of the economy channels money out of the pockets of Americans and into the pockets of the regimes that support terrorism and hate the US. That is one part of the big problem.

And a way that could have been made less after 911 would have been to acknoledge that and start a apollo or manhatten style project to find a solution to our energy problems.

What'd they do, resurrect Bing Crosby?

Not sure what you are asking here.

Well, let's look at the real world.

Yes, let's!

We could exercise the clause of the contract I'm sure exists, and stop the sale via the World Commie Courts. The birds will be in Tehran before that sorry process is barely started, of course. But liberals like suing, so this would make them happy, especially if it highlights the impotence of the other socialist party.

We could spend a million bucks for each cruise missile to blow them up on the runway, and face a whole bunch of boo-hoo-hooing from important places like France at the risks we took with civillian lives (not that I care), and hear yakety-yak about "unilateral agression" etc, 'til some of us will yak for real.

Since the Venusians probably lack in-flight refueling technology, we can probably just find the ship they're riding on and sink it with a torpedo...oops, that poor ship had a boo-boo. Must have been an unsecured warhead with the aircraft Venuzuela "forget" to put on the manifest. (my preferred method)

If they do fly over, well, F117A's won't show up on their radar, perhaps the inexperienced Venusian pilots aren't any better than the dumb Chinese that ran into our EP3, and Venezuela has an unfortunate unprecendented but not impossible string of 16 in-flight fatal accidents?

Okay they get to Iran. So what? They're obsolete aircraft, after all. We know everything there is to know about them. Venuzeula is out 16 birds, Iran has sixteen more that we can blow up on Iran runways just as easy as Venusian runways, can't we? Needless to say, we have more assets in place near Iran to do the job than we do near Venezuela. All in all, let them get sold. It's just pointless posturing by a petty tin-pot sparrow trying to bolster his image by taunting the eagle. Why pay any attention at all?

Yes they are obsolite and no match for even the F-16 C/D that would be flown by American trained pilots.

However, my point is that all this posturing by Iran and Chavez is only happening because they have all the power they could even want due to the current price of oil, and the continued US addiction to it.

The USAF could just blow them up in their hangers in one bombing run, but thanks to the need for the oil (brought to you by Cheney's energy policies), the US is still just one major oil disruption away from serious economic problems - so the US is impotent to do anything in response to Chavez's games, same with Putin, same with Iran, etc. Cause the oil has to keep flowing or the whole thing (as it is configured today - thanks to Cheney's policies) falls apart.

National security and patriotism - GOP style!

 

[ludahai]

I guess maybe my point is that we shouldn't have ever sold them in the first place, huh?

When were they sold to Venezuela? Pre or Post Hugo? Even so, typically, there is a clause in any sales contract that they won't be sold to third parties without U.S. approval. Still, can anyone actually expect Hugo to abide by contracts and agreements? Tin pot Third World thug.

 

[LogicalReason]

The F-16s are not really that big a deal. Their not the most state of the art aircraft, nor are they any competition to the most state of the art aircraft (which we have). Iran would not be able to 'challenge' us with them but who knows maybe one will get lucky. Anyway onto the oil!

http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.35 Venezuela Oil the one.htm
Any interruption in Venezuelan oil exports to the U.S. would bring significant disruption to both countries and Washington is beginning to plan for such a contingency. Oil accounts for half of Caracas’ revenue and 75 percent of its exports. Currently the U.S. purchases 60 percent of Venezuela's oil exports and according to analysts, finding new markets could prove daunting to Venezuelan authorities. The fact is, exporting to the U.S. market is convenient due to close proximity and low transportation costs. Additionally, U.S. refineries are particularly equipped to process Venezuela's sulphur-rich crude.

U.S. analysts doubt that Chavez can afford to drastically cut shipments to the United States. And if Chavez cut off oil supplies, argue government officials, the United States would quickly make up for the loss by seeking other sources. But a potential cut off would represent no small economic loss to the U.S., as oil imported from elsewhere would likely be more expensive. The reality is that for the U.S., purchasing Venezuelan crude is economically advantageous because the South American nation is geographically close to U.S. ports. In Washington, politicians are now hedging their bets. In a clear sign of concern, Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar has asked the Government Accountability Office to study how a sharp decrease in Venezuelan oil imports could affect the U.S. economy. Additionally, the Senate recently called for a review of the government’s plans "to make sure that all contingencies are in place to mitigate the effects of a significant shortfall of Venezuelan oil production, as this could have serious consequences for our nation's security and for the consumer at the pump."

We get 15% of our oil from them but they sell 60% of their oil to us. Without them we will experience even higher prices and possible shortages until we find a new supplier. Without us they lose their main market plus most of their country's revenue. Now I thought surely they could easily find a new market such as Asia and china.. nope...

Transporting oil to Asia, however, could prove logistically difficult. Pdvsa has expressed interest in moving oil across Panama to the Pacific Ocean via pipeline. The company is also exploring the idea of building such a facility across Venezuela’s northern border with Colombia, extending to that country’s Pacific coast. Shipping oil to Asia carries other logistical and infrastructural problems. China presently has an insufficient deep conversion refining capacity and transporting petroleum to the Asian giant would be costly due to the long distances involved. Moreover, the Panama pipeline eyed by Chavez already transports 100,000 barrels a day of Ecuadorian crude from the Pacific to the Atlantic. According to analysts, there is no way that the pipeline can be converted into being able to simultaneously ship Venezuelan oil to China in the opposite direction. Finally, China may be only interested in Venezuela in the short run, as Beijing is busy exploring for oil and gas closer to its shores in the South China Sea.

They need us as much as we need them. Scratch that. More than we need them. :smile: