I thought Spain was an avowed anti-nuclear nation? How would they have nuclear materials to sell to Chavez?

don't know. But Barcepundit quotes the paper as saying:

Report’s statistics show that Venezuela was the only country under the category “countries to which chemical warfare agents and radioactive materials were sold“. Worth noting that the said category includes “biological and nerve agents destined to chemical warfare” of which Venezuela bought €30.374.

Spain is now run by Socialits. As Churchill said to "Peace in Our Time" Neville "You can never take a Socilist at his word. To them the ends justify the means." In other words believe nothing you hear nowdays from Spain.

30.000 Euro doesn't buy you much in weapons. Also Venezuela has a large chemical industry so i doubt that they will need European help to really make chemical weapons.

ps. If you read between the lines you will read that they sold teargas guns for 200.000 and teargas cannisters for 30.000 It is a total none story probably floated by pro-Chavez forces to let the anti-Chavez look bad.

Honestly, I'm more concerned with all the new AKs.

The last paragraph qouted is also telling; sounds like Hugo is looking to create some goon squads and beef up his riot police.

Another €509.229 consisted of “paramilitary and security material” which encompasses “firearms or gas weapons, bombs, grenades, explosives, armoured and all terrain vehicles, water canons, telescopic sights and night vision devices, etc.”

Agreed, not enough money in this to be anything serious. 'Nuclear materials' could be radioactive iodine for all we know. I would be less suprised to see Venezuela selling chemical weapons to Spain.

Another €509.229 consisted of “paramilitary and security material” which encompasses “firearms or gas weapons, bombs, grenades, explosives, armoured and all terrain vehicles, water canons, telescopic sights and night vision devices, etc.”

Why would a socialist paradise need such things? I'm confused.

As far as I know Spain has never had or developed any chemical, biological or nuclear weapon. The worst military artifact ever conceived in this corner of Europe was a fuel-air bomb.

I don't know if you are correct pre-1850 but Spain wasn't exactly a forrunner in technology in the modern time.

Post WWII, German small arms designers found a welcome in Spain. CETME built a Spanish service rifle that was the descendant of the MP44 / StG44 design and the forerunner of the German G3.

So what did Venezuela buy? My spanish is way to bad to look it up but i wouldn't be surprised if it was out there.

Chavez wants to be the Francisco Solano Lopez of Venezuela.

Chavez plans to use them on Venezuelans, not Americans. He knows the economy will soon collapse and a civil war will ensue. Increased oil revenues will bolster him for awhile, but not long. What is it with Latinos and autocrats?

The Spanish govt has responded to this by saying the material in question is CS, a form of tear gas. I'll be posting a response tomorrow on that - including some of the reasons why CS is sold in the chem warfare category. Too beat to do it right now & have to get ready for work tomorrow ...

Why it is in the Chem. warfare category? Because tear gas is a chemical weapon. Duh.

The Spanish govt has responded to this by saying the material in question is CS ...

That makes sense, considering the massive amounts of tear gas that Chavez has expended over the last couple of years.

It's downright sporting of those Spanish socialists to sell him more CS to gas the crap out of the masses.

Maybe Venezuela wouldn't feel like they needed these weapons if other countries didn't, ya know, comply with attempts to overthrow their democratically elected leader?

given the hostility to the democratically elected Chavez government in Washington, you really can't blame them if Venezuela decides it wants to be part of the nuclear club.

In other words, if Venezuela is going nuclear, wingnuts like yourself have Bushco to blame, because Venezuela has a legitimate right to defend itself, and the US has shown that it is willing to wage wars of agression on the slightest (and false) pretext to control oil.

I don't know why you are so happy because Latinamericans have to suffer the leftist ideology that the Americans, wisely, not allow on its soil. Its a tragedy to have a populist leader as Chavez or Castro (or Zapatero) whose ideas are far away from reality. That, among other things, hurts the economy and triggers inmigration waves.

By the way, Hitler and Milosevic were also democraticaly elected. The hostility of Washington against them saved many lives.

Chavez is a poor example to use as being democratically elected. Jimmy Carter's assurances aside, the recent referendum was a joke. Not even considering the voting fraud and ballot stuffing, the thugish intimdation by the Chaveznistas is all that is necessary to demonstrate this fact.

Chavez is a fascist. Why would we expect leftists to be against that?

Okay, I don't have time to do the full post yet, but this needs a response:

Why it is in the Chem. warfare category? Because tear gas is a chemical weapon. Duh.

Not, a. CS is generally considered a riot control substance.

Use of it in warfare is, however, forbidden by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (signed 1993, in effect as of 1997).

Also IIRC Spain as a signatory did not declare either chem weapons stockpiles OR manufacturing facilities. One reason for the raised eyebrows over the export report, no matter how small the transaction.

Chavez is a poor example to use as being democratically elected.

And the fact that people believe otherwise is a good example of MSM "memory hole" journalism.

Only the Wall Street Journal, so far as I know, reported on the Harvard/MIT study that showed the Carter Center's election audit was based on a badly broken model.

Chavez is a poor example to use as being democratically elected. Jimmy Carter's assurances aside, the recent referendum was a joke. Not even considering the voting fraud and ballot stuffing, the thugish intimdation by the Chaveznistas is all that is necessary to demonstrate this fact.

Chavez is a fascist. Why would we expect leftists to be against that?

A. A fascist wouldn't have allowed the recall vote.

B. I don't think Chavez is perfect by any means, but he seems to have the support of the majority of Venezuelan people--especially the poor.

C. How come none of this anger is directed at the truly authoritarian regimes in Central Asia who don't even try to put up a facade of democracy. Oh wait, those are are GWoT allies. Our partners in peace. And they don't have any scary poor people exerting influence in their governments.

Also, we shouldn't support coups of leaders who are democratically elected (I know you question the validity of the recall--but this skepticism is not universal and the Harvard/MIT study has been debunked. Frankly, I don't know whom to believe.)

Smitty: ...the Harvard/MIT study has been debunked.

If you're referring to the "debunking" by Stanford statistician Jonathon Taylor, he has retracted it.

If you're referring to the attacks on the professors who participated in it, slandering them does not debunk the study.

Smitty (#24)

A. A fascist wouldn't have allowed the recall vote.

Why not? If he could be sure that he would win... Milosevic called for national elections months before the Kosovo war.

[Chavez] seems to have the support of the majority of Venezuelan people--especially the poor.

So what? The majority may not be right. Please note that the American governing system has a third branch and a Supreme Court, where any unconstitutional legislation approved by the majority of the people is stopped. Moreover, as far as I know any American court may rule about it, which is a powerful right. In America, the rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution are above everything.

In Socialist regimes, the third branch, the judicial branch, is controlled by the executive, usually appointing activist judges to the high and appeal courts. This process, translated from Spanish, is known as to bury Montesquieu (Montesquieu, the french philosopher that, observing the English system, conceived the separation of the government in three branches). Therefore the political system in Venezuela, or Serbia, sadly cannot be compared to what happens in America. In those countries well manipulated people make their leader allmighty, above the freedoms and rights of anyone, because in fact there is only one branch of the government.

A. A fascist wouldn't have allowed the recall vote.

one would be far more impressed with the wingnuts concerns about Chavez's supposed "fascism" if they were half as concerned with American support for the far more oppressive, non-democratic, and corrupt Saudi regime.

Chavez scares the right wing to death, because Venezuela's oil means that the US cannot achieve the economic isolation of Chavez in the way it has with every other Latin American leader who wants to redistribute the wealth of their nation away from the oligarchs to all of the people of their nations. Chavez's success would be a complete economic and political realignment of Latin American people away from the "banana republic" model to a socialist model.

I guess everyone has their pet tyrants. Heck, how bad can communism be? Whats the worst that could happen?

I guess everyone has their pet tyrants. Heck, how bad can communism be? Whats the worst that could happen?

the worst that could happen is North Korea, USSR, etc.

But "the worst" seems to happen only when socialist governments are threatened by the USA. When there is no threat, as happens in highly Socialized nations of Western Europe, things turn out quite well.

Its not socialism/communism that is the problem. Its whether a given nation sees themselves threatened (especially by/with the help of outside forces) that leads to the kinds of political suppression seen in places like North Korea---and Saudi Arabia, and Chile under Pinochet, and Iran under the Shah.

Face it, the Bush regime's antipathy toward Chavez has nothing to do with political repression, because Bushco is quite comfortable with far worse regimes all over the world. Hell, you only have to look at what is happening with the mayor of Mexico City, and the US's silence on the attempt by the pro-US Mexican politicians to prevent him from running for President, to see how hypocritical the US is.

Chavez...whose ideas...[hurt] the economy

The Venezuelan economy is growing quite well right now. I guess when you said "hurt the economy" you meant "help the poor"?

I found the following description of an anti-Chavez protest quite humorous:

frosted blondes in high heels clutching designer bags, screeching, "Chavez - dic-ta-dor!" The plantation owner griped about the "socialismo" of Chavez, then jumped into his Jaguar convertible

Also, again I would suggest that we shouldn't support coups of leaders who are generally assumed to be democratically elected and are posing no threat to us.

When there is no threat, as happens in highly Socialized nations of Western Europe, things turn out quite well.

Its not socialism/communism that is the problem. Its whether a given nation sees themselves threatened (especially by/with the help of outside forces) that leads to the kinds of political suppression seen in places like North Korea---and Saudi Arabia, and Chile under Pinochet, and Iran under the Shah.

Face it, the Bush regime's antipathy toward Chavez has nothing to do with political repression, because Bushco is quite comfortable with far worse regimes all over the world.

WRT US policy though...The US is not ALL powerful, though you seem to think so. The world can't chnage on a dime. It's not so much that Chavez's socialism is the problem, it's more the facist, totalitarian aspects. One battle at a time. Just keep the vector towards increasing freedom.

Hell, you only have to look at what is happening with the mayor of Mexico City, and the US's silence on the attempt by the pro-US Mexican politicians to prevent him from running for President, to see how hypocritical the US is.

So, your point is that the US should meddle in Mexican politics? Is the US supposed to interfere with other nations or not? Or is it that interference is OK when your political views or supported? Otherwise, it is immoral? Or is it that any indigenous Mexican political group that shares some interests with the US is by definition illegitimate?

The Venezuelan economy is growing quite well right now. I guess when you said "hurt the economy" you meant "help the poor"?

Also, again I would suggest that we shouldn't support coups of leaders who are generally assumed to be democratically elected and are posing no threat to us.

Doesn't seem like a whole lot for the US to be ashamed of here, unless of course we consider Jimmy Carter's performance as an election monitor.

Mark Buehner: Heck, how bad can communism be?

That reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: GUS HALL FOR PRESIDENT - LET'S GET IT OVER WITH.

Doesn't seem like a whole lot for the US to be ashamed of here

Financial & political support for a coup to unseat a democratically elected leader?

Upon further reading, I've found that the Harvard/MIT study was conducted by two anti-Chavez Venezuelans. That alone makes the document suspect. The Carter Center has issued a response and answered the questions raised in the study. I'm not a statistician, so I don't know whom to believe, frankly.

I'm not a statistician, so I don't know whom to believe, frankly.

Here's what got me worried about the referendum...

Electronic polling machines were used WITHOUT a papper trail. And then President Carter and hus group certified it. How crazy is that? Did they examine the source code? Did they examine the actual executable machine code loaded into the machines auditted? Without these steps, certifying an electronic election is only so much hand waving.

BTW, I have these same concerns about electronic polling in the US. There's nothing more resistant to undetectable, widespread fraud than simple paper ballots. And there's nothing more susceptable to widespread autofraud than electronic ones.

I don't think Carter realizes this.

Is there any evidence that the US is trying to topple Chavez, or is he just a little paranoid from chewing too many coca leaves?