Another Opinion (Not Necessarily Mine, But Interesting)

catherine b says on Jan 6, 2008, 11:05:

That opinion still does'nt change the fact that the child was kidnapped. Kept away from his mother and family...his rightful home and identity. The farc had NO right to do what they did to this child and subjected him too. They had no right to keep the family and mother from him.

In two and a half years farc clearly did'nt even know if this kid was dead or alive. Under the deplorable conditions that the baby was handed over to the care of this peasant he could've died if bienestar familiar did'nt take care of the child. What if the child had not survived? What would farc have done then? Renege again as they did last week or hand in a false Emmanuel to deceive the family and the world?

There's no excuse or "political" justification for kidnapping, torture, child abuse, rape, and murder. The farc are criminals.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 6, 2008, 11:07:

There's something strange and quite curious here, but I'm not going to comment on that right now...it may also have a possible explanation, good or bad.

As for the actual subject, FARC said they would free him, but they were in no position to do so. He wasn't even in their hands at that point, so they were speaking without really knowing what they were talking about.

That may not be a lie, but that's hardly acting in good faith. It's a lie born out of ignorance rather than malice, if you want to put it that way. And they did not explain the reality in time. They had plenty of time to explain the details to Chávez, but they didn't. That is not exactly a good thing either.

Their 31st of December communique says that they were concerned about military operations, but they said nothing about Emmanuel. Honestly, if they hadn't seen him for several years, they should have checked things out first before promising something they couldn't deliver OR quickly try to correct themselves.

Everyone expected something else, or at least a clearer message from FARC, and that's not what happened.

As for the military operation from the 19th of December, what does that have to do with anything? Apparently very little, at this point and according to what we know.

The humanitarian operation to send the helicopters from Venezuela was authorized by Colombia on the 26th of December, the same day Chávez made it public. The rescue operation was not in progress at any earlier point as far as we know.

Also, the name of the military operation says absolutely nothing about which of the dozens of guerrilla units were involved or, as things turned out, about where Emmanuel (who was in Bogotá) or the other hostages were truly located at that point in time.

Perhaps the military thought that Emmanuel was there, but the fact is that he wasn't. Where the other hostages in that specific area and with that specific guerrilla unit? Nobody here knows, including Gloria Gaitán, but at least one wasn't.

Basically, considering that Chávez hadn't even made the rescue plan public yet at the time of that military operation, the link is a very weak one at this point.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 6, 2008, 11:32:

Catherine, I agree with you , absolutely. Technically, of course, the child was not kidnapped, his mother was and she was not pregnant at the time. It's a child born to a kidnapped woman and a guerrilla soldier, "half us and half them" as Tirofijo had said about the child. The baby was left into civilian care but undet the guerrilla surveillance. Yes, they checked back but not that often; the caretaker complained that they gave him no money for the child; once they left diapers and milk powder. If marulanda and Co. didn't know that the child had been removed from the civilian custody and taken by ICBF snd could not been retrieved then technically they spoke out of ignorance,which is not a planned lie.

It does not change the fact, however, that kidnapping in itself is horrendous crime, only that there's a political play and struggle to make the most of this unfortunate situation. I still have a couple of questions that have not been answered...one of them being that I can't help thinking that Uribe had known for some time already that Emmanuel was not in the hands of the guerrilla.

Yes, the link between the military operations being the real cause for the guerrilla suspending the handover is very tenuous. But, do we KNOW that the army was NOT getting prepared to strike at the guerrilla as soon as the three hostages were safely free?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bamacellist says on Jan 6, 2008, 11:47:

Wouldn't the proof of life video with the soldier going on and on about the boy and how everyone in the camp loved him and adored have us thinking he was there? Certainly that idea was used to dismiss Uribe's claim initially.

"The future is much like the present, only longer."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 6, 2008, 12:12:

Desi1: No, we do not know...but frankly, if the hostages are already free and the guerrillas are provided some kind of temporary safety corridor (which Chávez requested, Uribe allowed and FARC apparently threw away in their recent response...what does that tell us?), their being attacked after that point would be fair enough, if no larger humanitarian/peace negotiation or cease-fire is in progress.

If that temporary corridor is not respected, of course, then I'd be rightfully pissed off at Uribe and/or the army. But other than that...

Yes, this is also a political power game, which is sad in the sense that the lives of the hostages aren't really valued above all else...but honestly, in this specific case, I'd prefer to tolerate Uribe's scoring some points, rather than FARC and Chávez, unless a wider humanitarian agreement was being discussed (say, like during the recent and sadly terminated mediation).

I'd even accept the opposite if the two parties were actually talking, if Uribe had the wisdom to actually set up and back a negotiating strategy, but not really during something that FARC itself calls a mere "desagravio" for Chávez. If they can lose some political points during such a move, but still say they'll free the other two hostages, that's probably better than the alternative, at least until a real negotiation can begin.

If their losing political points in this specific liberation means that NO hostages will ever be released, then it would, indeed, be better to give them all the political space they want. But that's not what they are saying and I hope that's not the case.



.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 6, 2008, 12:14:

There are still a lot of unanswered questions.
I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth.
For people who read Spanish, a couple of blogs I've been reading about this topic:
http://losimportunos.wordpress.com/
http://okrimopina.blogspot.com/

Cheers,
Desi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 6, 2008, 12:30:

There are certainly things we'll never know and things which may make us change our minds, I suppose...but right now, in my view those two opinions (especially the one from Carlos Alberto Ruiz, who, while maybe right as far as humanizing war is concerned, is otherwise far too kind with FARC and far too angry at Uribe) tend to ignore or simplify too many details in order to make FARC look, at the very least, not as bad, or only equally as bad, as Uribe...which, until proven otherwise in each case, is definitely not my starting point from a general moral view. Which doesn't mean that Uribe can't lie and that FARC can't say the truth, mind you.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 6, 2008, 13:06:

a voice of reason you seem to be juancegomez...the truth is almost always in the middle...& there's always room for another 0 on the right side of the decimal

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 6, 2008, 17:23:

I went and bought a car the other day and I told them I'd hand the money over next week. Now I really don't have the money but someone does, and so it's possible the money could get handed over somehow, so I wasn't lying.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Portena says on Jan 6, 2008, 17:33:

Exactamente, Pod!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 6, 2008, 17:42:

Unbelievable, there are still people on here trying to make excuses for what happened, LOL. They just can't accept that the FARC are not a charity organization.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 6, 2008, 17:56:

i just dont know all the facts yet...maybe never will...but i haven't made it to the law of diminishing returns yet as far as info/time lapse
...even so all the principals except the captives are in it for themselves, their cause etc...as would i & you & mother theresa

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 6, 2008, 17:59:

You and I, maybe, but Mother Teresa? Nahh :))

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 6, 2008, 17:59:

yeah..i did take some liberty there with mt

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm says on Jan 6, 2008, 18:20:

Why are you Desi1?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 6, 2008, 19:01:

Enero 6 de 2008

Caso de Colombia ilustra una patética variante del síndrome de Estocolmo: el síndrome de Copenhague

Para el analista internacional Moisés Naím, de El País de España, el nuevo síndrome hace que los extranjeros sufran de un extraño proceso que les lleva a simpatizar con asesinos y secuestradores.

Naím aclara que no se trata de que los colombianos simpaticen con las Farc (a las cuales considera victimarias de Colombia), ya que ese grupo armado que hace sufrir al país desde 1964 "es detestado por una abrumadora mayoría de la población".

El analista pone como ejemplo de su tesis a Dinamarca, en donde, por ejemplo, "una organización llamada Fighters Lovers vende camisetas con el símbolo de las Farc y promete donarles parte de sus ventas. Debido a que las Farc es uno de los grupos terroristas que la Unión Europea prohíbe financiar, el Gobierno danés entabló un juicio contra los vendedores de camisetas. Y lo perdió. Los jueces de Copenhague no creen que las Farc sea una organización que aterroriza a un país entero. Según esta lógica, al no ser las Farc un grupo terrorista, los daneses que les envían dinero no cometen crimen alguno".

Síndrome de Copenhague

"De esta manera -prosigue el analista internacional-, ahora al síndrome de Estocolmo podemos añadir el síndrome de Copenhague: el raro proceso mediante el cual la ideología y la politiquería se mezclan con la ingenuidad y la ignorancia para justificar crímenes de lesa humanidad, siempre y cuando no sucedan en el país de los afectados por el síndrome".

Naím agrega que es fácil imaginar que los "civilizados jueces de Copenhague" hubiesen llegado a una opinión muy diferente si las víctimas de las Farc fuesen daneses en lugar de colombianos.

"Basta averiguar un poco y con algo de honestidad para descubrir que las motivaciones ideológicas que alguna vez tuvieron las Farc ya no existen. Hoy en día la retórica que iguala a las Farc con los movimientos de liberación nacional sólo sirve para ocultar el hecho de que se han convertido en una cruel fuerza mercenaria del narcotráfico", continúa el analista de El País.

El nuevo síndrome, también en EE.UU.

Pero lo que Naím califica ahora como el 'síndrome de Copenhague' no solo afecta a los jueces daneses. Él recuerda que hace poco, tres congresistas estadounidenses le escribieron una amable carta a 'Tirofijo' para expresar su complacencia por haberse dignado las Farc a ofrecer vídeos, por primera vez en siete años, que confirmaban que aún no habían asesinado a �ngrid Betancourt y otros secuestrados.

"Fue un paso en la dirección correcta y quisimos mostrar nuestro aprecio", dijo Gregory Meeks, uno de los congresistas firmantes de la carta.

Según Naím, el cineasta estadounidense Oliver Stone también padece del síndrome de Copenhague: "Para Stone, las Farc resultan más creíbles que el presidente democráticamente electo de Colombia. Ésta es una convicción que comparte con el presidente de Venezuela: 'Yo acuso al presidente de Colombia de estar mintiendo... y haber dinamitado el proceso de canje humanitario', dijo Hugo Chávez al expresar su frustración ante el hecho de que Clara Rojas y su hijo Emmanuel, así como Consuelo González, no fuesen liberados antes de finalizar el año".

¿Cuál es la explicación para esta postura?, se pregunta Naím, y responde: "Según ellos, el Ejército colombiano llevó a cabo intensos operativos contra las Farc en las zonas donde se efectuaría el canje. Esto lo ha negado el presidente Uribe, recordando no sólo el largo historial de mentiras y promesas incumplidas por la Farc, sino anunciando que las Farc no podían liberar a los rehenes, puesto que uno de ellos, el niño Emmanuel, había sido entregado a una organización de protección social".

Lo difícil de explicar para Stone, Chávez y otros críticos del presidente Uribe, según Naím, es "por qué les resulta tan difícil a las Farc liberar a los rehenes si esto es algo que saben hacer muy bien: llevan décadas haciéndolo de manera rutinaria, una vez que reciben los pagos que compran la libertad de sus inocentes víctimas".

"La negociación y la eventual liberación de rehenes es un proceso frecuente, secreto y misterioso. En miles de transacciones previas nunca antes las Farc habían necesitado helicópteros venezolanos, la presencia de observadores internacionales y de centenares de periodistas", agrega.

Cálculos políticos

De acuerdo con Naím, "detrás de todo esto no hay sino la cruel e inhumana explotación del síndrome de Copenhague por parte de las Farc y sus facilitadores".

Explica que "mientras que el síndrome de Estocolmo se produce por razones psicológicas, el de Copenhague es causado por cálculos políticos muy crudos, donde las excusas humanitarias no son sino eso: excusas para actuar de la manera más políticamente conveniente pero más hipócritamente inhumana".

Y concluye: "Por eso, quienes simpatizan con las Farc deben exigir que se libere a todos los rehenes, tanto a los pocos ya famosos como a los muchos aún anónimos. Eso es algo que las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias Colombianas saben hacer y pueden hacer si quieren. Ahora mismo. Sin circo. Y sin payasos".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catherine b says on Jan 6, 2008, 19:17:

Billyb I was going to post that column by Moises Naim, but you beat me to it. LOL

Actually, you posted El Tiempo's synopsis of Naim's column. I think I'll post it anyway.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Jan 6, 2008, 20:19:

Is this a serious discussion?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 6, 2008, 20:27:

No, you must have us mistaken with another tread :)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 6, 2008, 21:34:

It was, until you came in, billyb.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 6, 2008, 21:35:

Adrim, I'm a woman without past now. My new image. Desi Light.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 6, 2008, 21:41:

The article sucks. Estan confundiendo la mierda con la pomada. The Stockholm Syndrome exists, it's not uncommon at all in stressful situations like that. There is no Copenhague Syndrome, except in the brain of some mediocre Colombian journalists. The Fighters and Lovers is just a small group of extremists who are very naive and represent in no way the public opinion in that country. It's just that our societies are very tolerant and there's much freedom for different political and philosphical trends.

Cheers,
Desi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Jan 6, 2008, 22:02:

The guerrilla obviously believed they could retrieve the child from the peasant that was assigned to look after him at any time.

Discombabolated thinking.... key word: 'obviously'

did I miss something DL?

Where do we go from here?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 03:07:

so what's the consensus? Did FARC really never intend to hand over anyone at all? Or are they in such disarray that they had no idea where one of their most valued hostages was?

I'm slightly in favour of the second opinion, but I'm really not following it very closely. All my info comes from PBH after all : )

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Jan 7, 2008, 03:24:

Don't know all the facts?

Here is a fact. These people were kidnapped by the FARC. Of course that is the fault of Uribe and/or Bush.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 7, 2008, 08:33:

Desi1: Actually, just for the record, it was Venezuelan Moisés Naim in Spain's EL PAIS who came up with the Copenhague Syndrome, not any Colombian...though, I suppose, the result is essentially the same.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 09:32:

I guess that doesn't make him a "mediocre" Colombian journalist then?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 09:36:

Colombia no aceptará más comisiones humanitarias como la de Villavicencio

Elpais.com.co-AFP

El gobierno colombiano no aceptará nuevas comisiones internacionales humanitarias como la que acudió a finales de diciembre para la frustrada entrega de tres secuestrados que la guerrilla de las Farc había prometido, anunció este lunes el canciller Fernando Araújo.

A Villavicencio, donde se centró toda la operación montada por el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, para recibir a González, Rojas y su pequeño hijo Emmanuel, acudieron delegados presidenciales de Argentina, Brasil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Francia y Suiza.

"Estamos mirando la posibilidad de que las Farc cumplan su palabra de hacer la entrega de Clara Rojas y Consuelo González, en cuyo caso nosotros facilitamos la entrega, pero sin aceptar la presencia de comisiones internacionales humanitarias", dijo Araújo en declaraciones a radio Caracol.

Explicó que esa decisión se tomó debido a la falta de credibilidad que los delegados internacionales que vinieron a Colombia dieron a la posición del gobierno del presidente �lvaro Uribe.

"Esta comisión que vino a Villavicencio en una acto de transparencia y de apertura del gobierno colombiano, llegó con un discurso muy cargado en contra del gobierno y muy favorable a las Farc, poniendo siempre en duda los informes que daba el gobierno y registrando siempre como reales las mentiras de las Farc", puntualizó.

El canciller colombiano además se quejó de que esa comisión "puso siempre en duda las actuaciones del gobierno".

Además destacó que "algunos de sus miembros, después de conocerse la identidad de Emmanuel y de comprobarse que la verdadera razón por la cual no entregaban a los secuestrados era que no tenían a Emmanuel, siguen dudando sobre la transparencia y la sinceridad de los informes que ha presentado el gobierno colombiano", dijo.

"En esas condiciones nosotros consideramos que esas comisiones sirven sólo para crearle un escenario favorable a las Farc en la comunidad internacional, y creemos que eso debemos cortarlo de raíz y no debemos seguirlo permitiendo", puntualizó.

"Ya no hay confianza para negociar"

Carlos Holguín Sardi, ministro del Interior.


El ministro del Interior y de Justicia, Carlos Holguin Sardi, afirmó que después del "oso" y el engaño por parte de las Farc, quedó demostrado que "no se puede negociar ni con los tramposos ni con los mentirosos".

Holguin afirmó que lo único que hoy queda pendiente es que las comunidades nacional e internacional le exijan a la guerrilla de las Farc que liberen a todos los secuestrados, porque ya no hay confianza para negociar con ese grupo.

Expresó que el gobierno nunca dijo mentiras. "Por eso ya no más acuerdos, no más misiones humanitarias para que las Farc juegue con todos, con la comunidad internacional" señaló el ministro y agregó "para que ponernos a las manos de las Farc".

"Ya no les queda ni territorio, ni capacidad operativa, salvo algunos incidentes terroristas que adelanten en su afán demencial de hacer daño y por eso no se puede tener consideración de ninguna naturaleza", expresó.

Agregó que las misiones humanitarias son cosa del pasado y que el gobierno tampoco está dispuesto a dar explicaciones a nadie.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 7, 2008, 09:40:

Ok, a mediocre Venezuelan journalist then.

I think Uribe's government is making a very bad decision in turning it's collective backs to the international community. Or does Uribe think that having Bush in his corner is all the international support that Colombia needs? This man's pride is hurting the whole country.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 09:47:

International support? Hah! All that commission was interested in was burying Uribe and Colombia while trying to make the FARC look like humanitarians. And like the baffoons they are they are the ones who got humiliated. Next time we need a truely neutral commission, not a bunch of Chavez acolytes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Jan 7, 2008, 10:23:

Desi1, with all due respects the international community will sell him and Colombia down the river. The Colombians better do a better job of looking after their own interests.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 7, 2008, 10:40:

"turning it's collective backs to the international community"

In what manner, des? what real help has "the international community" offered, aside from criticizing Uribe for not talking to those animals? oliver stone? El Payaso?

I can't think of many countries whose policy ISN"T refusing to negotiate with kidnappers/terrorists/extortionists. the only negotiating these guys will ever understand is "lay down your arms, and maybe we let you live". it's only sad that for now, this tactic isn't realistic, for lack of sufficient troop strength.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

hongo_joe says on Jan 7, 2008, 11:03:

Whatever happened to the IRA?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 7, 2008, 11:04:

I've always been of the opinion that international mediation is what is needed in Colombia; none of the governments or presidents have been able to solve the problem. Uribe is not offering any constrructive solutions either and his cabinet is as confused and prideful and a peacock in a henhouse.

Uribe may well be an honest and hard-working individual but he is surrounded and adviced by people that have more pride than vision. Remember that the Colombian guerrilla has been insurrection for 35 years; it only became "terrorists" in the last ten years or so. (this is being discussed in another thread). I see the FARCS as a rebel army with an outdated political agenda that has turned into drug trafficking and terrorism to be able to survive and maintain it's raizon d'etre; an anachronism in the modern world. I have never had any guerrilla sympathies, because even if I lean slightly left of the center I believe in law and order, democracy and legitimacy.

Humanitarian exchange and negotiated peace in Colombia, NOW!

Cheers,
Desi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Jan 7, 2008, 11:19:

Desi1, I for one respect your opinions. In your writings I have seen an intellectual with humility and sympathy for the poor and defenseless. Frankly, the world is a better place because of people like you.

Actually, I agree with you most of the time. Mainly our positions only begin diverging when we enter the philosophical arena of the power and rights of the individual.

With regard to Colombia's problems I haven't a clue how they may be resolved. I just see very little positive assistance coming from Europe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Jan 7, 2008, 12:39:

If you negotiate with these killers, it will only encourage more hostage taking. Where does it end? Any time they want something, they just go hostage hunting.

The world cannot allow that.

Desi, you are a very intelligent woman. I guess that we disagree here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 7, 2008, 13:41:

Yep. From my perspective, it matters little how FARC began. What matters is what they are now- kidnappers, narcotrafickers, and murderers. I don't see the point in negotiating with a group who choose to terrorize the people they originally claimed to be fighting for. They claim that their aim is to overthrow the duly elected government. They have no prayer of accomplishing this - and they know it. They aren't now, nor have they been truly a political movement for many years. They're thugs, plain an simple. And for having abandoned what few political principles they started with, before they morphed into simply a band of drug dealing murderers, they deserve to be treated like a political movement?

I hear that my great grandfather stole an occasional horse. I sure hope they don't hang ME for it.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 14:23:

So desi how do you feel about the international community solving Iran's problems?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 14:28:

Desi, (one of) the problems I see with your view that colombian governments have failed to solve the problem is your assumption that the parties involved (read: FARC) want to find a solution.

No one will ever 'solve' this problem, just as issues in the mid east will never be settled. They will just ebb and flow, sometimes better, sometimes worse.

At least it seems to be that Uribe is succeeding in keeping the lid on.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catherine b says on Jan 7, 2008, 14:28:

Oh please Desi, farc will never negotiate because they have no political plan or vision. No human rights issues that they're serious about addressing or correcting. How can they when they're amongst the worst human rights violators? Kidnapping and narco terrorism is a business and the commanders make way too much money to give it up. They've become just another cartel but with a "marxist" veneer to fool outsiders.

Moises Naim was'nt implying that Danes or all Europeans were ignorant. He was pointing out that for the most part those who support farc outside of Colombia are clueless and it's TRUE!
If an organization like farc existed anywhere in Europe or the USA, both the government and the citizens would have zero tolerance for them. It's "cool" to play the rebel and wear Che or farc tshirts provided what they represent and do does not take place in your own country but in some "exotic" foreign far away place that does'nt affect you like South America.

Look at president Sarkozy; he has zero tolerance for ETA. He will not let them set one foot on French territory...and rightfully so, yet he expects Uribe and Colombians to suffer Farc. Why? Why do Europeans reserve the right to protect themselves from terrorists but expect Colombians to "negotiate" and remain at the mercy of terrorists without the right to fight back?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 7, 2008, 14:35:

i could be tempted to back a farc like uprising in the states....from a distance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 14:49:

"i could be tempted to back a farc like uprising in the states....from a distance"

Why? It's all there for the enjoyment in Cuba.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 14:51:

"Why do Europeans reserve the right to protect themselves from terrorists but expect Colombians to "negotiate" and remain at the mercy of terrorists without the right to fight back?"

Because they are so much more enlightened than us.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 15:04:

Right you are billyb.

I haven't bought a bottle of french wine since 2001. I do however still eat french fries : )

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 15:06:

"i could be tempted to back a farc like uprising in the states....from a distance"

well it better be a right wing group you back, 'cause the left does not exist in the USA outside of Bevery Hills, or maybe you could send the dixie chicks some money to get things going jajajajaja!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 7, 2008, 15:28:

Desi: I couldn't agree more with your statements.

At some point, the disagreements about how to handle the situation in Colombia boil down to basic assumptions that are not debatable, because they're accepted as self-evident. To identify those assumptions, you could apply a test like this:

Q.1. Are negotiations necessary to achieve peace in Colombia?
If the answer is NO, then you're done with the test. If you put your faith on a solution that hasn't worked for 50 years, there is little further to debate. Not even Uribe goes for that.
If your answer is YES, then go to Q.2.

Q.2. Is international mediation necessary to negotiate?
If the answer is NO, I'd like to see how else you're going to get FARC and Govt to talk to each other. International mediation has worked from El Salvador to South Africa. If someone has invented a better way of conducting negotiations, I'd like to hear about it.
If the answer is YES, go to Q.3.

Q.3. Who could serve that role?
Here's the problem. As Desi says, if the "international community" is reduced to Bush and his cadre, we're in deep shit. Anyone who walks in comes with his/her agenda. In hindsight, Chavez was a poor choice, but there's a lot of other people that may take this role. And no, none of them are perfect. I'm pretty much happy with anyone agreed upon by FARC and Govt.

Unfortunately, all we hear from Uribe is what he will NOT do. I need to hear to what he is doing or plans to do.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Jan 7, 2008, 15:47:

Peace in our time!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 7, 2008, 15:52:

my time is running out

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 7, 2008, 16:20:

Let me try this again, SrT.

What do you believe a just solution to be? If you were the intermediary, what would be your ideal solution, in the event that you could prevail? What does FARC deserve? What do the peace-loving, law-abiding people of Colombia deserve?

I good mediator always has SOME idea of what a win-win looks like, vague though it may be, fluid though it may be. We've heard LOTS from you, complaining about the lack of a clear plan on the part of Uribe. And about his failure to talk to these scumbags.

What do you think is fair- without a bunch of disclaimers? What should each side, in your view, be willing to concede?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 7, 2008, 16:37:

I can tell you what is just: To have 90% if not more of the FARC people in jail, along with the criminals in the Colombian government (not that all the Col Gov is criminal, but it has plenty of them). That's what's fair.

But that's la-la land. That's not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not in 50 years with Uribe's plans.

I tell you what is POSSIBLE: 1. Get someone to serve as messenger between Govt and FARC. 2. Get Govt and FARC to talk. 3. Break a deal on a minimum decency in the war. Here's what I think would be a somewhat fair, somewhat possible deal:

FARC gets: Belligerence status, no more attacks on coca growers (transporting is a different matter), unconditionally swap guerrillas for military hostages, no more cluster bombing or any poorly targeted weapon that puts civilians at risk, international verification of HR conduct in military forces.

FARC gives: Free up all civilians kidnapped, release military hostages for guerrillas, no more gas-cylinder bombs, no more kidnapping civilians, no more extorsion.

That would be my goal. I don't know how to be more clear.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jan 7, 2008, 16:59:

The FARC would have to give up landmines. They are indiscriminate and kill and mangle a lot of civilians as well as soldiers each year in Colombia.

I also think giving coca growers a free pass is a big flaw, but you and I had the same debate a year or two ago. I know they aren't the worst actors in the 'conflict' but their product can only be used for one thing. Giving them a pass while killing processors, traffickers and dealers makes no sense. Just like the decriminalization Colombia has now for personal consumption makes no sense. It may free up law enforcement for more immediate duties but the fact remains that some large growing, processing, trafficking and money laundering operations are serving the internal personal consumption market. That's whacked.

I think it should be totally legal or totally prohibited.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 7, 2008, 17:24:

Yes, ideally FARC would give up landmines too, but that may also be asking them to give up their defense. Its an old problem with landmines, and I'm sure someone has thought of a way of dealing with this. I think I heard something like a govt buying the most destructive mines off their insurgency at above market price, or something that sounds kind of crazy like that but that may be effective. I don't recall the precise case.

I agree with you that coca would be used primarily for narcotics--there's not much of a market yet for mate de coca, and probably is not as profitable. But I have to disagree again in terms of strategy: Hitting the poor guy only provides legitimacy to FARC or whoever protects him. What happened to the idea of various Govts buying coca off the growers for legal purposes (or just to burn it)? If they pay above narco price, that'll be a kick in the crotch of FARC.

Ideally, coca should be totally legal. Ideally.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 7, 2008, 17:35:

Thanks. I appreciate your clarity.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Jan 7, 2008, 18:00:

diabloblas, your total ignorance of farc and the us puts you in the same room as cassini. In fact, maybe you are cassini...never seen you both together.

Don't make asshole statements like you did unless you have some inkling of the facts.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 7, 2008, 18:25:

golly rikito...what did i say to get your panties in a bunch?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 18:50:

"I think I heard something like a govt buying the most destructive mines off their insurgency at above market price, or something that sounds kind of crazy like that but that may be effective. I don't recall the precise case."

That's a brilliant solution, so now they can go on the open market and buy twice as many mines as they sold.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

hongo_joe says on Jan 7, 2008, 19:04:

Sr T: If I understood correctly, your solution above would still leave a war going on - maybe a more 'civil' war, if things went as planned. Can you take it further?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 19:49:

"I think I heard something like a govt buying the most destructive mines off their insurgency at above market price, or something that sounds kind of crazy like that but that may be effective."

about 100 years ago in england (I believe) the gov't decided to offer a reward for every dead rat brought in. Great idea huh? People will go and kill all the rats, problem solved.

Of course, what happened was people started breeding rats to get the most money they could.

Some people understand basic human nature, and some people learn after experiences like that, but I guess there are still people who don't.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 19:54:

It would be ironic if the FARC bought landmines for say $50 ea and sold them to the governament for say $100 ea, wouldn't that make them capitalist running dogs themselves? You have got to love capitalism, it solves everybody's problems, even the FARC's.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jan 7, 2008, 20:05:

I thought governments solve everybody's problems billyb? To make inflation go away they just knock zeros off their currency. To stop people from being poor they give everyone money. It's easy!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jan 7, 2008, 20:18:

I thought (and I'm not exaggerating by much here) that some of the FARC's landmines weren't much more than tuna fish cans, a spring, an explosive and shrapnel. There have also been reports of covering the shrapnel in feces or poison, which is another violation of international norms (in addition to not mapping the locations and not using timed mines that turn into duds or automatically blow up on x date).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 7, 2008, 20:26:

"I thought (and I'm not exaggerating by much here) that some of the FARC's landmines weren't much more than tuna fish cans, a spring, an explosive and shrapnel"

If they sold those, I guess you could call that value added capitalism.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Jan 8, 2008, 02:32:

Maybe the Sudetenland could be ceded to the FARC, again.

This is a criminal enterprise, folks.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Jan 8, 2008, 05:39:

diabloblas, it was your attemp to be funny or sound cool. ("i could be tempted to back a farc like uprising in the states....from a distance") Since it is apparent that you do not live in or have ever been to Colombia, your comment was in bad taste and shows ignorance of what the Clombians have to suffer through.

farc in any context is disgusting and you show little courtesy to the US. Crap like what you said is a teasonous statement in the US Constitution and indicates that the speaker has little knowledge of current or past events. The US gives every Aerican the righ to overthrow the government anytime they want. It is called the VOTE. Probably something that you are not aware of.

farc are not a bunch of cowboys or Fidels. They stand for nothing idealogically. As almost all of the PBHers in here have said or agreed, they are murderers, pimps, druggers, kidnappers of adults AND children, and have no ideals and no values. They are not rebels nor are they gurellas, they are terrorists. They kill and rob for no gain other than money.

Is this what you want in America or Colombia? Becasue you are not in Colombia and know nothing of farc you should come here and see peoples eyes get teary when they talk about what farc has done to their families. How they steal and kill, how they burn their homes if they do not support what they are doing or work in thier cocaine fields.

And don't try and protray the US as the bastards of the world wanting to control everything for corporate America and the greed of imperialism. It has been tried in the past and failed. It means nothing. Ask yourself (if possible) just where would many of the countries in SA be without the millions in financial aid that America has given over the years. Research this first. America has NEVER treid to conquer or haver they conquerd another country.

Sorry about the spelling mistakes...I am in a hurry. Read the comments of juancegomez or catherineb. They know what is going on and can speak to farc far better than I ever could. They are not alone...there are many others in here who know the truth about farc.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:39:

The IRA?

Alive and well (unlike many of their victims). Making a lot of money from a portfolio of illegal business schemes. Lording it in pubs. Hurting people. The usual.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:41:

Hongo: I don't have a solution, and I don't think anybody has one, but if the war is going to continue for a few more years, it wouldn't hurt to try to make it as humane as possible. This is, of course, hardly an original idea.

Billy, Pod: You seem to know who had the brilliant landmine idea... mind sharing?

Tinto: I think FARC uses Chinese-hat landmines... I pressume they are cheap to manufacture.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:43:

T, I thought it was you floating a trial balloon.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:46:

Where? When?

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:49:

Actually it's analogous to the hostage negotiations, you know, trade them in for a bunch of FARC prisoners and then go and kidnap a bunch more.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:52:

If you are talking about a prisoner swap, well yes, but the Govt can do the same: Use his soldiers to capture more FARC.

If you are talking about kidnapping civilians, I'd agree with you.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:57:

Yes, I'm talking about civilians. As much as I hate seeing it, if soldiers get captured in battle by the FARC, well that to me is not a criminal act by the FARC, that's just doing their job.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:11:

uy no ustedes son locos. que los maten a todos esos criminales hp.

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:13:

On that point we're on the same page, billy, but nobody has been able to persuade Uribe to make the distinction. For him they're all kidnapped, and that puts the civilians in a difficult situation.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:18:

Do you think if Uribe made that distinction and negotiated along the lines of a prisoner swap between combatants, that the FARC would be inclined to release the civilian hostages? It would a nice start.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:36:

i'm amazed & in awe of you ritko...you phychoanalyzed me in 6 short paragraphs ...based on a 15 words i wrote

...& as for researching & coming to any conclusions about the farc ...i will not rely on the posters of pbh ...& certainly not from a self-righteous bill o-reilly types like you...but you are a funny guy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:46:

I did not try to psychoanalyze you. I was merely pointing out what happens when you say ignorant things. And as for researching farc...who will you reserach...Hugo Chavez or Piedad Cordoba. The only conclusion about farc is that they are mierda.

And I am as far as being self righteous as you are are being current. Bill O'Reilly? Thanks for the platitude.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:48:

are you giving me credit then for the bill o'reilly prognosis?

..how about for being a funny guy?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:52:

Ok...I'll give you the "being a funny guy." Congradulations, you won one. It's more than I ever get!

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

diabloblas says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:58:

we're you always a funny guy as you accept rikito?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 8, 2008, 09:06:

Humanizing the war as much as possible is certainly better than what we're seeing today, I completely agree with SrTertius as far as that's concerned, but if we ever reach that far and manage to iron out a successful agreement....it would actually be considerably more worthwhile to go the whole nine yards and try to end it all.

As for international mediation, it probably still has a role to play, but if we had a government with better diplomatic and/or negotiation skills, I think it wouldn't really need to be as necessary as it seems.

0 funny, 0 helpful.