• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arm the poor?

DC said:
The 15 countries with the highest military
expenditure in 2007 in market exchange
rate terms

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World share (%)
1 USA 547 45
2 UK 59.7 5
3 China 58.3 5
4 France 53.6 4
5 Japan 43.6 4
6 Germany 36.9 3
7 Russia 35.4 3
8 Saudi Arabia 33.8 3
9 Italy 33.1 3
10 India 24.2 2
11 South Korea 22.6 2
12 Brazil 15.3 1
13 Canada 15.2 1
14 Australia 15.1 1
15 Spain 14.6 1


yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf



and now compare to the title of the NYT.
Click to expand...
Try reading for comprehension.

The subject is spending on arms, not total defense expenditures.

Would you like to try again?
 
WildCat said:
Try reading for comprehension.

The subject is spending on arms, not total defense expenditures.

Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

why dont you ask the NYTimes for backup of the claims?
the burdon of proof lies on the NYT.

but maybe that part clears up alot of the fuss.

Correction: March 9, 2007

An article on Feb. 25 about an escalation in Venezuela’s arms spending referred incorrectly to a statistic cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States as evidence of a rapid arms buildup. It was a 12.5 percent increase in Venezuela’s 2006 defense budget, not an increase in the value of arms purchased by Venezuela last year.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DC said:
why dont you ask the NYTimes for backup of the claims?
the burdon of proof lies on the NYT.
Click to expand...
They did back up their claims. They showed that Venezuela outspent even Iran and Pakistan (far larger countries) on arms.

You claim they are lying, yet you are apparently unable to show any evidence of this.
 
WildCat said:
They did back up their claims. They showed that Venezuela outspent even Iran and Pakistan (far larger countries) on arms.

You claim they are lying, yet you are apparently unable to show any evidence of this.
Click to expand...

what was their evidence?
 
WildCat said:
They did back up their claims. They showed that Venezuela outspent even Iran and Pakistan (far larger countries) on arms.

You claim they are lying, yet you are apparently unable to show any evidence of this.
Click to expand...

and this means they are now near the world top ranks..... when the NYtimes sais it, it must be true eh :)
 
but now its time to go out.
i dont runn away, ill be back next week :)

have a nice weekend.
 
DC said:
yes and now deliver evidence to backup that claim. show me how they are anywhere near the WORLDS TOP spenders!!
Click to expand...

I never made the claim. You said it was lies. You have to prove it is false. You used the wrong data. Don't slip into truther mode and try and shift the burden of proof.
 
DC said:
state of the country?
well yes crime is a huge problem, and they better act on it soon.
PdVSA has a pretty high debt after tha fall of oil price. bad for the people.
they seem to work on the power shortage problem. like so many others they somehow didnt see that coming, stupid, just stupid.
the debt is stupid, but still not to worse i thought compared to other south american countrys.

and do you want to comment on the archievments of the current government in Venezuela? or didnt they archieve anything good?
Click to expand...

The price of oil is not the main reason that PDVSA are in a mess. The firing of the top guys is the biggest reason.

Give me an achievemnt and I will comment on it. I don't see many nowadays.
 
WildCat said:
The subject is spending on arms, not total defense expenditures.
Click to expand...


Like I pointed out above, any country's arms expenditures may bounce up when they make a major capital expenditure. That's why you have to know if these expenditure figures are amortized or not.

If you actually compare the capital in Venezuela's air force to the capital in Pakistan's air force, you'll notice that Pakistan has quite a larger number of fighter jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Pakistan_Air_Force#Combat_aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Like I pointed out above, any country's arms expenditures may bounce up when they make a major capital expenditure. That's why you have to know if these expenditure figures are amortized or not.

If you actually compare the capital in Venezuela's air force to the capital in Pakistan's air force, you'll notice that Pakistan has quite a larger number of fighter jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Pakistan_Air_Force#Combat_aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory
Click to expand...
None of that disproves anything the NYT said.
 
WildCat said:
None of that disproves anything the NYT said.
Click to expand...

True, but it gives the context for why the implications of the article *might* be overblown.

If you have four Mercedes-Benzes in your driveway that you bought last year three years ago, and I buy a Yaris this year, my car expenditures this year have not catapulted me into the top ranks of people pursuing a car buildup, at least not in any reasonable sense.
:P
 
Last edited:
Captain.Sassy said:
True, but it gives the context for why the implications of the article *might* be overblown.

If you have four Mercedes-Benzes in your driveway that you bought last year, and I buy a Yaris this year, my car expenditures this year have not catapulted me into the top ranks of people pursuing a car buildup, at least not in any reasonable sense.
:P
Click to expand...


That all very well but the Chavista said the article is lies and it has been shown he cannot back that up. It has been shown he used the wrong data to try and disprove it. The article was based on 2 years expenditure, I suggest you amend your analogy.
 
My point is unchanged. The big jump in Venezuelan defence expenditures is due to the big capital purchases.
 
It does to the extent that any country purchasing a large number of capital pieces to replace existing military capital would have to increase its defence budget, at least temporarily. If you look at it over a short period (which the article does) this is a poor comparator of relative arms expenditures between countries.

Look at it this way: the US puts an arms embargo on Venezuela, so Venezuela can't maintain its existing F-16 fleet. Venezuela then buys Sukhois to replace the F-16s, and the US decries their growing military expenditures. In fact, in large part, the Venezuelan arms expenditures are just maintaining Venezuela's existing capability.

There are new expenditure in there too, probably (like the subs), but again these are one-off capital expenditures. Unless the figures for Venezuela other comparator countries are amortized for the expected life of the capital, then it's nonsensical to compare them. They might be amortized, but from what I looked up about Pakistan and Venezuela's air forces, they probably aren't.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
It does to the extent that any country purchasing a large number of capital pieces to replace existing military capital would have to increase its defence budget, at least temporarily. If you look at it over a short period (which the article does) this is a poor comparator of relative arms expenditures between countries.

Look at it this way: the US puts an arms embargo on Venezuela, so Venezuela can't maintain its existing F-16 fleet. Venezuela then buys Sukhois to replace the F-16s, and the US decries their growing military expenditures. In fact, in large part, the Venezuelan arms expenditures are just maintaining Venezuela's existing capability.

There are new expenditure in there too, probably (like the subs), but again these are one-off capital expenditures. Unless the figures for Venezuela other comparator countries are amortized for the expected life of the capital, then it's nonsensical to compare them. They might be amortized, but from what I looked up about Pakistan and Venezuela's air forces, they probably aren't.
Click to expand...
Did you figure out the % GDP for arms/defense expenditure for Venezuala? That might be a more insightful look at what Hugo is doing, to and for his nation, for the past year, two years, four years, etc. I also think it might put Ms Clinton's remarks in a more useful context ... given that she is a politician, it is not beyond reason to think she might have been engaging in hyperbole.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Did you figure out the % GDP for arms/defense expenditure for Venezuala? That might be a more insightful look at what Hugo is doing, to and for his nation, for the past year, two years, four years, etc. I also think it might put Ms Clinton's remarks in a more useful context ... given that she is a politician, it is not beyond reason to think she might have been engaging in hyperbole.

DR
Click to expand...

No I didn't, and I don't have the understanding of the life and costs for maintenance of capital military expenditures to venture a guess.

But, I do have a confession to make to you:

Earlier in the thread you noted the US spends like 4% GDP on defence, and I said 'I think Sweden spends something like the same amount, actually.' I got this impression from a defence analyst I talked to once. I asked him why Canada couldn't have a thriving domestic arms industry, since Sweden seems to be able to develop and field its own tanks and fighter planes. He told me that he talked to someone from the Swedish defence agency and asked him the same question, and that person's answer was 'we spend a LOT'.

So, that was how my retarded post got made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom