Could peace break out in Colombia? Well, no...

Wastelandlive says on Jun 23, 2006, 19:09:

Ya, whatever. How do I know the FARC guy is lying?

His lips are moving.

They had their chance. They had their zone. They had years of tolerance while they routinely violated the cease fire, and continued their lucrative hostage taking and narcotrafficing operations.

Only the most foolish Colombian would ever believe them.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

b bruce says on Jun 23, 2006, 21:42:

Hey Raul! Careful dude, They are gonna get ya! Sounds to me this Raul Reyes dude is on the run! Hey Raul, By all means stay under the jungle canopy. There is an UAV up above looking for you 24/7. They are the newest thing used by the good guys to find and kill the bad guys. And they are actually pretty inexpensive to operate. By the way Raul, Your one of the bad guys! You ignorant fool! You do not make demands. You do not set conditions. You are a cancer slowing down the recovery of a wonderful country. But research has come a long way Raul. Did you know that most cancers are now curable. Your time will come. When it does your not even going to know what hit you! Viva Colombia!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 24, 2006, 12:25:

The same message of peace from the US ambassador... From Newsweek, June 24, 2006 [online]:

"Breaking that Shia/Sunni [FARC/Colombian Army] impasse won't be easy. But as the U.S. ambassador says, "Every war must come to an end," and few on any side in Iraq [Colombia] any longer believe they can kill their way to peace. The only alternative is to try to talk their way there."

Eventually it must end through talking. Killing is stupid. How many thousands more must die?

I am philosophically opposed to the idea that killing is justified because it will lead to talking. The approach must be nonviolent through and through.

What we want is for all Colombians to be able to work together to bring about a better Colombia for all. As I told FARC, if you are willing the kill some Colombians, then you are not working for the welfare of all Colombians.plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 24, 2006, 13:40:

I'm not sure about the idea... ...that "killing is justified because it will lead to talking."

But I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that killing is justified because it prevents innocents from being killed, kidnapped, robbed or extorted.

Ya. I'm definitely good with that.

And I really preferred the dancing banana.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 24, 2006, 14:03:

Trouble is, once you start killing, eventually... you end up killing the innocents... and then you put guns in the hands of the corpses and say they were "presuntos guerrilleros"...

No way around it... the civilians "siempre llevan", innocent civilians always get killed.plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

justino says on Jun 24, 2006, 14:24:

As long as cocaine consumption is illegal... ... there will be a well-funded FARC that will not be defeated or pacified. There will also be tens of thousands of illegal drug dealers, their bosses and the territorial gangs that they require in the U.S. for distribution.

Tell people they can't do something legally and they will often find a way to do it through other means, which will empower "bad guys" and cause problems far beyond those that would be caused by simply letting people do what they want.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 24, 2006, 18:25:

Platano... Once you commit to invasive surgery, people occassionally die from complications as well.

Do you ever get the feeling that maybe the morality you espouse is just a little bit facile?

In your formulation you've mixed the tragic - but, agreed, innevitable - incedents of civilian casualties in war with genuine war crimes. You pretend that they are part and parcel.

They are not.

No more dancing banana?

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 24, 2006, 18:53:

Wastelandlive, Yes, my position is facile. Simplistic. Unreal. About what one would expect for a green banana that no longer dances.

You are correct that civilian casualties commited by government forces are not to be equated with war crimes commited by extralegal armed forces. I agree with you... even though the victims are equally dead.

These are the kinds of distinctions jcg likes to make. In one case it is a tragic accident which often results in compensation or apologies. In the other case it is the work of criminal insurgents with little respect for human life. Or at least that's how it is portrayed by the popular press.

As long as both sides embrace violence we can expect more of each type of deaths. (PS. surgery is usually elective. Being caught in a crossfire is not.)plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 24, 2006, 21:34:

Ouch! That was a really LOW blow. I am familiar with JCG's annoying and nitpicking habit of pointing out every possible distinction in a situation, even those which are clearly superfluous to the argument at hand. It makes him feel bright.

But really Platano: this is not simply a distinction worthy of him. It's a distinction made by any court ruling on the difference between accidental death, manslaughter, and murder. Point taken that the victims are equally dead: but having paused to savor the profundity of that observation, I must note that intent is fundamental in judging any act. No?

I concur that we can expect more violent deaths so long as both sides embrace violence. For that reason most successful social contracts cede a monopoly in violence to the state. I'm trying to think of an exception... coming up dry.

Perhaps that deal would work in Colombia?

Your counsel sounds great. And since it will definitely be ignored by the Guerilla, it could only spell disaster for the government that would heed it.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel_Clavo says on Jun 24, 2006, 21:39:

Four more years of jungleitis for FARC? Tough Shit, Elliot! seems to me that their dreams are just not coming true, and no more Christmas cards from Uncle Uribe.....maybe if we just place enough green bananas in their paths, they will all just slip and break their collective necks!or die laughing?? jajaja....sounds like they should be called "Bananas on The Run".,.............

Just my opinion...

Miguel_Clavo...faltan 7 F-ing días...Colombia es pasión!

"F.A.R.C..S.U.C.K.S"

"I would rather die living life, than to live a dying life."........ Oh, and my PM is always ON. Great Bumper Sticker: "Home of the Free, Because of the Brave"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jun 26, 2006, 17:31:

platano... "Plátano's comment: This is not going to happen. There will be no peace talks with FARC while Uribe is president."

Or with any other president, as long as the FARC demands, extremely unreasonably, the demilitarization of two entire departments for any peace talks to take place. At least if the government is not nearing dismemberment, of course.

"Eventually it must end through talking. Killing is stupid. How many thousands more must die?"

No idea.

"I am philosophically opposed to the idea that killing is justified because it will lead to talking. The approach must be nonviolent through and through."

Unfortunately, while I may share that philosophical position up to a point, I realize that the reality of war is never going to be entirely nonviolent "through and through". Once a war is in place, nonviolence as a principle has been practically defeated and will need to be rengineered somehow in order for it to actually matter. It needs to work its way up. Merely stating the principle again and again makes no difference.

"What we want is for all Colombians to be able to work together to bring about a better Colombia for all."

Who doesn't? Only a few people. I don't want people to die, but I can't deny that war is killing people left and right even as I speak.

"As I told FARC, if you are willing the kill some Colombians, then you are not working for the welfare of all Colombians."

Well, they are supposedly working for the welfare of most, not all, technically speaking. You now, the "vast masses" vs. the "small oligarchies".

"you end up killing the innocents... and then you put guns in the hands of the corpses and say they were "presuntos guerrilleros"..."

Or you do as the FARC do, when they end up claiming that they had killed "presuntos paramilitares" or "infiltrados". That knife cuts both ways.

"No way around it... the civilians "siempre llevan", innocent civilians always get killed."

That is always the sad reality of war, outside of very ceremonial forms of warfare.

"These are the kinds of distinctions jcg likes to make."

Those and others.

"In one case it is a tragic accident which often results in compensation or apologies."

Not necessarily. Many are real crimes with no apologies, as I have never denied and will never do so. I complete acknowledge that.

"In the other case it is the work of criminal insurgents with little respect for human life."

It depends. That just seems to be, proportionally, more often the case, given the way how a clandestine politico-military guerrilla structure that seeks to topple the state tends to work.

"Or at least that's how it is portrayed by the popular press."

Not necessarily either, but then again maybe I read other newspapers...or read them more carefully sometimes.

"As long as both sides embrace violence we can expect more of each type of deaths."

Definitely true, but simply stating that won't change things, as harsh as that might sound.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 27, 2006, 14:28:

"I don't think anyone on this site is for "killing" Gringodiego,
I think most people are in favor of killing. Society provides generous public funding of killing. It supports the training of killers (called "basic training") and it supports armed forces who engage in selective, restrained, measured, and legalized killing.

Governments even give people medals for their bravery in the action of killing. People willing to kill are saluted and given the highest respect. Parades are organized for the killers.

Everyone who wants FARC guerrillas killed supports killing.

Many people say they want peace, but first let's just get rid of the troublemakers. Been doing that for over 3,000 years. Never seems to result in a peaceful world because the act of killing creates anger, desire for revenge and that leads to more killing.

Seems crazy to me but, hey, I'm just a dumb green banana. :)plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 28, 2006, 12:15:

I'm with Platano, for once. I'm in favor of killing.

I'd limit it to criminals who commit murder and - my personal pet peave - kidnapping. But definitely in favor.

With all due respect to our resident green banana, I'd have to note that while we've never had a peaceful world, there have been many peaceful societies. And I don't think there is a single example of one in in which no agent is authorized to exercise violence.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2006, 14:47:

Thanks, Wastelandlive, It's good to have your support.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

corazon en colombia says on Jun 28, 2006, 15:07:

Finally!!! I am really impressed for once to see that people on this site are debating intelligently without insulting each other. I enjoyed reading all your comments. Although peace seems out of reach for the present (sometimes forever?!), we can continue to pray and dream of a better and safer Colombia. Que Dios bendiga a Colombia!

Colombia = paradiso

Colombia = paradiso

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 28, 2006, 17:04:

I like Colombia just the way it is.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.