?

Portena says on Dec 21, 2007, 11:30:

I think a very interesting historical account can be found in this book:

More Terrible Than Death: Violence, Drugs, And America's War in Colombia

by Robin Kirk


The Wall Street Journal described this book as "A vividly written and often mesmerizing first-hand account of the violence".

I feel better! I can smile at it now, I feel better. Ohhhh, better! Gnarls Barkley

docwilliam says on Dec 21, 2007, 11:45:

!

"There's no time to panic"

catherine b says on Dec 21, 2007, 12:25:

I would have to say Colombia is a free country fighting bandits. Hopefully under Uribe this will come to an end some day not too far in the future.

The closest Colombia ever came to a civil war was following the assasination of presidential candidate Gaitan in 1943 which launched an "undeclared civil war" known as "la violencia" between conservatives and liberals that lasted about 10 years and cost the lives of some 200,000 Colombians.

slguy says on Dec 21, 2007, 12:32:

While I would never claim to have sufficient knowledge of the history of FARC to issue anything approaching a valuable judgement - from the outside looking in, this is about as much a civil war as Fidel was leading a "liberation" in Cuba. Thugs, terrorists and drug dealers do not constitute anything more than thuggery.

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

britabroad says on Dec 21, 2007, 13:41:

A deep seated and contentious issue that started back in 1810 when New Granada issued a declaration of independence from the Spanish Crown, which had been usurped by Napoleon Bonaparte who put his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne.
The Spanish colonies, one by one, refused to recognise Bonaparte as their king and broke away from Spanish rule. Some wanted full independence from Spain, to reduce the power of the RC Church in education, and to form small independent governments from the local creoles - those of European descent but born in Latin America - known as Liberals. Others wanted to retain ties with Spain and supported the exiled KIng Ferdinand VII, wanted the RC Church to retain its official position, and wanted New Granada - Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador - to remain one entity. These were the Conservatives. This is a very basic explanation which doesnt really do the issue justice.
Many people swung between each faction, but the battle lines were drawn before Ecuador was even fully freed from Spain.
The infighting between these two political factions led to the break up of New Granada into the countries we see today, although Panama remained part of Colombia. It also resulted in several "civil wars" during the 19th cent, particularly the "War of a 1000 Days" between 1899 and 1903, resulting in 100,000 deaths and the breaking away of Panama.
Loyalty to one of these two political parties was expected and became a matter of intense belief for many, which often led to bloodshed. La Violencia during the 40s and 50s was the last full blown conflict which affected the whole country.
The voice of the impoverished had no outlet as such, as both Liberal and Conservatives represented the middle and upper classes, leading to the formation of armed groups such as FARC and the ELN, who originally fought as left-wing "freedom fighters" during the 1960s, protecting the rural areas from the right wing government. However, their tactics - mass homicide, kidnapping, narco trading etc - led to the Colombian Communist Party denouncing FARC, after which any pretence at political involvement ceased.
Colombia is not at Civil War any more than Ireland was at Civil War during the 1970s and 80s when the IRA were prevailant. Colombia is a country where a disciplined armed insurgency exists, but the soveregn forces and the vast majority of the people are not at war with each other.
I"ll sit down and shut up now.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

Gator says on Dec 21, 2007, 14:32:

catherine b just about nailed that question

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

aguardiente says on Dec 21, 2007, 16:46:

That catherine uri b is everywhere. The voice of her master.

docwilliam says on Dec 21, 2007, 16:57:

.

"There's no time to panic"

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 21, 2007, 17:19:

I believe it has been called a Low Intensity Armed Conflict, not a civil war. Until Uribe was instructed not to call the FARC and the ELN guerrilla any longer but terrorists there was still some semblance of a classical Latin American class struggle (vr. The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua, the FMNL in El Salvador etc.) and Uribe also went ahead to declare that there was no armed conflict in the country, only bandits and terrorists.

However, this is not entirely true.
While the FARC have lost most of their former political credibility because nobody in this time and age believes in leftist guerrillas any longer (an anachronism) and because they rely more and more on extremely censurable methods to finance their activities (kidnapping, drug trafficking, extortion, acts of cruelty and terrorism) they have lost the little sympathy and support they may have enjoyed earlier and are only half-heartedly supported by a small number of scattered peasants in their zone of influence. Their leaders are the octogenarian and gravely ill Manuel Marulanda," Tirofijo", Sharp Shooter and his commanders, the cruel and degenerate Mono Jojoy, the false and treacherous Raul Reyes and Briceño.

I may be wrong but it is my impression that there is still some kind of political agenda and that the FARC has still the goal to overthrow the legitimate government in Colombia and establish a Marxist-style government there.

IMO there's a kind of civil war going on in Colombia even if the government tries to deny it.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 21, 2007, 17:23:

I think an important element of calling anything a "Civil War" is that there should be a sizable portion of the population agitating for the "Revolution". That simply doesn't apply in Colombia. Even by the most generous estimates the FARC and ELN don't even total 1% of Colombia's population. Throw in 3 "supporters" for every "soldier" and you're still in the low single digits.

That's totally unlike the FMLN or the Sandinistas, who had very sizable and often majority support in the countries where they operated.

goin_south says on Dec 21, 2007, 21:12:

to take Hollywood's thought to substance:
what? about 20,000 soldiers (farc and eln, total)
divided into ? 45,000,000 colombian population total..
and ad three supporters, as he said for every soldier...
and you get ONLY .18 per cent, or still less than 2/10th's of 1 %.

and, thank you.

Portena says on Dec 21, 2007, 21:36:

Britabroad and Desi definitely cut to the chase with their summaries, but if you want to gain a better understanding of the intrigue, tangled politics, and alliances read Robin Kirk's book. She interviewed all the major players like Castano and Manuel Marulanda. Once she was set up for an ambush for being a human rights worker, but fate had another plan for her...

I feel better! I can smile at it now, I feel better. Ohhhh, better! Gnarls Barkley

docwilliam says on Dec 21, 2007, 22:46:

Thanks

"There's no time to panic"

docwilliam says on Dec 21, 2007, 23:44:

.

"There's no time to panic"

billyb says on Dec 21, 2007, 23:52:

"Until Uribe was instructed not to call the FARC and the ELN guerrilla any longer"

Instructed by whom? And do you have any documentation?

billyb says on Dec 21, 2007, 23:54:

"they rely more and more on extremely censurable methods to finance their activities "

And what, pray tell, are those censurable methods? Desi, you are not trying to downplay their depravity, are you?

billyb says on Dec 22, 2007, 00:00:

"IMO there's a kind of civil war going on in Colombia even if the government tries to deny it."

How can you call it civil war, when it is being fought by a legitimate, democratically elected governament supported by the overwhelming majority of the population, against a terrorist group of around 8000 fighters financed by drug running, kidnapping and extortion, that is only supported by a miniscule portion of the people, and the mojority of those do so under durres, or because they benefit from the drug trade.

goin_south says on Dec 22, 2007, 05:32:

car1,... do you know Col_Mike?

and, thank you.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 22, 2007, 06:51:

Billyb, I know that we are not on the same page about Colombian politics or any kind of politics for that matter. No, I don't defend the guerrilla or try to downplay their atrocities, but I don't have any personal experience with a family member that has been killed or kidnapped and I lack the passion to defend one side or another and try to look at the situation from an outsiders's point of view. I lived in Colombia for most of the M-19 time frame, but I have been absent now a long time and I never had any Farc sympathies at all, even if lean slightly to the left in my political spectrum.

If I were Colombian or lived in Colombia I'd probably support the legitimate left of the center, The Polo Democratico, because they represent closest the social democratic ideals that I hold dear. I have no illusions left about any guerrilla movements, in Colombia or anywhere else in the world. The time and age of freedom fighters, wild-eyed idealists and folk heros is long gone; it's multinational corporations, bug bucks and financial insitutions that decide over the life and destinies of both individual people and nations.

Yes, I call it a "kind of" civil war because it's an armed insurrection against the legitimate military forces of a sovereign nation; the ultimate goal is to overthrow the government and establish a different type of rule, considered more equitative. It's doomed to fail, because it became tainted by drug trade, atrocities, kidnappings and corruption on its very top levels and the murderes like Jojoy; Briceño or Reyes do not deserve to be called guerrilleros in the old, traditional sense, but criminals and terrorists.





I

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

kalder says on Dec 22, 2007, 07:58:

Interesting that Desi uses the word 'insurrection'. Under UK law, that's what the FARC would be classified as- 'insurrectionists'. It is not a civil war by any standard legal definition.

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

juancegomez says on Dec 22, 2007, 09:34:

The short answer is this: I'd tend to agree with Desi here, though I also think other good points have been made.

You could say I believe it fits some of the definitions/implications of civil war (say, an internal conflict where at least one party is trying to overthrow/replace the standing government), but not others.

In other words, for me it's clear as daylight that this isn't like the Spanish or U.S. civil wars, or even several of Colombia's 19th century civil wars, but it's not just a bunch of guys rioting either.

There really should be a more nuanced term, I suppose..."insurrection" sort of fits, but...maybe it's missing something as well. "Low intensity conflict" is a valid description, but maybe it's slightly too wordy.

In the end, it's still a war, however you want to name it.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 22, 2007, 09:38:

"International Definition
The Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, (Volume II-B, p. 121) does not specifically define the term ‘civil war’. It did, however, describe the criteria that separate any act committed by force of arms (anarchy, terrorism, or plain banditry) from those qualifying as ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ which includes civil wars. Among those conditions listed are these four basic requirements.

• The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

• The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

• The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

• The legal Government is “obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military.�

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) further clarified Article 9 of the Geneva Convention. They stated that the nature of these armed conflicts, not of an international character “generally refer to conflicts with armed forces on either side which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country"

This is from Wikipedia.
I was thinkingh that perhaps I have been wrong all along and the right word should be insurgency or insurrection (preliminary state of revolution, depending on if it's successful or not)

However, according to wiki's definition (the International definition) at least three of the necessary conditions for civil war in Colombia are sustained.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

juancegomez says on Dec 22, 2007, 10:13:

Speaking of Wikipedia, I just found a link to a .PDF file which discusses the specific subject being debated here. It's probably worth a read.

http://www.ideaspaz.org/publicaciones/download/guerra_civil_english.pd...

Desi: The opening paragraph does make clear it's not exactly a definition of "civil war" though, but of an "armed conflict not of an international character", something which according to the Wikipedia description includes but is not limited to "civil war".

It's a bit of an indirect definition and fairly open to interpretation, in other words.

As for the conditions outlined above....yes, some of those are met, but the question would be how to measure and interpret them.

There aren't precise borders determining what parts of the national territory are in possession of each party, and the fact that many operate as irregular forces makes such possession quite fluid and even temporary. You can't really draw a realistic map under those circumstances.

The same problem appears when trying to define and measure what kind and what amount of "civil authority" the armed actors exercise, as well as when determining how much recognition as a belligerent is afforded to each party.

In other words, even under those conditions the application of the definition is still not strictly clear.

Yes, you could say that the war in Colombia is an "armed conflict not of an international character", but then what?

docwilliam says on Dec 22, 2007, 12:56:

!

"There's no time to panic"

Lcacique says on Dec 22, 2007, 16:21:

You guys should know better than to quote wikipedia, lol.

docwilliam, other interesting books on the subject include "Blood and Fire: La Violencia in Antioquia, Colombia, 1946-1953" by Mary Roldán, "State Building and Conflict Resolution in Colombia" by Harvey Kline, "Law in a Lawless Land" by Michael Taussig, and "Colombia: A Brutal History" by Geoff Simons.

I always find it interesting when people call Colombia a legitimate democracy. How many people were assassinated during the last elections? How many people do not run because of death threats? How many people win elections because they are the only canidate running?

I also think it is interesting when people try to reduce the FARC to drug-traffickers. How many politicians and other government employees have profited from cocaine in Colombia? As for the use of violence and torture by the FARC, how often did the government benefit from the utilization of similar methods through its relationship with paramilitary organizations? Something that is finally being acknowledged despite years of denial on the part of the government ( "The para-politics scandal, as it is known, has brought down 40 members of Congress, three governors, and dozens of local politicians – including former San Onofre Mayor Jorge Blanco." ).

In sum, I feel that the actors on both sides of this debate are pretty unworthy of praise.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

docwilliam says on Dec 22, 2007, 16:51:

?

"There's no time to panic"

slguy says on Dec 22, 2007, 17:54:

" also think it is interesting when people try to reduce the FARC to drug-traffickers. How many politicians and other government employees have profited from cocaine in Colombia?"

This is the moral equivilant of little Bobby saying "but Billy did it, too!"

No government is immune to corruption, nor to the influence of violence on it's members. But I'm pretty sure no reasonable adult would claim that the Colombian government's reason for existence is drug trafficking, extortion, and/or terrorism.

On the other hand, despite FARC's proclamations to the contrary, a case could be made, and a credible case, that these activites are their only reason for existence.

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

juancegomez says on Dec 22, 2007, 19:09:

Lcacique:

"You guys should know better than to quote wikipedia, lol."

I never did quote Wikipedia, just a link I found there (again). Other than that, the information Desi posted refers to an actual document that is not from Wikipedia, if you care to notice.

"docwilliam, other interesting books on the subject include "Blood and Fire: La Violencia in Antioquia, Colombia, 1946-1953" by Mary Roldán, "State Building and Conflict Resolution in Colombia" by Harvey Kline, "Law in a Lawless Land" by Michael Taussig, and "Colombia: A Brutal History" by Geoff Simons."

Those books, and many others, are indeed informative about certain parts of the situation in Colombia.

But they're not necessarily about this specific subject per se, though I suppose they may or may not help address it, one way or another.

Still, as long as we're mentioning books of this nature, one I can't stop recommending is "Walking Ghosts" by Steven Dudley.

"I always find it interesting when people call Colombia a legitimate democracy."

I think it's fair to say that there are democratic and legitimate elements here, even if there are also undemocratic and illegitimate ones.

What conclusions you reach from that point on are, of course, subject to different interpretations.

There's no universal definition or interpretation of what a democracy is supposed to be, since it can be merely a formal description of a political system or one with certain values attached, though they are only rarely fully respected worldwide, even if the situation has improved in recent decades.

"How many people were assassinated during the last elections? "

A few dozens, if you are talking about candidates, which is still quite a small number compared to the tens of thousands who were alive and ran for office.

"How many people do not run because of death threats? "

That is unknown and probably impossible to accurately calculate at this point, but see above and below as well.

"How many people win elections because they are the only canidate running? "

I don't have the figures handy, but only a small minority of the overall total, and actually one which has been decreasing in recent elections.

"I also think it is interesting when people try to reduce the FARC to drug-traffickers."

Never done such a thing myself.

"How many politicians and other government employees have profited from cocaine in Colombia?"

I imagine that plenty, just as plenty of guerrillas have also done so, though there are no complete figures available either.

"As for the use of violence and torture by the FARC, how often did the government benefit from the utilization of similar methods through its relationship with paramilitary organizations?"

Plenty of times, which excuses absolutely nothing on FARC's side, unless we want to make this an endless vicious circle of "you use torture, I use torture, you use torture, etc." and so forth.

"Something that is finally being acknowledged despite years of denial on the part of the government ( "The para-politics scandal, as it is known, has brought down 40 members of Congress, three governors, and dozens of local politicians – including former San Onofre Mayor Jorge Blanco." ). "

True indeed.

"In sum, I feel that the actors on both sides of this debate are pretty unworthy of praise."

Indeed, in absolute moral terms.

But I personally do feel that when *everything* is taken into consideration, both good and bad, the state is still in a relatively better shape than FARC, despite all the dangers and acts of repression one might want to list. As limited and flawed as existing freedoms and democratic spaces may be, they are still there.

docwilliam says on Dec 22, 2007, 19:21:

.

"There's no time to panic"

billyb says on Dec 22, 2007, 23:06:

"Billyb, I know that we are not on the same page about Colombian politics or any kind of politics for that matter"

jaja, Desi, you are right, we don't agree on much, but I respect your point of view because it comes from loving Colombia and having an understanding of it (as misguided as it might be).

goin_south says on Dec 23, 2007, 01:25:

...'Misguided...... Understanding'???????

jajjjja.. billyb, I think they got a name for that
billyb... don't forget... Desi lives muy cerca a Russia;
likely osmosis takes over now and then,.. even though (they say) the ruskies can't.

and, thank you.

tomtom33 says on Dec 23, 2007, 02:52:

"How many people win elections because they are the only canidate running? "
Are we speaking of Colombia or the US here? The power of incumbency in the US leads to many single-candidate races.

"How many politicians and other government employees have profited from cocaine in Colombia?"
Substitute "special interest money" for "cocaine" and we have the US again.

No democracy will ever be perfect. A large part of my business life was spent lobbying the State government. No man's property is safe when the legislature is in session.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 03:05:

South, the Ruskies are the most capitalist and money-hungry people I know. No confundir, por favor, la mierda con la pomada.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 03:36:

_South, there's NO SUCH THING as osmosis throught that border; we only cross it with an AK 47

in hand.

The Russkies HAVE NEVER EVER known social democracy only despiccable totalitarian communist tyranny.
(Gods, it's the day before Christmas Eve and I'm turning into a mini Rubito)

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

tomtom33 says on Dec 23, 2007, 04:19:

Yup Desi. All you need is to sprinkle in a few F-words and you have it.

My grandfather, born in Nybro, still had a strong fear of the Russians after 60 years in the US.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 04:38:

Tomtom, I don't have any FEAR for them. One Finnish soldier takes out 10 Russkies with one hand tied behind his back.

Have you ever been to Nybro or Sweden?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

catherine b says on Dec 23, 2007, 04:49:

That's true Desideria. Those Finns are tough! They won their independence from the Russians and later held the Soviets back for how many decades? The Russians know the Finnish people are not to be f***ed with.

slguy says on Dec 23, 2007, 06:05:

If I come to Finland and say "nyet", will someone throw a bottle with incendiary liquid at me?

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

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 06:18:

No, if you come with lots of rubbels in your hand. We're proud, not dum.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

tomtom33 says on Dec 23, 2007, 06:28:

I have never been to Nybro or Sweden. I intend to go the summer after my mother passes, and that could be soon. I have a friend who spends his summers on the coast near Nybro. He said that he would pick me up at the airport in Copenhagen and put me up for a few nights.

My next stop will be Tysvaer, Norway, near Stavanger to see my father's side of the family.

slguy says on Dec 23, 2007, 06:54:

Damn. another scheme shot down in it's infancy.

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

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 07:09:

Sound like a good plan, Tom. You'll have fun; you'll like it here.

Slguy, That "incendiary liquid" is just plain old gasoline. The bomb is called Molotov coctail. I'm very biased about Russians and I guess there's not going to be no end to teasing now that I have confessed a flaw in my otherwise so perfect personality.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Dec 23, 2007, 07:49:

damn. another illusion shot to hell, too.

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

goin_south says on Dec 23, 2007, 08:45:

"Gods, it's the day before Christmas Eve and I'm turning into a mini Rubito"

....funniest line you've ever written, Desi.
Hey, tell us yer hookin up the reindeer to go into town to do some last minute shopping today, too. ;)

and, thank you.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 09:02:

I'm done with the shopping. Today I've been cooking all day. Now I'm going to wrap the last presents and have some hot mulled wine. I haven't taken my "reindeer" out today.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Lcacique says on Dec 23, 2007, 10:45:

docwilliam, the books are in english and easy to find online. I suggest checking ebay first. I found them all used, in great condition, and very cheap. As juancegomez pointed out, they do not address the problem that you mentioned directly; however, I think that they give some important perspectives and historical background that may enable you to develop a better understanding of the situation.

juancegomez, I totally agree (p.s. my comments were not directed at you). My point was simply that things are not so black and white, and just because one side is "bad" does not mean that the other side is "good." In addition, just because I feel that the government is guilty of many horrible crimes both directly and indirectly through their association with the paras, I am not insinuating that there are not any good/honest/praiseworthy politicians in Colombia. I also hope that the positive trends (i.e. the acknowledgement that some were involved w/ para activities, and the recent convictions of para's guilty of murdering union leaders, etc.) will continue.

I was not arguing that because Billy was dealing blow that Bobby should not be punished for dealing blow. I would argue that both Billy and Bobby should be punished equally (of course this is wishful thinking. Politicians and other elites in the US are often treated differently by the criminal justice system than people from other classes).

For those who pointed out that the US government is corrupt, I agree! I have no argument. In fact, you can rip apart both republicans and democrats as far as I care.

I hope everyone has a great holiday...

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

docwilliam says on Dec 23, 2007, 11:02:

.

"There's no time to panic"

aztec says on Dec 23, 2007, 11:25:

Must be a nightmare living with the wolf at your front door.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 11:31:

The only country that paid up the so-called war debt to the Allied. It wasn't enough that we had to cede territory to the Russkies, we also had to pay them ...(where's my AK 47 now...) but at the same time since we had to practically invent heavy industry from the beginning in Finland to be able to deliver trains and ships to the malditos russkies our industry developed and became techonogically one of the most modern and advanced in the whole world....the Finnish ice-breakers for example were a direct result of this industrial boom.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

tomtom33 says on Dec 23, 2007, 12:06:

Thanks, Desi. I never knew much of my cousins across the border. The Swedes and Norwegians seem quite into themselves. Don't know much about the Danes, either.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 12:16:

Aztec, it's been a nightmere with no end, ever since the dawn of history. Finland has been like Poland, a buffer between the east and the west, disputed and warred over. The coat of arms of the Finnish province of Karelia (limits with Russia) symbolizes the struggle with a western short-sword engaged in battle with an eastern scimitar.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

docwilliam says on Dec 23, 2007, 12:48:

.

"There's no time to panic"

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 12:58:

Doc, we're getting seriously off-topic here but I just wanted to tell you that seven out of nine of my maternal grandmother's family emigrated to USA at the beginning of last century. I have relatives from California to Michigan to New York to Florida. They all came from a small eastern border town in the isthmus of Karelia. Perthaps you are a long-lost cousin of mine ....

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Dec 23, 2007, 13:01:

"Doc, we're getting seriously off-topic here...."

jajajajajjajajajjajajajjaja

Like threads on PBH regularly stay ON topic! Good one, desi!

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

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 13:22:

If I could, I would split this thread now and move the lower portion (the last 5- comments) into off-topic section.
I believe the threads on PBH follow the general pattern of any barroom conversation. Digress is my middle name.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

docwilliam says on Dec 23, 2007, 13:24:

.

"There's no time to panic"

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 23, 2007, 13:37:

Not your fault doc. I started it...no, really it was the duck talking about this bs osmosis...and got me started.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Dec 23, 2007, 14:26:

For God's sakes, unless ya'll want an old sailor to have a stroke soon, let's keep this effin thread off topic, please! Don't make me ask for Elmo's help!

;)

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

goin_south says on Dec 23, 2007, 21:15:

"..Not your fault doc. I started it...no, really it was the duck talking about this bs osmosis...and got me started.."

Not the fault of the Duck;
Blame BillyB....
with the 'MISGUIDED... UNDERSTANDING' commentario bs... jejej...

Blame gringodelouisian; I remember that guy got way off topic right away when he first logged on pbh almost 3 years ago.. and Gomezman5 went crying to Lionheart about it THREAD HI-JACKING. JEJJJJjeje He just have started a serious PBsH Dysfunction at the point.

Gomezman5; have yerself a merrry lil christmas... con sus loros. did you color one of them red, for Christmas? (Disculpa; I forgot... yer one of the happihannaka persuasions...colombian, no less) jejje

and, thank you.

bufalo says on Dec 25, 2007, 11:32:

didn't read the whole posting, but didn't the FARC actually start out as a real cause that just turned into the whole drug thing it is now. From what I know they armed themselves to fight the problems local farmers were having in the countryside.

"If you don't like it - lump it, take it down the road and dump it." - Archie Bunker played by Carroll O'Connor

catherine b says on Dec 26, 2007, 14:23:

Initially they did start out as leftist rebels against the abuses perpetrated on the poor but not long after started commiting abuses of their own.