Freedom edges closer for Colombian hostages

platano says on Oct 11, 2006, 21:30:

All well and good... as far as it goes.

But FARC must release ALL the hostages, not just "high-profile" hostages. And then FARC must renounce kidnapping and drug-dealing as forms of financing their violent attacks on Colombians and Colombian infrastructure. Just my opinion. plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 11, 2006, 23:45:

i was beginning to think that platano had gone down to assist in the freedom of Ingrid Betancort.

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 12, 2006, 07:09:

DonGringo, After a certain stage in human development a wonderful thing happens: human beings learn to use language. Instead of throwing temper tantrums, instead of screaming, instead of kicking, instead of violence, human beings are able to use words to express themselves without doing damage to others. All FARC operatives have reached that level of human development; they all have the ability to use language and to reason. Because they can talk and they can reason it is possible to negotiate with them about what they value, what they believe. I did it during my kidnapping. They listened, they argued... they didn't just pull the trigger and eliminate me.

It turns out they have children they love, they have a country they love, they have music they love, they have political beliefs they defend, they have parents and extended families who love them. They read literature, they have ideas... they are not that different from other Colombians who have not chosen to engage in armed conflict.

It is easy to call them names and label them as "criminals and terrorists". I prefer to point out their actions are actually counterproductive and inconsistent with their stated goals. But I respect their humanity and I had many discussions with them about literary works, political theories, and family values so I can't as easily paint them with a broad brush. They are all unique, they are human beings, and they love Colombia, just as most of us on this forum love Colombia.plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 12, 2006, 11:20:

Welll.... DonGringo, the U.S. was already intervening around the world, mostly in South America if we want to be both concrete and on topic, by the time of Teddy Roosevelt. So it's not just Bush Jr. who's to blame, if U.S. interventionism is what you're complaining about (and not just current events).

Although it may be morally wrong, it is often pragmatically necessary to negotiate with criminals and terrorists, sometimes, and even the U.S. of A. has done so in the past, present and most likely in the future, even if its official policies dictate otherwise.

It would be simpler if no such negotiations took place, if everything could be resolved without doing that, only through talks with non-criminals or simply with the use of force, but that's not always the case.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 13, 2006, 10:24:

No That wasn't what I said; it'd be just as ridiculous to do that as to find the U.S. completely blameless.

My point was that U.S. interventionism in South America, not just Colombia, is not a "new" thing, and you only need to pick up a history book to check it out. Forget about GWB for a minute and take a look back.

Those interventions have been both for better and for worse, I'm not automatically demonizing them.

I don't see how that translates to "the U.S. is to blame for all your problems in Colombia", but maybe it's just me.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 18, 2006, 23:03:

Platano! "they are not that different from other Colombians who have not chosen to engage in armed conflict."

That! Is The and A Major Difference. Not a Good One. "Chosen to engage in Armed Conflict".

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 19, 2006, 11:20:

Tinto I'm not convinced that this latest incident will have that effect, since there's no agreement against violence, from any of the two parties, currently in force.

It may delay it further, but other than that...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 07:51:

This is sad news, indeed It's almost as if it had been predestined to happen that something of this magnitude would happen that would stop the humanitarian agreement and exchange. This whole thing was predictable and there's something very, very wrong with this. I don't know what, if it's the guerrilla who will have the present stalemate and status quo at any costs or if it is the military itself that is compromised. If it's the latter then the president himself and Santos that are involved in this sad farce.

I think the president made his decision known a tad too fast for my liking. Also the proofs he presented were a bit too easy to fabricate. This and the ambush at Jamundí are two separate incidents that are extremely confusing and deceiving.

Military rescue of the prisoners should be totally out of question. I hope that Mr. Uribe will reconsider that.

Cheers not,

Desi




«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 08:01:

Yes, I am surprised Uribe said "The only option left is a military rescue." He should have said, "The talks are off for now" and left it at that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 09:01:

Tinto & Desi Call me whatever you want, I don't care, but I still only think that this is a *delay*.

A long delay of an additional one year, two years, or six months, whatever random number you may want to pick, but ultimately still a *delay*.

Do you really think that, after emotions calm down, and it is once again made clear that military rescues probably won't work in most cases, that the government will *not* be forced to backtrack on this latest statement? C'mon...

Besides, Carlos Lozano of "Voz" has mentioned that there was already a "de facto" suspension of negotiations, long before this latest incident.

But if it makes Tinto feel any better, feel free to pick up any bets you may have made on this.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue talking about this in a medium-long term perspective, not short term.

Btw: Desi, what happened at Jamundí is a completely different case, given that there it was the government, through the Attorney General himself, that directly blamed the soldiers and called them "criminals".

And on the other hand, even if it's possible that the military could theoretically be responsible for this latest case(though I'm personally not willing to grant eternal innocence to the FARC, like some apparently are), that doesn't mean that the entire military is knowingly behind it, much less all authorities. The military is not a monolithic entity, nor is the government. There are more reactionary and more progressive sectors in both.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 09:18:

juance, I'm not willing to grant eternal innocence to the FARC, only that from somebody's point of view this terrorist attack in Bogotá and hitting right the heart of the military was just so damned convenient and well-timed. What I believe is that The Farcs are not monolith institution either; there might well be those there who would welcome the negotiations while others (perhaps just Mono Jojoy and Raul Reyes) would do anything to torpede the peace process. I think it's very controversial, that's all. (I only compared it with the Jamundí incident to point out that even if I have read and followed the Jamundí case closely I still don't know what happened there...or whose version I should believe and at this point, this is similar in conflicting theories).

I don't take myself too seriously either, but I do take the lives and destinies of the kidnapped people and those displaced by war very, very seriously.

Cheers,
Desi

«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 09:37:

Desi I wasn't thinking about you when I wrote that phrase, but I realize that it was indeed a bit "one size fits all". So I'm sorry for that.

I agree that the FARC are not monolithic, and it's true that some of them are more open to negotiations while others aren't, but as an entity they do have more centralization and less spaces for open dissent than most government institutions (which are held back by excessive red tape and bureoucracy (sp?) ).

And well...I'm clearly guilty of sometimes taking myself too seriously, for better and for worse. I'm also worried about the fate of those that have been kidnapped, and of the victims of violence in general.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 09:53:

some people say I was just reading about this same thing on my all-Colombian forum and they say that Bogotá is alive with rumours about the sinister minister Santos having orchestrated the attack himself...

Cheers,
Desi


«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 10:10:

I've heard such things too Though most of the rumors and speculation that I'm hearing don't concern Santos but "the military" in general (which, IMHO, is not a fair description either).

The problem is that they are still rumors, and until they are clearly confirmed, they might as well be nothing more than passionate speculations made in the heat of the moment. Especially when the sources and contexts of the rumors are taken into account.

They might be right, they may be wrong, they may be neither.

I frankly don't want to speculate about it so easily, because I think that is simply reducing everything to political partisanship (if you "like" the government, you'll blame the FARC. If you don't "like" it, then you'll blame the government, etc.).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 10:24:

I can't get into the FARC's webpage right now But apparently *they* are blaming the U.S. for the bomb blast itself, at least according to what radio news have mentioned.

Their webpage seems to be either down or stalled at the moment, at least from this end.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 10:38:

do you have the url? I'd like to see what they are saying about it. Does the FARC usually claim responsibility over their acts of terrorism?

Cheers,
Desi

«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 10:45:

They usually don't even talk about them What they rarely do is accept responsibility for "conventional" military actions, like attacking this or that place or killing this or that number of "enemies".

But most of the time they don't even address the subject of terrorist acts at all, though sometimes denials are posted weeks or months after the fact.

Their URL should be:

http://www.farcep.org/

RCN just put this up:

12: 18 p.m

Farc afirman que EEUU está detrás de atentado;
dicen que Uribe cierra posibilidades de diálogo

La guerrilla de las Farc acusó a organismos de Estados Unidos de estar detrás del atentado perpetrado en un complejo militar de Bogotá y al presidente �lvaro Uribe de cerrar "de un portazo" las posibilidades de diálogos de paz.

Las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Farc) se refirieron en un mensaje divulgado por Internet al anuncio del mandatario de suspender los acercamientos con esa guerrilla en busca de la liberación de los secuestrados.

Uribe, en un enérgico discurso ante militares, acusó a las Farc de haber perpetrado el atentado en el principal complejo castrense de Bogotá, en el que 23 personas resultaron heridas.

http://www.rcn.com.co/noticia.php3?nt=15898

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 10:53:

Seems that it wasn't FARC's per se, but ANNCOL's ...which, while not necessarily coming from FARC per se, does publish most of their communiques and presents pretty much their same political and ideological positions.

Whether the FARC also published this, or something along the same lines, on their own webpage is something that can't be confirmed right now...

-----------------

Uribe Vélez cierra otra vez la puerta del Intercambio y la Paz
Anncol

Utilizando un lenguaje soez el presidente Uribe Vélez cierra de un portazo la posibilidad de un Canje que sentarían bases para futuros diálogos de Paz. La Paz no puede estar cimentada sobre la sangre inocente de las víctimas del Terrorismo de Estado. Uribe Vélez nunca ha tenido voluntad política ni para el Canje ni para buscar diálogos de Paz.

[ANNCOL]

El narco-presidente �lvaro Uribe Vélez anunció la suspensión de la autorización al ‘bajo’ comisionado para la paz, Dr. Luis Carlos Retrepo, de explorar un acuerdo con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, Ejército del Pueblo –FARC-EP- y cierra de un portazo la posibilidad de un Canje o Intercambio de prisioneros de guerra.

El atentado ocurrido ayer en horas de la mañana fue la excusa que esta vez esgrime el presidente Uribe. Durante su primer período presidencial esgrimió toda suerte de excusas para no adelantar el Intercambio o Canje. Pero esto ya se veía venir. Tantas exigencias, esgrimidas a cuenta gotas, eran muestra palpable de la decisión de la ‘administración’ Uribe de no querer el Canje, detrás de la cual están sin duda los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica (USA).

El terreno había sido abonado por el embajador estadounidense en Bogotá, Mr. Woods, con sus declaraciones sobre que su embajada poseía ‘información’ de supuestos atentados que se realizarían en el norte de Bogotá. Y la realización de este atentado en la Escuela Superior de Guerra, con toda la seguridad que hay en ella, con el tipo de explosivo utilizado y la modalidad utilizada, nos hace mirar hacia otro lado que no sea la insurgencia armada, las FARC.

Miramos hacia los agentes de la CIA y la DEA que por orden de su patrono, Mr. Bush, tienen la capacidad tecnológica y logística para adelantar tal atentado. No olvidemos que este mismo tipo de atentados los adelantan todos los días en Irak, en India, en Afganistán, y en Venezuela, uno de los cuales acabó con la vida del Fiscal Danilo Anderson, para lo cual contó con la complicidad de Jorge Noguera Cote, entonces director del DAS, dependencia bajo el mando directo del presidente �lvaro Uribe Vélez. Como dijo un célebre canciller mexicano: “Todo lo malo que sucede en Latinoamérica es culpa de la CIA hasta que se demuestre lo contrario�.

Pero no es extraño este proceder de Uribe Vélez. Diferentes gobiernos oligárquicos han manoseado y utilizado las ansias de Paz de los colombianos en su provecho. Durante la administración de César Gaviria Trujillo los diálogos de Tlaxcala (años 90), fueron rotos por éste bajo el pretexto de la muerte –de un infarto- de Angelino Durán Quintero, el cual estaba en poder del EPL.

Siempre que hay posibilidad para firmar un acuerdo para comenzar a dialogar sobre puntos que ataquen las causas del conflicto armado, político y económico-social, la oligarquía da un portazo y cierra esa posibilidad. Uribe no ha sido la excepción y sólo comienza a hablar de ‘paz’ y ‘diálogos’ obligado por la circunstancia de no poder vencer ni política ni militarmente a las FARC-EP, ni siquiera con el gasto de 17,5 millones de dólares diarios en la Guerra con el ¿Plan Patriota’, en tanto el pueblo se muere de hambre (3 niños al día mueren por desnutrición, ¿cuántos en ‘paseos de la muerte’?, ¿cuántos hospitales públicos ha cerrado?, 33 millones de pobres e indigentes, más de 6 millones de desempleados.)

La insurgencia por su parte persiste enarbolando la bandera de la Paz y de un cambio en las estructuras y superestructuras, a pesar de que la oligarquía y el imperio le achacan a la insurgencia siempre los peores crímenes. Cuando la señora Ana Elvia Cortés fue asesinada con el collar-bomba, enseguida culparon a las FARC. Y, ¿cuál fue la excusa de Andrés Pastrana para romper los diálogos del Caguán en el 2001? Que las FARC delinquían desde allí. Sin embargo, hoy –algunos años después- reconoce que en la zona de distensión del Caguán no se cometió ningún crimen, en tanto los jefes narco-paramilitares han ordenado desde los Ralitos de Uribe –por orden recibida a su vez de la cúpula militar- el asesinato de 3.800 civiles desarmados, que no participaban del conflicto ni estaban en combate (parte de las 11.000 víctimas de desaparición forzada, asesinatos selectivos extrajudiciales y masacres durante los 4 años de la primera administración de Uribe).

http://www.anncol.org/es/site/doc.php?id=2547

Note: The ANNCOL guys forget, among many other things, that the Pastrana government never officially blamed FARC for the death of Ana Elvia Cortés, and that the government itself did officially deny it days after the event. They also lie when they say that Pastrana has "admitted" that the FARC committed "no crime" during the Caguán DMZ.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 11:02:

can't get there either but have read the ANNCOL page and noticed that it's done, at least, partially from Sweden. Who are they? (y perdon por la preguntadera)

Cheers,
Desi

«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 20, 2006, 11:16:

IMHO: Everyone is right... partially Tinto was right (against by best predictions): The political will of the Uribe administration to have talks is so weak that an incident like this precluded any progress. I get this feeling--which only to some extent may correspond to reality--that the knee-jerk reaction of Uribe was necessary to maintain some misguided sense of political "virility" in his administration. Which is kind of imbecilic: Did the government stop military actions? If not, why does it expect FARC (assuming it was them) to do so unilaterally?

Juance is right: Every negotiation is always inaugurated with some "muscle" demonstration from both sides. Nothing new there. The parties will eventually come back to the table after a while, because a military solution to the critical aspects of the government-FARC conflict is simply not possible. The question is, we've seen this sit-leave-sit-leave cycle happening for a long while; is it a sort of vicious stable equilibrium we've fallen into? If so, how do we get out of it?

Desi is right: The government is not monolithic, neither is FARC, neither is public opinion. That's why this is so complicated. I'm reading in the fora of El Tiempo that there is a lot of distrust on the military (not monolithic either), which the recent quick accusations do not seem to difuse--like we've never seen that happening before.

In any case, this is a very sad situation, particularly for those more directly affected by the violence. It confirms my expectations of no peace (sorry Platano) until the Uribismo is removed from office.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 11:26:

Desi, about ANNCOL I don't know exactly who they are right now. Their webpage used to have some interviews and profiles some years ago, but their new design apparently doesn't contain them. Or maybe I'm just not finding them.

ANNCOL is the "New Colombia News Agency". It may be anectdotic, but the "New Colombia" is a concept commonly employed by FARC in their rhetoric. The "ANNCOL" name also parodies one official agency known as "ANCOL".

ANNCOL's personnel includes both Colombian and Nordic citizens. I believe that at least one of them is a Danish citizen who played some sort of role in the WWII resistance against the Nazis, and has favorably equated that struggle with that of the FARC. At least one of their Colombian collaborators formerly belonged to the Patriotic Union. In one interview that they previously had on their webpage, ANNCOL denied receiving funding from FARC, but accepted that they had talked to them before coming into existence.

ANNCOL's texts express, both directly and indirectly, what they consider "solidarity" with the beliefs and actions of FARC and "the Colombian people".

ANNCOL overwhelmingly publishes FARC communiques and pro-FARC / anti-government pieces, taken from external sources and, more frequently, made by their own staff.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 11:51:

I was browsing

the ANNCOL website and all their columnists have Spanish names, probably not real. It's tight left-wing, old-school. It's pretty boring to read as these people come up always with plenty of accusations and conspiracy theories but offer few workable solutions. There was one article written by a member of The FARC Secretariat so I would imagine they're tight.

Cheers,
Desi

«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2006, 11:59:

Yup Most of their names do sound like aliases, such as "Allende La Paz" and "José María Carbonell".

I wouldn't know if any of them are organically part of FARC either, but they are indeed tight, politically and ideologically.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Oct 20, 2006, 12:05:

NOT AFTER TODAY Did you hear the Uribe's announcement? did he call of any kind of humanitarian exchange? If so I thik Uribe emotions are thinking without the benefit of intellect. Considering that a military rescue would result in many dead. Yes if it was the FARC then it was a terrible act of violence. But I do not recall The Colombian Military or the FARC agreeing to a ceasefire. I highly doubt that the military called back all the troops searching for guerillas or call off any attack on guerillas.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2006, 14:10:

yes he called off the whole wxchange deal, which is pretty typical of him. That's one of his downsides, definitely, not to be able to keep his calm. It was a hasty decision and just makes people wonder if he really was serious about the offer he made to the guerrilla for the despeje of Pradera and Florida and go ahead with peace negotiations or at least with the humanitarian exchange. No, there was no call for ceasefire at this time. Also, if we admit that there is an armed conflict taking place in Colombia then we also have to admit that every act of war is an act of terrorism against civil population, no matter who commits it.

Desi

«Sé que los seres humanos y los peces podrán coexistir en paz». ( George W. Bush, Saginaw 29-09-00)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 22, 2006, 01:17:

From a very outsider viewpoint, I would see it as Sr Tertious The question is, we've seen this sit-leave-sit-leave cycle happening for a long while; is it a sort of vicious stable equilibrium we've fallen into? If so, how do we get out of it?

After reading this entire thread and another related, that is what I was thinking as I got to Sr Tertius' post.

I think it is UtopiaCowboy who has always recommended dividing Colombia into some little narco-kingdoms. I don't understand exactly, if he is talking about many little geographic sectors. And, my first thought is anyway, that the Farc wouldn't settle, even if you offered them half of Colombia. (Jerks.) Would be impractical and unpopular, to displace that many people from their homes, anyway. And, so many of you are of the opinion that there is NO possibility of military intervention to put an end to the Farc or to this conflict, and on-going violence.

Did I read in this or another related article, that Uribe immediately called on France, Switzerland and one other (moderating) country to provide military support to help end this conflict?

I have always been Uribe supporter - although an outsider, as I am - but, I am wondering what he is thinking: Asking France for offensive Military support? ? ?

I don't claim to be so well schooled in all of these matters, but I am of the opinion that THERE ARE TOO MANY FACTIONS IN THE WORLD WHO DO NOT WANT THIS ONGOING AND UNCIVIL WAR TO END. So, it won't. Until Colombia has gone the way of some other ideology and government.

To those who have written above, "ONE MORE YEAR", I have hope, with you, for peace and prosperity in your country at some time in the future. I have hope, but am loosing faith. I would more imagine COLOMBIA WILL CONTINUE TO BE COLOMBIA AS YOU KNOW IT AND AS I KNOW IT, for many years to come.

Wait a minute. Things aren't so bad in Viet Nam, these days are they? (I haven't checked; I haven't heard; they don't make the news so much, someone correct me if that is wrong) Maybe still, there is hope. Or, will it be a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same?

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 22, 2006, 01:42:

did anyone pay for the full article? It looks like some newsworthy articles there on the independent, but I'll be damned, if I am going to 'pay a pound' for an article. Okay, some of you from great britain, how much is a pound, in terms of american dollars?

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2006, 08:34:

United Narco Kingdoms of Colombia (UNKC) I read that same opinion by UC, and now I realized that it sort of reverse engineers Colombian reality. The litte "narco-kingdoms" that UC suggests already exist, and they existed before they were even "narco." Local politics in Colombia are very VERY VERY important; although regional clientelism had diminished since the 91 constitution--which debilitated most of its formal structure--we are seen it now bloom again under the aegis of the Uribe administration--maybe UC has the ear of Mr. Uribe. FARC, AUC, and legitimate politics in Colombia are little more than a collection of regional politics. In that light, UC's idea may not be a good suggestion but may be a good diagnostic. I can't help to think that there is a simil (a meaningful one) between Colombia and Afghanistan in that sense. It appears to me that Afghanistan is also a collection of regional politics, and to confuse Kabul with Afghanistan is to take a small part for a much more complex whole.

"Did I read in this or another related article, that Uribe immediately called on France, Switzerland and one other (moderating) country to provide military support to help end this conflict?"

He did. But he also said other moronic things too, like assuming that some FARC leaders are hiding in Ecuador. Maybe they are, but you have to be careful with diplomacy. Now we have a small--but gratuitous--problem with Ecuador. Because, you know, we don't have enough of them problems.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 22, 2006, 12:17:

Sr Tertius The difference is that there is no real chance of the outright separatism, de facto or de jure, that the "kingdom" label implies.

Regionalism and localism is one thing, but separatism is another. Colombians want to be together, as a single country, even if they don't want always to be "mixed". In other words, "juntos, pero no revueltos".

Off-Topic: Perhaps Colombia would, in fact, be better off today if this large territory had split into at least three parts (Coast, Center and South/Southeast), way back in the days of the Colonial administration or post-Colonial republicanism, but right now that's not a real possibility.

"He did. But he also said other moronic things too, like assuming that some FARC leaders are hiding in Ecuador."

With all due respect, I don't really think that it's much of an assumption to say that "Raúl Reyes", who is known to operate in and near Putumayo, was reportedly in Ecuador when "Simón Trinidad" was captured, and has even been interviewed by journalists from Ecuador (and I don't really think that they went to, say, Vichada or somewhere that far from the border in order to do that interview), may be in Ecuador at some point in time (including right now). Not permanently, perhaps, but even a temporary stay is enough to quasi-justify that statement.

Especially if you consider that the President does have, for better and for worse, access to intelligence information that none of us can boast of having. Some of it may be unwarranted, but other bits surely do have a firm basis.

It was undiplomatic to say so in such a way, yes, but the fact itself may be closer to the truth.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2006, 14:22:

Juance You are right about the partioning of Colombia. But we have to keep in mind that the notion of ONE national identity is a relatively new one, no more than 150 years old. That is probably why regional identities are still so strong. The modern need to speak as a united country in international scenarios has forced us to become one nation--as David Bushnell says--despite of itself.

As for Raul Reyes being in Ecuador, etc. I completely agree with you. He may be there, but by saying that, Uribe is assuming that the Ecuadorian security services are inept... which they may be, but you don't say that, just like that, and pretend to remain friendly neighbors. He is asking for more problems that we already have.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 22, 2006, 18:55:

Juancegomez or Sr. Tertius I can't find it in here, but someone stated something about the Ecuadorian situation, as to who is or might be elected president.

Can you catch me up to speed on that? Was there Pres Election held in the summer like so many others? or, to be soon? The notation said one who is a supporter of Chavez vs. another. What is that situation, in brief, please.

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2006, 20:31:

Ecuador, briefly Recently held first round. First place: Noboa (more to the right, "banana mogul"), Second place: Correa (more to the left, considered to be sided with Chavez but that accusation is used so often that it has lost meaning. He admits to sympathize more with Argentinean Kirchner). They are both going for a run-off some time in the near future, not sure when exactly.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.