Colombia Bombs Ecuador

juancegomez says on Jan 31, 2006, 12:36:

...and the prize for most incomplete description goes to... ...vladimiro! Clap, clap.

Colombia is not "bombing Ecuador" as your description implies but rather the guerrillas that are fleeing into Ecuador acrosss the border as Ecuador's television networks have clearly admitted in their news reports, and the use of machine gun fire is not equivalent to the use of bombs.

And if Colombia is violating Ecuador's sovereignity by doing so, then it is regretable but hardly something new. In fact, the country that came up with the idea that "hot pursuit" of Colombian irregulars across borders can sometimes be an acceptable tactic is Venezuela, not Colombia. Look it up if you're interested.

Combat in zones were civilians are present always causes people to flee in panic, that is sad but inherent to warfare.

Ideally it should be prevented, but in practice that has happened in practically all modern wars and all sides are guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree. To pretend otherwise may be politically correct, but falls straight into idealistic fiction.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jan 31, 2006, 12:48:

And the prize for the best rationalization of illegal action in violation of international law is.... juancegomez!... clap clap clap

I am envisioning Mexican helicopters in pursuit of people (bad guys, for sure!) into downtown San Diego and the bombing... oooops... the strafing of San Diego causing people to "flee in panic, that is sad but inherent to warfare." (The war on drugs in this case) How do you think that explanation would fly in Washington, D.C. after a violation of United States sovereignty?

Ecuador deserves equal respect.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 31, 2006, 13:00:

...and you would win the prize for something else platano... ...but that's beside the point. It's just an expression that hardly changes the rest of the argument.

While I am explaining it and that implies rationalization, yes, I'm not justifying it. But beyond that, this isn't as clear-cut as you and vladimiro are pretending that it is.

There is an illegal action being committed, yes, but it's not occurring in the void.

If you want to talk about violations of international law, then Ecuador should sue Colombia, but then Colombia should sue Venezuela and Ecuador over previous incidents as well, because each country has violated the other's sovereignity during military or police operations more than once.

But that likely won't happen. Or if it does, expect to see a multi-sided legal mess that won't make anybody happy.

Your comparison is inadequate. Colombia was not strafing a specific town like San Diego or Washington, but rather an underpopulated border area where the guerrillas are fleeing in the middle of the jungle.

The heavy combat occuring in Putumayo and elsewhere is provoking displacement, helicopters or not. I doubt that everybody fleeing is doing so only because of that and nothing else at all, just as I also doubt that the guerrillas are taking all the necessary precautions to avoid harming or threatening anybody in the area and thus don't have even 1% of the responsibility for the situation.

If that makes no difference for you, then tough. But it does matter in the courts.

This particular case has nothing to do with the war on drugs.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 31, 2006, 13:55:

Ecuador What is regrettable in my opinion is that Colombia does not have good enough relations with Ecuador to coordinate military actions/intelligence with them when the FARC escape back across the border. It doesn't help to antagonize neighboring governments. On the contrary, I would think that the goal should be to do whatever it takes to have close friendly relations with Colombia's nieghbors in order to get them to cooperate with Colombia against the FARC.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Pete E says on Jan 31, 2006, 15:27:

Border Game So if FARC comes in to Colombia,does some damage,then retreats across the border Colombia is just supposed to watch FARC thumb their noses at them?
Ecuador should be controlling whats happening on its side of the border,Ideally in cooperation with Colombia.But it seems this is sort of a out in the wilderness area where Ecuador has no control,maybe out of lack of wanting to.
I don't blame Colombia for going after them.And it might seem like Mexico - San Diego,but only on a point of principle.We damn well control what happens on the US side of the Border.Ecuador seems to not want to so I say let Colombia take care of them.And this area is NOT downtown San Diego.Every case is different.
The post that started this,Colombia cbombs Ecuador,is very misleading.Like ECUADOR was being attacked.FARC in Ecuador was being attacked.

Pete

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 31, 2006, 15:53:

.... GringoD:

Ecuador has said that it has activated its air defense systems BUT will strictly follow international norms in regards to air space violations and won't jump the gun and use force unless it is absolutely necessary. It's more of a warning than anything else for now.

Don't see Ecuador doing much more than that as far as military action is concerned.

In any event, a bilateral comission is already talking about the matter.

Btw, as far as Ecuador is concerned, the Colombian vessels where shooting at targets in Colombia from Ecuador's air space, not at targets in Ecuador. Quoting Ecuador's Defense Minister:

"Aclaró que lo ocurrido el domingo no es una “incursión”, porque eso se da en territorio enemigo. Lo que fue dijo, es que Colombia cumplió sus operaciones militares con una ocupación ilegal del territorio ecuatoriano para mejorar sus operaciones militares, “Por eso se justifica que no haya respuesta armada por parte de Ecuador”."

http://www.eluniverso.com/2006/
01/31/8/2a4176edfda346e79ae2ad7da50c44e5.html?EUID=

"Sin embargo, lo que sucedió ahora -sostuvo- es diferente porque el límite entre Ecuador y Colombia es el río San Miguel, que tiene 80 metros de ancho y "ellos sabían perfectamente la ubicación geográfica en que se encontraban... Hubo una violación manifiesta y evidente del espacio aéreo”, desde donde se realizó un ataque a territorio colombiano, añadió."

http://www.eluniverso.com/2006/
01/31/8/f77cc8624be44e2a9a7359a7f676fd66.html?EUID=

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Feb 1, 2006, 05:53:

This is a tough one. Colombia's intrusion into Ecuador is rational, however every country should respect the sovereignty of other nations at alls times. No matter rich or poor. I have read about Venezuelan troops being fired upon by the Colombian army (near the border) while chasing paramilitaries (drug traffickers) back into Colombia. and I think Venezuela actually violated Colombian sovereignty afterwards when chasing the paramilitaries again. Colombia then issued a statement that Venezuela should cease from violating their sovereignty. You cannot have it both ways people. I find it appalling that Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela do not have joint operations. Countries that share the same flag colors and are pretty much brethren.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 1, 2006, 09:29:

.... Not beyond the realm of possibilities, yes, but likely beyond the realm of probability, given the fact that Ecuador has insisted that they do not have any hostile intentions (including any "retaliation").

Ecuador's air force will patrol the border and act together with Ecuador's air defense systems in order to prevent any future incidents.

But, I repeat, they do not have the order to shoot down any Colombian aircraft on sight, only to follow international norms and tell them to retreat whenever they come close to violating Ecuador's air space. They will only use force as the very last resort.

http://elpais-cali.terra.com.co/paisonline/notas/Febrero012006/descarta.html

So there is no other sign of escalation yet, and even if there was I doubt that it'll go beyond one plane firing warning shots at another in the next-to-worst-case scenario.

We don't want to go to war with Ecuador over this and neither do they, none of us is in any position to do so.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 1, 2006, 10:14:

... Yes, I saw the images on TV (and they still didn't show any bombs though).

But notice this: the machine gun fire and rocket fire (with the predominance of the earlier as would be logical) was directed at targets roughly in Colombia (you can more or less notice this too if you look at the general direction that the aircraft were facing in those TV shots...they are firing AWAY from the cameraman), according to what Ecuador's defense minister has stated. See the quotes I posted earlier.

The problem was that there was an airspace violation, nothing more. At least as far as Ecuador's government is concerned that is all they are protesting about right now. That would imply that they have no problem with the ordenance being used and the targets that it was generally being directed towards.

(I have no idea what else may or may not have happened for sure since I wasn't there, so I won't assume more than that yet).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 1, 2006, 10:37:

I get the sarcasm, but strictly speaking... ...they were not shown in the TV images nor have they been protested by Ecuador (and since supposedly nothing in Ecuador was attacked, whatever was bombed or wasn't is hard to prove).

Btw, is the use of bombs 100% obligatory in every single military operation that involves a helicopter or a plane? I don't think so. It's probably a common thing, but not every type of bomb is going to be equally useful in every type of engagement or terrain.

As for the other statement, those are an unknown number of corrupt elements in the military (whether soldiers or higher ups as well) looking to make a buck or with a slight ideological sympathy, not part of an orchestrated operation that intentionally involves the entire government of Ecuador as far as is known. The same could be said for the neighboring militaries and that of Colombia itself.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Feb 1, 2006, 10:41:

Ya, well, the FARC has received arms from the Colombian... ... army too, as we read just recently. That doesn't mean it's national policy.

Why are you guys excited about this? It seems like much to do about nothing to me. There is no convenient line on the ground to let pilots know where they are at... and just like ground troops, if they are in the middle of a running gunfight along the border, they just might spill over.

They might look at the GPS and notice, or they might not. They might not care.

Did the bullets hit Equadorian or Colombian jungle? I hardly think Quito cares much more than Bogota. Sure, Ecuador has to make pro forma complaints, and demand that neighbors respect its sovereignty. But armed conflict between Ecuador and Colombia? Who on earth wants THAT?

I think all the attention springs from the "let's all be friends crowd," who want to point out how MEAN those Colombian fascists were being.

Whatever.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 1, 2006, 10:44:

... Some bullet shells did end up in Ecuador and were shown on TV, but when machine guns are fired the shells are usually projected in an entirely different (ie: usually even opposite) direction than that of the bullets themselves, taking into account that the airspace violation was no more than a couple of kilometers deep (which may be a lot on the ground but not too much while in a rapidly moving aircraft that can cover that distance in minutes).

0 funny, 0 helpful.