PDA

View Full Version : Colombia Vs Ecuador and Venezuela?


Fredi
03-03-2008, 08:07 PM
Oh God ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/02/chavez.colombia/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Not only that look at this

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/03/ecuador.colombia/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Totenkopf
03-03-2008, 08:33 PM
Almost makes you wonder if Chavez is on some kind of narcotic. He clearly fancies himself the next coming of the still living Castro. Will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Saber rattling for now, but who knows where it could go if left unchecked.

SilentScope001
03-03-2008, 11:17 PM
Er. You do realize that Colobmia was the nation who attacked the terrorists in the territories of Educaor, crossing national boundaries? And that civilians may have died in that raid? Geez, why don't you at listen listen to Venuezlan properganda?

Pfft. It's all political posturing anyway. Chavez may be stupid, but he's not insane. Colombia is backed by the USA anyway. What I am worried about more is about FARC and the right-wing paramilitary groups...are they growing stronger? Will Colombia suffer?

Corinthian
03-03-2008, 11:35 PM
That...doesn't sound good at all. I'm not concerned about Chavez - if worse comes to worse, we'll deploy troops to assist Colombia. FARC, on the other hand, purchased 50 kilograms of uranium, which, If I remember what I've read about nukes properly, is more than enough material to construct an atomic device.

Goody.

Totenkopf
03-03-2008, 11:55 PM
Er. You do realize that Colobmia was the nation who attacked the terrorists in the territories of Educaor, crossing national boundaries? And that civilians may have died in that raid? Geez, why don't you at listen listen to Venuezlan properganda?

Pfft. It's all political posturing anyway. Chavez may be stupid, but he's not insane. Colombia is backed by the USA anyway. What I am worried about more is about FARC and the right-wing paramilitary groups...are they growing stronger? Will Colombia suffer?

Well, of course Columbia will continue to suffer. As long as Chavez can pump all kinds of money into a group like FARC, that's unaviodable. Still, what would you do if your neighbor was pumping in $$hundreds of millions into an insurgent/terrorist group operating in your country?

Arcesious
03-04-2008, 12:00 AM
What stupid, moronic, tyranical leaders/rulers/dictators this world has... Makes you really want to do soemthing about it, but then the problem is that in the powerful people's eyes, we're just lowly, pathetic citizens with very little intelligence, just drones... *sighs* Why can't I have lived in a starwars or startrek universe instead of being stuck on this pathetic planet...?

Totenkopf
03-04-2008, 12:02 AM
You don't actually believe you'd amount to anymore than that in those universes, do you?

Corinthian
03-04-2008, 12:04 AM
Oh, yeah, the Star Trek universe is great. Enjoy being Borg.

And as for Star Wars, take a brief look at Star Wars history. The GFFA is more war-torn than Earth by far.

Arcesious
03-04-2008, 12:15 AM
I see your point. Maybe I just would've liked a more interesting life like if I was Yoda or Picard instead of being stuck with a mediocre, boring life.

Web Rider
03-04-2008, 11:55 AM
Enjoy being Borg.
At least you couldn't say that anyone is better than you.

on the topic at hand, yeah, I've been keeping up with this, apparenty Columbia had been trying to enlist Equadorian aid for years in solving the problem, but they didn't do squat so Columbia took it into their own hands to solve the problem, I can't really blame them, especially if this group has a possible nuke.

The last thing the US needs to do is deploy troops we don't have into a situation that will very likly spiral waaaaaaaay out of control.

Jae Onasi
03-04-2008, 12:59 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Chavez tries to use this as an excuse to grab some territory from Colombia. Chavez took a building that one of our church's missionaries was planning on buying without compensation to the owner, and the gov't seized our missionary's plane that he used to transport food and medical supplies to interior tribes, with no warning. Chavez also made some threats against any Americans there, so our missionaries were ordered by the State dept. to leave immediately for their own safety.

A man willing to steal from his own people will have no qualms about stealing from another country. The question will be how far he dares to go with whatever schemes he has in mind.

JediAthos
03-04-2008, 01:52 PM
From what I've seen of Chavez, the guy is a Grade A nut job...so none of this really surprises me considering his involvement. I'm not sure what obligations the United States has to Colombia in the event they are attacked/invaded etc...but even Chavez has to know he's playing with fire.

SilentScope001
03-04-2008, 02:25 PM
Well, of course Columbia will continue to suffer. As long as Chavez can pump all kinds of money into a group like FARC, that's unaviodable. Still, what would you do if your neighbor was pumping in $$hundreds of millions into an insurgent/terrorist group operating in your country?

Says Colombia, who just HAPPENS to stumble upon the evidence when this entire crisis began...instead of revealing the evidence beforehand. So, let trust Colombia, right, instead of trying to indepedently verify the 'proof'? Honestly, that revalation destroyed any bit of credibility I had for the Colombian regime. FARC had existed for 40 years, with and without outside assistance, and I'm thinking Álvaro Uribe may also be a nutjob along with Chavez, in that he blames outside powers for his own internal problems.

Totenkopf
03-04-2008, 04:07 PM
As long as Chavez keeps his troops in VZ, he can rattle his saber for as long as it takes for him to feel muy(sp?) macho. Since the incursion was into Equador, he has no real standing to act vs Columbia. And really, what dif if they didn't wait. I mean, who are they going to "expose" their info to? The UN (rofl)? That pack of impotent jackals does nothing but issue empty procolamations and such. If their intent was to take out some of these terrorists, then it's never wise to tip your hand. Equador's govt can't bitch too vociferously if they are helping FARC out, especially since the target was FARC, same goes for Chavez.

I have no doubt that a lot of the timing of this is obviously due to America's preoccupation elsewhere. No doubt a lot of the dictators down there are "off". Also agree that ANY terrorist group having a nuke is BAD BAD BAD. Unfortunately, the genie is out of that bottle and someone is going to eventually get their hands on something. Just cross your fingers and hope your not in the target zone.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-04-2008, 04:35 PM
on the topic at hand, yeah, I've been keeping up with this, apparenty Columbia had been trying to enlist Equadorian aid for years in solving the problem, but they didn't do squat so Columbia took it into their own hands to solve the problem, I can't really blame them, especially if this group has a possible nuke.

Does that justifies anything?

Ecuador president, Rafael Correa, seems to follow the populist style of both Morales and Chávez, while Uribe is an US pawn. And even if they (Ecuador) were letting FARC members inside their territory, it's their decision.

This is about sovereignty. If, let's suppose, Canada would make an incursion into North American territory on a search for a wanted individual back on Canada. Is that not an act of war?

In fact, it doesn't even matter if civilians were hurt or not; as I reiterate: That's an act of war.

Totenkopf
03-04-2008, 08:40 PM
Well, then, would you support declaring war on a major power if they send a team of assassins into your territory to eliminate a problem that you are harboring? The Cold War was replete with that kind of activity, with CIA/KGB/etc.. agents eliminating threats within the borders of other sovereign nations. If Canada allowed itself to become a known haven of anti-US terrorism, I imagine that we would "violate their sovereignty" as needed to eliminate those threats. Military espionage is also arguably an act of war. Should America declare war on the PRC for its attempts to steal US nuke and missle techology? What about attempts to blatantly manipulate another country's economy? Almost reminds me of the whole Cambodia/Vietnam argument. Going into Cambodia was not an expansion of the war b/c Cambodia was already involved in the conflict. Same for Laos.

tk102
03-04-2008, 09:40 PM
I find it a bit strange that the Colombian authorities suddenly fall on that "evidence" (nukes and financing)...just when Chavez and Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba (who isn't in Uribe's party) were having some success in their negociations for the liberation of FARC hostages, something to which Uribe was opposed.Hey it worked with Iraq!

Corinthian
03-04-2008, 09:53 PM
Darth, if the U.S. had a unit of terrorists inside our borders that were launching attacks on Mexico, Mexico located them, we'd deal with the problem ourselves and thank the Mexicans for helping us find some more of the scum. Well, maybe not the thanking part, but the situation would never come up anyway.

Jae Onasi
03-04-2008, 09:58 PM
Are you referring to the New Tribes Mission (http://www.ntm.org/) ("Nuevas Tribus") affair?
No, actually, I wasn't. This was a different missionary organization. They received direct aid from us (among other churches) and so we got reports directly from them. Also, the building was not owned by the particular Venezuelan church that wanted to buy it (the missionaries worked with this particular church primarily). The missionaries simply reported to us that they were relieved they had not bought it, because it got seized, and the owner didn't receive compensation, just as the missionaries did not receive compensation for their seized plane. Also, they only flew within Venezuela for their missionary flights, so customs wouldn't have been an issue.

I didn't say Chavez _would_ seize Colombian territory, I just said I wouldn't be surprised if he did. Leopards don't change their spots.

tk102
03-04-2008, 10:02 PM
Darth, if the U.S. had a unit of terrorists inside our borders that were launching attacks on Mexico, Mexico located them, we'd deal with the problem ourselves and thank the Mexicans for helping us find some more of the scum. Well, maybe not the thanking part, but the situation would never come up anyway.
Say you live out in the country and there's a gopher that keeps coming into your yard and when you chase it out, it dives under the fence into your neighbors' yard. You want to shoot the gopher and your neighbor isn't dealing with the problem. Then one day spot the gopher in your neighbors' yard so you jump the fence with your gun and chase it around. Think your neighbor would be a little upset? Think the cops would see it your way?

Jvstice
03-04-2008, 10:17 PM
Say you live out in the country and there's a gopher that keeps coming into your yard and when you chase it out, it dives under the fence into your neighbors' yard. You want to shoot the gopher and your neighbor isn't dealing with the problem. Then one day spot the gopher in your neighbors' yard so you jump the fence with your gun and chase it around. Think your neighbor would be a little upset? Think the cops would see it your way?
I do know if your neighbor has a tree with a branch that hangs over into your yard, you cant cut it without their permission. You can get injunctions making them to get it cut, but if you do yourself and don't get them to sign off on it being ok, even if it's in danger of falling in on your roof, then you can be sued. Thats' not saying the whole tree... Just the branch.

tk102
03-04-2008, 10:29 PM
And you are still acting on your own property in that case. If you get the injunction or if you later sue, you are appealing to a greater audience to give legitimacy and authority to the actions. In neither case are you acting unilaterally just because you can. In neither case do you justify your vigilante actions by appealing to other neighbors' fears of encroaching forests that must fought back on all fronts.

Corinthian
03-04-2008, 11:07 PM
Different situations, really. Gophers, for one thing, don't threaten people's lives. They're annoying little buggers, but they're no great threat. And if Ecuador refused to deal with the terrorists inside they're borders, they're harboring terrorists, making them essentially accessories.

Totenkopf
03-04-2008, 11:47 PM
Of course, the US never manipulated the economy of any Latin or Central America country...

I wonder how the US would react if Mexico decided to bomb a camp of rebels in Texas...

To the first part, I don't make any claims that the US is innocent of doing that or being perceived of doing that. It was certainly one element of Japan's choice to attack America in 1941 (oil and scrap metal). Was only citing several percived examples of provocations. ;)

To the second part, who knows. We already tolerate a fair amount of kidnapping of US citizens, illegal immigration and drug running. But many types of incursions are probably hushed up at official levels.

@TK-one other problem with your gopher scenario is there is really no force in the world that approximates a true police force/legal authority to whom we'd (or any nation'd) have to answer. More like two cavemen having a tiff. I think Corinthian has it pretty much spot on. The friend of your enemy is basically your enemy as well (esp if he's helping them and hindering you).

Arcesious
03-05-2008, 12:52 AM
You know what this reminds me of that I want to mention? The U.S.A is allied with Isreal and is selling weapons to Palestine, and Russia is allied with the U.S.A and is giving weaponry to the midde east countries. If the friend of my enemy is not really my friend, then something's seriously wrong here...

Jvstice
03-05-2008, 12:59 AM
^^ Maybe so, but it's been that way a lot longer than just the examples you give. Nations have been two faced to one another at least through recorded history.

Arcesious
03-05-2008, 01:01 AM
Something must be done about things such as that. I really hope someone speaks up on that issue in the media.

mur'phon
03-05-2008, 05:54 AM
Arc: just because you are allied with someone dosen't mean you share their interests.

PoiuyWired
03-05-2008, 07:13 AM
Oh, yeah, the Star Trek universe is great. Enjoy being Borg.

And as for Star Wars, take a brief look at Star Wars history. The GFFA is more war-torn than Earth by far.

But at least you get those sexy gizkas and cute littke twi'leks.

If you complain about SW being war-torn, wait til 40k... though Daemonettes are about just as shexah, or eldar chicks.

Arcesious
03-05-2008, 09:12 AM
Mur'phon- It does make a difference. The U.S.A is sellign weapons to Palestine, and Russia is selling weapons to the middle east. Many other things like this are likely occuring. Countries allied with each other are giving military aide to enemies of their allies. That's practically an act of war declaring an allyship treaty null and void.

Ray Jones
03-05-2008, 09:14 AM
How about the Stargate universe then. O'Neill/Mitchell are at least funny.

Jae Onasi
03-05-2008, 10:08 AM
Arcesious, since when has Russia been truly allied with the US?

Venezuela has a lot of oil interests there and the US has a vested interest in stability in that region. I suspect if things get really hot there the US will get involved because of the potential economic effects. Note that I'm not saying that it would be _right_ to do so.

Totenkopf
03-05-2008, 03:35 PM
I think it was Lord Palmerston who observed in the 19th century that nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests (or words to that effect).

Ctrl Alt Del
03-05-2008, 07:23 PM
Well, then, would you support declaring war on a major power if they send a team of assassins into your territory to eliminate a problem that you are harboring?
Still on the Canada example? If I was canadian, no I wouldn't.

And though their objective was "assassination", it wasn't just a team: It was a full-fledged incursion on both land and air, by heavily armored soldiers. The difference there is that none of the involved countries are a military superpower, it's pretty balanced, actually. On a situation such as that, both Colombia and Ecuador will look for allies to support their views. Today, Rafael Corrêa met President Lula presenting proofs of the devastation of the land they've bombed. Political babbling and bluff aside, this is a serious matter....

Totenkopf
03-05-2008, 07:49 PM
Still on the Canada example? If I was canadian, no I wouldn't.....

Actually, no, was making a general observation there. Problem here, like anywhere, is that it's not cut and dried. Had FARC not operated out of Equador (with their tacit permission, by default if nothing else), would Columbia have made the incursion? I agree that it's a serious matter, just not that Equador is the innocent party (there don't really appear to be any, except for the poor sobs caught in the crossfire).

Darth InSidious
03-06-2008, 06:58 AM
Pfft. It's all political posturing anyway. Chavez may be stupid, but he's not insane.
His criticism of Cardinal Rodriguez a while back would indicate otherwise:
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/24/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html)

SilentScope001
03-06-2008, 08:30 AM
His criticism of Cardinal Rodriguez a while back would indicate otherwise:
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/24/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html)

And I would reasonably do the same if I was in the same position as he is. I would criticize someone who told me I was an idiot, and told me that "he thinks he's God", so not exactly an 'insane' move. Ad homien attacks on your enemies can help to blunten their ad homien attacks too. Plus...

Chavez has repeatedly lambasted the local Catholic hierarchy in recent weeks, saying it should be dedicated to parishioners rather than meddling in politics by siding with opposition parties.

That doesn't sound unreasonable if you put it in the words of some other politican.

Only difference is that I would prefer being subtle, but in the end, being direct might work.

So, I'm still sticking with my statements: Chavez may be stupid...but not insane.

Darth InSidious
03-06-2008, 02:58 PM
And I would reasonably do the same if I was in the same position as he is. I would criticize someone who told me I was an idiot, and told me that "he thinks he's God", so not exactly an 'insane' move. Ad homien attacks on your enemies can help to blunten their ad homien attacks too. Plus...
Perhaps, but attacking someone who accuses you of being an imperialist by calling them...an imperialist clown?

Totenkopf
03-06-2008, 04:50 PM
While Chavez might not be "clinically insane", he is a buffoon. As to engaging ad hominem w/ad hominem, you may be right that it blunts the attack of the other, but only to those with uncritical minds (unfortunately, that's often a large segment of any population). Still, so long as Chavez stays on his leash and doesn't do anything but bray loudly, he may seem "crazy like a fox".

SilentScope001
03-07-2008, 01:48 PM
Huh? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_venezuela)

"People should go cool off a bit, chill out their nerves," Chavez said before the summit started. "I think the meeting today is going to be positive, because it is going to help the debate. We have to debate, talk, and this is the first step toward finding the road."

Meanwhile, Ecadour and Colombia is arguing with each other over the crisis, during the summit.

SilentScope001
03-09-2008, 08:30 PM
And the crisis has weridly ended.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_colombia

I know it wouldn't have imploded into war, but to turn into a fuzzy hug-fest?!

Ctrl Alt Del
03-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Yeah, well, what can I say? Typical. I live next to those guys.

Though Correa wasn't all that satisfied with the outcome.

Fredi
03-17-2008, 09:42 PM
Atleast it's over ... now the goberments are trying to move away their difference and start their friendship again ...

Arcesious
03-18-2008, 12:22 AM
Like little, irrational, hot-tempered children many of our leaders are...

SilentScope001
05-18-2008, 12:22 AM
And, they're back for Round 2 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN1747143320080517).

EnderWiggin
05-18-2008, 10:41 AM
Despite bouts of brinkmanship and the risk of military missteps on the border, political analysts say a conflict is highly unlikely, especially as the neighbors' economies heavily depend on cross-border trade.



I think that even Chavez isn't that crazy.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
05-18-2008, 11:29 AM
I think Chavez is that crazy. He's playing a dangerous game, too.

EnderWiggin
05-18-2008, 11:37 AM
I think Chavez is that crazy. He's playing a dangerous game, too.

Crazy enough to risk his economy? I know he's a nutjob, but I think he won't do anything that drastic if it has negative consequences for him in the long run.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
05-18-2008, 11:41 AM
That's the thing--he doesn't think he can fail.

EnderWiggin
05-18-2008, 12:29 PM
That's the thing--he doesn't think he can fail.

Well, he _does_ have a pretty good track record. :xp:

That's a good point.

_EW_

mur'phon
05-18-2008, 06:33 PM
He lost a referendum not too long ago, and acepted the loss. So no, he knows he can fail. And, while I disagree with his political standpoint and his speeches of ultimate boredom, I think he's one of the brighter (non western) heads of state. Not that it says much, but still...

Fredi
05-18-2008, 09:22 PM
Chavez thinks his is Simon Bolivar ... he really wants to unite what the Great Colombia was ... he wants to unite Venezuela,Colombia and Ecuador as a nation ... he is alittle out of his mind ...

mur'phon
05-19-2008, 02:55 AM
And? Countless heads of state want to bring back a "glorious past", very few are insane enough to try to do it.