FARC kidnaps 3 Americans: Bush sends more troops

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by JCG
That's one way of looking at it, but the U.S. could also say that threats, aggressions, instability and especially drug trading are enough for them to get involved, I suppose.

The only justification that is any good at all is the drug trade and they US should do more at home to fight the drug war. It's poor justification. It's pretty obvious that the US is getting involved because they prefer the current government to the rebels.

[JCG]

Well if it comes down to it, and you disagree with that assessment, then get them to change policy both on that and the drug war, you're free to try.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by JCG
So firing at unarmed prisoners after a plane goes down is not an execution? One even had a shot in the back of the head (don't know if they mention it in this particular article).

One was a sergeant in the Columbian army, and the rest were probably armed CIA. No this article did not mention that one was shot in the back of the head, but that really doesn't prove anything. Anyway, just because someone executed someone the whole group can not be held guilty, just the one guy or who gave the order.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by JCG
Well if it comes down to it, and you disagree with that assessment, then get them to change policy both on that and the drug war, you're free to try.

This isn't PI. FARC has strong support in Columbia. Bush is stupid for continuing his actions. I won't be able to change the policy. Too bad.

[JCG]

I'm sorry but their having strong support is a big fat lie. Most Colombians just want violence to end, and only cooperate with the guerrillas or the paramilitaries out of fear and respect for their own lives. There is no massive support behind any of them.

And if there was a Colombian soldier the FARC still should have respected his life and taken him prisoner, just like the vice versa is so often expected and demanded....Sounds fair to me.

[DuncanK]

Ridiculous. Of course they want the war to end. Everybody does. But many of them support the FARC.

[Ramo]

I don't suppose there are any American troops included to reign in Colombia's military and paramilitary forces.

Uribe's "Democratic Security" docitrines has not only been effectively an attempt to legimitimize the AUC and gov't abuses, it has been stealing the liberties of all Colombians, not just the FARC.

First the MILF, now the FARC. "War on terrorism," my arse.

[DanS]

It's pretty obvious that the US is getting involved because they prefer the current government to the rebels.

The current government was elected with a solid majority on the platform of trying to end the civil war. We have had good experiences with supporting governments in these circumstances. I'm reminded of the destruction of the Shining Path (whatever you think about Fujimori's post-Shining Path behavior).

Also, I think we should take the administration at face value on this. The US will give help anywhere that it is needed and wanted in order to curtail the threat of global terrorism.

[JCG]

Duncan, have you ever been down there? Do so and then tell me if you still think a majority supports the FARC.

Uribe isn't going to change much in this war, obviously. But at least he's trying to weaken the FARC and increase security, even if both objectives are relative.

Are some liberties going to suffer (like if they weren't already affected anyways)? Obviously. It's the old Freedom vs. Security issue, and Uribe prefers the later, and that's why he was elected.

He doesn't want to legitimize the AUC, but to create a government controlled alternative to them, similar to what happened in Peru, like DanS mentioned.

The problem with the paramilitaries is that, despite what Commies always think, their origin is three-fold (!), thus they have not been a government "appendage" since many years ago, and they never completely were one.

It's a very complex situation. The AUC doesn't look like it will simply disolve at Uribe's whim..

Still, again I must say that peace talks will be the ONLY solution (and they will have to include all sides at the same time), but both factions are very radicalized at the moment....

[uh Clem]

Also, I think we should take the administration at face value on this.

Why?

You're seriously claiming that they've earned it? Not that Clinton was better.

The US will give help anywhere that it is needed and wanted in order to curtail the threat of global terrorism.

The US will give help anywhere that it is needed and wanted against terrorists we don't like. This has squat to do with "the threat of global terrorism."

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DanS
Also, I think we should take the administration at face value on this. The US will give help anywhere that it is needed and wanted in order to curtail the threat of global terrorism.

It's becoming obvious that this is not just about terrorism anymore. Bush is using this card to start the old style US Imperialism again. And he is sacrificing the battle against Al Qaeda to do it, because this is very easy to see through.

[DuncanK]

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/guerrilla.html

Here's a link people might be interested in if they are wondering if FARC are freedom fighters or terrorists. They have commited terrorist acts, but shouldn't be defined by those acts since they have not commited many terrorist acts and the attacks were not bad in comparison.

[Kontiki]

This thread is just begging for some of Fez's brilliance!

[JCG]

I'm going to regret this but....

DuncanK, I'm sorry but I guess you really don't know anything about Colombia, unfortunately.

That page is just a quick half-arsed summary, but they aren't even up to date nor do they go into events in any reasonable depth.

It should probably be called "terrorism 101 for dummies and ignoramuses who lack free time to do serious research"....And yet for you, it apparently contains absolute truth.

I could write up a huge list just outlining many recent FARC terrorist acts in the past few years, months and weeks and other reasons that categorically show them NOT to be just romantic "freedom fighters" anymore, heck even links to pertinent sources, but I don't think it would matter to hard-headed people like you, so I shouldn't bother...

And since none of that is on your perfect website, it's worthless to even try.

As for "not bad", "not many"....? Who defines "not bad" and "not many"? You? Who don't even know half of it?Don't make me laugh and cry.

Certainly NOT people who lack first hand experience and have no idea regarding what they speak of, outside of internet digest texts. Those are only opinions, and highly uninformed ones at that.

This would be so much simpler if I didn't care at all, but darn it.....

[DanS]

I'm going to regret this but

Why regret it? Give 'em hell!

From Columbia? Have relatives there?

Bush is using this card to start the old style US Imperialism again. And he is sacrificing the battle against Al Qaeda to do it, because this is very easy to see through.

Bollocks.