Baffled by the current crisis

Dan says on Jan 25, 2005, 14:16:

From what I've heard... is that Chavez is a FARC supporter. The Ven. Military are less likely to try stopping the border hoppers. Also, if any FARC or what ever is caught, they are stripped of any arms/equipment and returned to Colombia as unidentified.

God Bless America!

LaloG says on Jan 25, 2005, 14:33:

Could it be that Uribe is a Bush puppet, and Chavez has seen, as has the world, that Bush ignores soverignty of other nations. I think he has to appear strong in the face of this incursion because he knows he´s already on the Bush´s hit list with an "S".
Best,
LaloG

jaramillo says on Jan 25, 2005, 14:42:

jaramillo Could it be that Chavez is just an idiot? Uribe has too much balls to be anybody's puppet.

toneloc24 says on Jan 25, 2005, 14:43:

I'm not gonna try to understand all the intricacies in the COL-VZ dispute or FARC dispute, but from the outside view, it seems like the COL gov't hired bounty hunters to go into another country to arrest somebody.

To bring it closer to home, suppose the Mexican or Canadian government hired/sanctioned bounty hunters to illegally come into the USA to catch someone, how do you feel about that?

I can give a damn about Chavez or Uribe. If Chavez did the same in Bogota, how would you feel?

Hopefully the same.

"Don't tase me, bro!!!!"

juancegomez says on Jan 25, 2005, 14:47:

People tend to underestimate Uribe and Chavez too much.... ...do please notice the "and" up there, btw. It matters.

Chavez is not actively supporting the FARC, as far as is publicly known, nor is he a Castro puppet, but likewise Uribe isn't a Bush puppet (what exactly defines being someone's puppet, hmm? Is every single pro-USA government in the world a mere puppet?). Some people are used to believing both/either of those accusations, as it's a quick and easy way to describe such situations in a simple manner (+ has ad hominem value), but from a more neutral point of view..the picture isn't as clear.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that while Venezuela does have a genuine reason for feeling slighted, and Uribe's government has acted rather masochistically in its handling of the entire matter (and should apologize for the methods employed, if not for the result), as of late Chavez is pushing the issue too hard for even his own benefit.

And please...while some neo-cons and radical leftwingers might believe /want otherwise, Bush's not going to invade Venezuela anytime soon, for several reasons...and definitely not while he's already quite busy with Iraq and the surrounding neighborhood.

Miguel says on Jan 25, 2005, 15:05:

Picture in EL HERALDO today and the articles You all should take the time to check out EL HERALDO on line...Departamento Atlantico ain´t that far from the VZ-CO border, and they have some great fotos of what is happening on the frontera...and interesting reports as well.

goosekirk says on Jan 25, 2005, 15:38:

Cripes But... but... if one of Al Qaeda's top chiefs were hiding out in Norway, you don't think the US or English governments would send in a team to nab him? And would the government of Norway really feel THAT slighted in public? No, and I'm sure this sort of thing happens on a semi-regular basis (heck, the Israelis used to do this stuff practically every day). I can't believe Chavez is truly a FARC supporter, as that would just be stupid - there's nothing to possibly be gained, as far as I can figure, unless they're straight-up paying him off. Yeah, we know there's no love lost between Dubya and Chavez, but again, I don't see how Chavez benefits by acting all pissy in this case. There's gotta be more to this story.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 25, 2005, 17:22:

Tinto is right There's currently a vast expropriation of private lands going on in Venezuela as part of Chavez's land reform/redistribution. It began within days of the Granda capture. Have you seen ANYTHING about it in the international press?

So why do you think Chavez is making such a stink about something else?

Lionheart says on Jan 25, 2005, 20:40:

the land thing I have been reading about it weeks ago ... not only about the British land-owner company getting land taken away ... it is a general practice. Many land-owners haven't been cultivating all their land, squatters move in and culivate it. This must be going on for years now and all were fine with it. Chavez got the squatter votes by promising them the land they are cultivating. But he didn't tell them everything. To give them the land he forces them to join cooperatives (like in ex-Russia), otherwise they don't get it. They get chased away if they don't join, and the lands goes to other cooperative members. This never really made front page news, except the case of the British cattle company. There must be a lot going on in the background here, because most details weren't made public. I also see the COL/VEZ thing a way to cover up the scandals there. No news is good news.

juancegomez says on Jan 25, 2005, 20:42:

The situation of land property is extremely, horribly unfair in Colombia as it is and it can't have been exceedingly better in Venezuela, all things considered...

"Land ownership in Venezuela, as in much of Latin America, is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families with friends in high places."

Quoted from the above-linked article.

Thus in principle, land redistribution is not unwarranted at all.

Perhaps, however, if the methods being employed deserve criticism then they should be rectified in order to be less chaotic.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 25, 2005, 20:43:

Perspective, please!! As far as I understand the situation, Chavez claims not just that the Colombian government paid some bounty hunters for Granda (which, in itself, is already wrong), but that it bribed officials of the Venezuelan national guard to perpetrate what is a crime in Venezuela and in virtually any other nation: kidnapping. You don't need to be a supporter of the FARC to find this reprehensible.

You may argue that a) Granda deserved it (or that we are better off with him in jail), and maybe that b) Chavez response was politically motivated. Both things may be true. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the Colombian government is accused of being an accomplice of a crime. That's a big accusation, and it seems kind of difficult to make it in a quiet way (although, admittedly Chavez's histrionics are bit out of bounds here).

That text below assumes that Chavez's accusations are true (at least to certain extent):

Even if this was a big blow on the FARC (which really wasn't), ends do not justify means. There are legal ways of having a foreign government arrest and deport a national. The Colombian government broke the law and was aware of the consequences. An overlooked consequence is that the Uribe administration is legitimizing the same barbaric practice that it attributes to the FARC.

Now, suppose the Spanish government bribed Miami police officials to kidnap a Cuban exile who is accused of setting up a bomb in Havana that killed a Spanish citizen. He is taken, put in a plain to Madrid, and arrested right there. Would the US make "a big stink" out of this? You bet it will, even if the FBI was looking for him. I don't think any country would be (or should be) a-okay with having another government bribe their officials.

"I'm sure this sort of thing happens on a semi-regular basis." If that is true, that's quite a scandal (except if it's between 1st and 3rd world countries... and only in one direction). I'd like to see anything that suggests that this is the case.

"The Israelis used to do this stuff practically every day", yet the disapproval of this practice is occasionally labeled as anti-semitism.

"There's currently a vast expropriation of private lands going on in Venezuela as part of Chavez's land reform/redistribution."

My understanding is that the "Ley de Tierras" was signed in 2001, not a week ago, and that its implementation is a decision of regional governments, so it's not all happening at once. What happened recently was that, as the BBC reported, a portion of land claimed by a British company is under dispute according to the "Ley de Tierras". Let's not build a conspiracy theory out of this, not without at least a single fact to support it.

Chavez response, if he is right, is justified. If he is wrong, it may be that he has the wrong intelligence (it has happened before, hasn't it?). The magnitude of his response is not fully justified though. Many reasons may be behind it (including sheer negligence). In all cases, conspiracy theories would be my last resort.

Maybe this whole thing wouldn't have happened if Granda hadn't said that he was captured in Venezuela. If he has evidence of that, Chavez (or any president in his place) couldn't have been quiet, particularly when you base your legitimacy on a strong sense of nationalism (can you imagine what would happen if Pedro Carmona was snitched in a similar way from Bogota?)

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

Sr Tertius says on Jan 25, 2005, 20:59:

Cooperatives Lionheart,

Not just in ex-Russia, but in many other places right now (Colombia included), government subsidies are provided to individuals exclusively through organized entities such as cooperatives. I personally know of an irrigation system that was provided only to campesinos is Southern Cundinamarca and Boyaca that were organized in cooperatives. As I understood it then, there were very good reasons for implementing it this way (not the topic here, though). If you don't hear about it, even though it is clearly written in the law, is because it is a rather technical issue that those in the field assume it.

I'm not a Chavez sympathizer, but I sympathize even less with "picking cherries" as a form of criticism. The scandal should not be so much that the land reform in Venezuela is being done in one way or another, but rather that there is not even a discussion about land reform in Colombia. There you have something that doesn't make it to the front page.

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

juancegomez says on Jan 25, 2005, 21:01:

re: Sr Tertius I mostly agree with your response, however I'd like to try and clear something up...

"As far as I understand the situation, Chavez claims not just that the Colombian government paid some bounty hunters for Granda (which, in itself, is already wrong), but that it bribed officials of the Venezuelan national guard to perpetrate what is a crime in Venezuela and in virtually any other nation: kidnapping. You don't need to be a supporter of the FARC to find this reprehensible."

Actually, the Colombian government, via the Defense Ministry and the communiques from the Presidency, has only "officially" admitted that it paid a reward for information/cooperation that led to the capture of Granda.

The "bounty hunters are welcome" remark was made almost in jest
by Vicepresident Santos and then blown out of proportion by the foreign press.

As far as it can be assessed, what actually happened is not entirely different from standard reward procedure inside Colombia....except that, of course, the actions involved were executed outside the government's jurisdiction and included the unauthorized participation of foreign nationals, all this in violation of Venezuelan sovereignity. Logically, the Venezuelans have a clear right to object and protest because of that illegal action (which apparently only countries like Israel, France and the U.S. can committ with semi-impunity...though not without provoking anger as well).

In other words...in practice, the reward was apparently given (at least partially...it seems the full transaction wasn't completed before the scandal broke) to the now arrested Venezuelan officials that agreed to cooperate in snatching Mr.Granda (thus *they* would be "bounty hunters", "traitors" and "mercenaries" according to Venezuelan authorities and their multiple speeches on the matter), hence the "bribe" and the "bounty" are actually one and the same.

At least that's what an analysis of the currently available information (in Spanish) from both sides of the border indicates (the English-speaking press obviously doesn't go into the details).

Lionheart says on Jan 25, 2005, 21:26:

Sr Tertius Since all those not living in Colombia (or other countries) do not have first hand experience about things going on there, we have to depend on what the media presents us, and it is up to us how much we believe or not. Information like what you just wrote about cooperatives in Colombia are new to me, so I am interested to know more about it. In the mid-west where I live cooperation membership is also mandatory, if you want to be part of the irrigation available.

In what I wrote about Venezuela I added nothing myself other than what I read mainly in the BBC pages, except the final comment. We all know the media jumps on the bigger news issues and drops the small fries fast when it can. But the way Chavez is reacting currently does make me think he is hiding skeletons in his closet.

vladimiro says on Jan 25, 2005, 22:56:

Ven. Unless I misunderstood the Spanish on the radio today Chavez knew about this 20 days before he said anything about it. Venezuela's harsh reaction coincides with when the Colombian government started publicly admitting to these illegal actions. I don't think governments usually publically admit to these things and that Colombia may have provoked Venezuela's reaction.

"But he didn't tell them everything. To give them the land he forces them to join cooperatives (like in ex-Russia), otherwise they don't get it."

I don't know anything about cooperatives, but If they are anything like the Russian comunes the Venezuelan government will be making all the profit from them. ( This is offtopic but in the Russian context comunes were used to exploit labor to gain capital for the central government. Stalin was able to get enough capital to turn backward, illiterate Russia into an industrialized nation in an amazingly short time period, though at an extraordinaryly high cost in lives. But Ven is not using the military to force people into co-ops on a mass scale like Russia did and Chavez is not Stalin).

Lionheart says on Jan 26, 2005, 00:22:

Vlad I could only find reports on the land restructuring and the cooperatives on BBC, so one source alone is a bit dangerous to rely on alone. Other reports from AP were basically just copies. It did mention that Chavez utilized the military to enforce his actions. I used the comparison with Russia only because it is only other nation (including Eastern Europe later) where coops were established by the government and by law that I know of. I am unsure about China.

In other nations I know that coops were formed mainly to share machinery resources and/or natural resources, like water for irrigation with all required engineering. Over time they became economical powers that could force non-members to join or to go dry. Just as an example for now.

I do not know into which of these two categories the Colombian coops fall into. But it would be interesting to know. There are mixed coops, where the government provided the means for irrigation, but the management is independently run by the coop with no government control.

Lionheart says on Jan 26, 2005, 01:07:

undercover actions This is just a comment meant as food for thought, and not meant to be direcly applicable to the Col/Vez crisis now.

I believe international undercover actions are taking place all the time. This is not taken from watching too many action movies, I base it on some known facts. I assume most of these covert activities are reported to the nation's leaders and are sanctioned one way or the other, as long as they aren't fucked up. If they botch it, or it becomes public, then the nation howls in rage ... it is part of the game. There are plenty of known cases that were botched, also by the USA.

I assume most covert actions are successful and never become public. I remember reading about one in Peru, the report vanished fast from the online resources. Marines were doing ocean shore exercises and doing landing manoevers upstream in rivers. All looked normal to the international observers. Somehow a company of navy seals managed to head up the river into the jungle to perform some covert actions there. There are multiple rumors, but nothing definite. Some say they cleaned up some drug lords who had crossed the Colombian border, others say they helped clean up some disorder around the oil pipeline there.

Concerning Venezuela I see 3 possible botches. Colombia's admittance to using bounty hunters, the Venezuelan involvement of police/military officers (many are still not behind Chavez), the very weak story how Granada got delivered to Colombia and got arrested there. And possible biggest botch was not getting Chavez' clearence for the covert operation, possibly knowing he wouldn't allow it.n Or he knew about it and had to publicly react because it became public that Granada was snatched in Caracas.

These are just my thoughts for now, I may be totally off. I am just comparing my thoughts to what I heard the USA, France, the UK, and others doing in the past. Who knows if we will ever know the truth.

Neonovo says on Jan 26, 2005, 09:57:

Robin Hood en Venezuela. Cuento de hadas. El Robin Hood venezolano es desenmascarado plenamente con artículos como este, del Christian Science Monitor.

Land redistribution in many other countries doesn't have a very good track record. In the 1960s and '70s, much of Latin America (including Venezuela) tried such land reform, and failed. Small plots aren't very efficient, and they often get doled out to political supporters who are inexperienced in farming.

Paz

goosekirk says on Jan 26, 2005, 12:11:

Yes, Lionheart Now things are making more sense to me. If the Colombians were the ones who let it be known that Grandas got nabbed in Venezuela, then Chavez is obligated to be pissed off in public. He may be going a little far, but there may be political reasons for doing so, or he may just be a little looney.

For some reason, I was under the impression that everything was normal until Chavez opened his yapper, and that didn't make much sense. Now the question is, were the Colombians just dumb about this, or did they start talking on purpose? It was probably a botch-up, but if they can successfully maneuver Chavez into making some sort of public stand against the FARC, then that might qualify as a win after all.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 26, 2005, 14:51:

Consider one other possibility Maybe it's possible that Colombia talked this up because in the final calculation it serves them well everywhere BUT with Venezuela to reveal the degree of FARC/Chavez complicity.

Remeber, the Uribe administration sent a diplomatic pouch with documented evidence of something like 10 FARC and ELN heads living openly in Venezuela (this per El Tiempo a couple days back). Has Chavez responded? What can he possibly say?

I'm just guessing but I think Uribe is playing to both an international and a domestic constituency where Chavez is simply playing to the domestic one (and maybe Castro).

When I mentioned the land reform above, I didn't mean to imply that the reform was new but that there was a new and large round of expropriations happening.

juancegomez says on Jan 26, 2005, 16:12:

Trying to explain this again... To Lionheart, goosekirk and others...The whole operation was botched, by being executed outside of Venezuela's watch. But, once that was done, there was no chance of simply keeping quiet. That strategy failed because the cracks appeared rather quickly.

Because actually the scandal began climbing up after Granda himself and his lawyer said that he was nabbed in Venezuela...YET, the Colombian Police Chief, in December before any crisis had begun, had already mentioned that a reward had been paid. So that has never been news to Colombians that had watched him speak on TV. This didn't receive much attention outside the local media, of course, but it did happen. Colombia had already admitted to this.

But after Granda's mutterings and those of Venezuelan witnesses were made public, even though Chávez himself was initially more quiet about things, his Vicepresident Jose Vicente Rangel and his Interior Minister Jesse Chacón were already being very firebrand about it, accusing Colombia of using illegal means and had begun to investigate and arrest the involved Venezuelan officials.

Could this have been avoided if Colombia had kept totally quiet, as some of you apparently seem to believe?

Not really, because a)The Police Chief had already mentioned the reward very early on b)Venezuela already had begun to protest, arresting and interrogating its "bribed" Venezuelan "bounty hunters", who proceeded to confess.

If anything, the Colombian Defense Minister's declaration ("yes, we paid a *reward*") simply sped an already moving avalanche up a notch.
I must repeat that at no point has Colombia officially said anything about capturing the guy in Venezuela OR anything about using bounty hunters. Such a thing has not been admitted at all.

Yes, most people here do logically know that it doesn't change the fact that everything points to Granda being brought to Cucuta from Venezuela, by Venezuelan officials who were later paid, but please don't confuse the two things automatically.

And I must also point out again that the "bribed" Venezuelan officials and the "bounty hunters" are one and the same. The involvement of any third parties has not been revealed anywhere. So insisting on mentioning the bounty hunters and the bribe as two separate incidents has no factual basis, outside of mistranslated and misinterpreted statements in the English press.

Chavez has a true right to be pissed off, but not to the huge degree that he's currently displaying by beginning to disrupt and cut billateral ties. That's just for political gain, apparently. Just as is Uribe's stubborness.

Lionheart says on Jan 26, 2005, 19:38:

juancegomez we are not trying to say your analysis is wrong or anything .... we are just looking into other possiblities and missing parts. Several parts of information provided by the press don't add up, neither in Spanish, German (I read them), or English. On the one side you warn us not to add to the facts the media gave us, saying they don't have a factual basis, yet you do the same. Let me point out a few holes in the whole story.

"Yes, most people here do logically know that it doesn't change the fact that everything points to Granda being brought to Cucuta from Venezuela, by Venezuelan officials who were later paid, but please don't confuse the two things automatically."

Nothing reported tells us anything how Granda was delivered to Cucuta except his own words about being tied up in the trunk of a car like one of his own kidnapped FARC victims (a great irony of the whole story, complaining about that). He mentions a road change to a secondary road once ... did a hand-over happen there?

I have a problem with believing a few issues here ... they don't make sense because they include major risks. Who approached the Venezuelan officials in Caracas to plan and fulfill the kidnapping? I doubt that officials had anything to do with the delivery as well, way too risky. And somebody had to get him over the border with no questions asked ... Venezuelans? I highly doubt that as well. I can see para-military members supporting the activities (or some that surrendered), for example, or professional mercenaries. Could have Colombian officials gone over the border to do any of this? I doubt that as well, way too risky. I also doubt any direct payments were made.

I am missing one real short report I read in the beginning, it woke me up telling me that something is fishy. I can't find that article anymore. Chavez (or one of his people) reported that they found about Granda missing by trying to call his cell phone, but he didn't answer. They traced for the location of the phone, found it, and discovered that Granda was gone, possibly kidnapped.

What woke me up was the fact that Chavez knew he was in Caracas and that he had contact to him. Something the public definitely needn't know. I asked myself, why does Chavez harbor FARC officials? This was before anything was officially reported that Granda was arrested in Cucuta, as far as I remember.

juancegomez says on Jan 26, 2005, 20:43:

Lionheart I'm not saying that only I can pretend to hold the truth or anything, but I definitely can't ignore some rather questionable statements made by the English-speaking (or just foreign, same deal) press, especially when outside media outlets aren't a quarter as interested in the subject as Colombian and Venezuelan sources.

"Nothing reported tells us anything how Granda was delivered to Cucuta except his own words about being tied up in the trunk of a car like one of his own kidnapped FARC victims (a great irony of the whole story, complaining about that). He mentions a road change to a secondary road once ... did a hand-over happen there?"

I wasn't talking about a specific method of delivery there, but even in that case...their taking risks is definitely not out of the question, especially when:

a)the Venezuelans were captured rather quickly anyways. The transaction may not have been direct but the fact is that it's been reported in Venezuela as being incomplete at the time of their arrest.

b)it has been reported in the Venezuelan state press that they (those officials called, once again, "bounty hunters" and "mercenaries" ) apparently showed some sort of documents to avoid hassles at checkpoints.

c)A few of the Venezuelans involved had cooperated closely with Colombian authorities for legal operations.

d)The Venezuelan that seems to have "lead" the capture had apparently made more than 20 phone calls to Colombia and at least one to an unspecified country.

Nobody official is involving outside bounty hunters, paramilitaries or mercenaries in this case, as of yet, neither in Colombia nor in Venezuela. Such a possibility may exist but it's absolutely speculative at this point. Might as well mention the CIA.

It's rather bothersome to read in the English-speaking press that the role of such forces is almost taken for granted with no proof or explicit claims presented. Instead of doing that, other things are mistranslated and misrepresented.

"What woke me up was the fact that Chavez knew he was in Caracas and that he had contact to him. Something the public definitely needn't know. I asked myself, why does Chavez harbor FARC officials? This was before anything was officially reported that Granda was arrested in Cucuta, as far as I remember."

That report sounds gossipy at best, or mistranslated at worst...there's absolutely no evidence of Chavez having a connection to Granda, and the capture of the man was announced within days of the event.

The Venezuelans have indeed tracked Granda's cellphone and the calls made through it, and the calls made by the officers under custody, but apparently not at that point in time.

Lionheart says on Jan 26, 2005, 21:12:

sounds botched if your points a-d were all performed by Venezuelans then I would say the whole thing wasn't planned very well, leaving a lot of risks wide open.

I have no doubt that reports were badly translated and edited at no end, that is normal, which is why I try to read as many sources as possible. I hope to find a report at one of the international intelligence sites. Since I haven't found one yet I assume that they also see too many unknown issues.

"the Venezuelans were captured rather quickly anyways" - this caught my attention as well ... which is why the other story about Granda's cell phone contact could be credible, they found out about the kidnapping rather fast.

Anyways, could turn into good Hollywood film material, or just be a botched story. I will keep listening to all opinions.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 27, 2005, 06:32:

El Tiempo story El Tiempo has an interesting piece about the proofs submitted by the Colombian government to the Venezuelans about the presence of FARC and ELN in that country

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/poli/crisisvene/poscol/noticias/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-1954505.html

goosekirk says on Jan 27, 2005, 10:58:

Awesome. Thanks, Juance, for taking the time to lay all that out, and Lionheart for following the story better than me. You guys are great.

PC says on Jan 27, 2005, 20:15:

Juance Had It Right At least in part. The press, eager for headlines did indeed blow things out of proportion, but much worse, deeply misrepresented what has actually happened.

Colombia had, still has, and will continue to have a bounty for FARC leaders. Just at the US has bounties out on Osama bin Laden et al. There is no evidence, and frankly it's pretty unlikely, that the Colombian government specifically hired anybody to do anything. They simply paid a reward for the capturer of Granda.

While it may be true, no it really is true, that a crime was comitted on Venezuelan soil by those who captured Granda, they comitted no crime in Colombia. Colombia is not responsible, but even if it were, like the Gooseman said, Isreal has been doing this for over 50 years (it's called Mosaad I think), mostly in Latin American (including Venzuela) and there has not been very much whining about it. Only Chavez, an avowed Castro admirer, has complained, and only when a FARC criminal was captured BY HIS OWN POLICE.

I wonder why it is that if Chavez is not at least a closet supporter of FARC, his own police were able to find and capture Granda independently, but they did not do so under the interpol warrant that had been issued (and yes it WAS issued prior to his capture)? Let's not forget that Granda was there attending a Bolivarian Revolution conference (totally absurd name as Bolivar was a very wealthy landowner who cared barely a whit for the campesinos). Anyway, it's funny how they could not find him at the conference but were able to find him at an upscale restaurant afterwards. Hmmmm, food for thought eh?

Lionheart says on Jan 27, 2005, 21:28:

PC I like your thoughts, they make sense. Venezuelan police doing the job themselves for the bounty. And you open up more questions, it stinks even more.

By the way, the Mosaad have been doing undercover operations all over the world. And they are good at what they do. I remember reading an article about them in Germany, how they laughed their butts off when the USA botched a covert operation in the middle-east.

PC says on Jan 28, 2005, 16:49:

Mosaad Yeah man, 50 years of practise makes 'em real good. The CIA conversely seems to screw up everything they touch lately, or maybe it's just because they are part of the current administration. Maybe Bush could hire the Mosaad to capture Osama and Zarqawi.

Naaah, it would not be cowboyly. Apologies for the made up word, but in this case I think it fits.

juancegomez says on Jan 28, 2005, 16:51:

Well guys... The "fun" (ie: the crisis) seems to be over. We can argue over the details more calmly now, I hope.

lpdiver says on Jan 29, 2005, 09:59:

Money, Money, Money Chavez's providing a safe haven ( for a buck of course) is now not worth the price of the ticket. It's all about the money.

T

"cook some rice!"

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 29, 2005, 12:08:

Safe haven for money? I'd actually be surprised if money is Chavez's reason for sheltering the FARC. To me, I think it's either misguided ideology (ie. believing that the FARC represents "the people") or a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Chavez has made no great secret of his Bolivarian "Gran Colombia" fantasies, which he cannot fulfull if Colombia is strong and functioning.