How much does a sucesfull Uribe second reelection would cost?

huskie says on Jul 4, 2008, 08:06:

What is your point?
Cheers

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 4, 2008, 08:20:

According to Switzerland Romanda Propaganda Newsnetwork, the United States was the "origin of transactions". So US tax payers, or more precisely Chinese creditors holding US treasuries paid for the release…

So in the end, Ingrid owes everything to the Chinese..Jajaja

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 08:51:

THE GOOD:
No more Farc
No more ELN
No more Paramilitares
No more Aguilas Negras

THE BAD:
Higher taxes
More "security"

THE UGLY:
More military escorted tours
More poor people.............Along with all the problems that come with poverty, that might lead to instability in the future
Complete indoctrination by government...... the government represents a few and rules over many

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 09:30:

This all assumes that it was Colombia who made the alleged payment, mind you, when the same claim says it was the U.S. who "sponsored" it, which would mean either they made the payment or otherwise intervened.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 09:33:

no... previous experiences with this government, trends, etc.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jul 4, 2008, 09:38:

I believe Uribe was aware of the negotiations but was not much in favor of it, that is why he decided not to be present on the release of the captives.

I very much doubt Farc was just given money, some kind of sovereignty was given as well.

Still crime does not pay

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 09:39:

of course he wouldn`t... they are ousting him from inside out

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:32:

romy: Previous trends say nothing about what the Swiss radio's report is actually stating regarding the U.S. role, as I pointed out.

I'm not making that up, you know. I'm reading the report (it's in French, but the essentials have been translated).

If you're going to take the report as absolute fact, which I currently do not because it's too much of a Russian roulette, I would think taking everything in it into consideration is more than reasonable, no?

Being selective, which is what this discussion topic by webmanco appears to be, would run contrary to that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:33:

Plan Colombia anybody?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:34:

What of it?

Again, that still says nothing about what the report really says.

I'm not asking for too much, I think.

Unless you just want to assume and leave it at that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:36:

why does it have to be Colombia that made the payment to make webmanco's argument true?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:43:

Because that's what his own words are both indicating and implying, from what I can tell.

He could come out and argue otherwise, of course.

You can turn it around and say that U.S. aid should be focused on everything he mentioned in his post, but I would doubt that was what he meant, considering the rest of it, and it's not like the U.S. is as responsible for providing, say, subsidies to the displaced as Colombia would be.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:49:

I don't see your 'implications'..... do you mean "The point here is tha maybe the Goverment is trying too hard to win the second reelection with the negotiations with the Farc and with the results of the "war", desplazados, reinsertados, la efimera paz, etc while oil prices keep going up, trasnportation keeps goiing up, jobs are not easy to find, etc"?

this is plausible through US financing...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:50:

JCG
it's not like the U.S. is as responsible for providing, say, subsidies to the displaced as Colombia would be.

It is not, and Colombia should not need it either, but ilegal drug use in Colombia and elsewhere, and violence in Colombia goes hand in hand, and 8 years with Uribe had not done much, and it is not that Uribe has done a bad job, but if after 8 years, drug use, corruption and violence in somehow less scale, still go hand by hand then how much time is needed with Uribe or what other solution should be given?

At this stage is does not matter who did pay, after all there were three foreign "contractors" and a second and third country were interested along with Uribe with the safe release of the captives, but the point is that unfortunally or fortunaly depending how each one sees it, there was a negotiation a deal with criminals, deal that should not had raised the ratings of anyone but the hopes of a better Colombia.

I for once don´t feel proud of Colombia or the military for the "rescue", why? because to start with none of the kidnapping should had taken place, and then again while there is illegal use drug elsewhere, and corruption in Colombia, this war will go on with Uribe or without him, with Farc or without them, just change the names, the times.

Colombians has a lot to offer, everyday I find good people, smart, intelligent, pretty, handsome, with lots of talent to develop different skills, but somehow the Education given is not enough or is not reaching the right people. To survive people produces what sells more, and what is better pay.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 10:56:

Like I said, you can interpret it like that if you want, I have no doubt you can...but the entire post seems intended to criticize the "cost" of Uribe's potential second reelection, an internal political affair above all, by pointing out problems or circumstances that are mostly Colombia's responsibility and not that of the U.S.

Transportation? Oil prices? The "escorts"? Poverty? etc.

Involving U.S. financing seems almost an afterthought, in light of how far this is going in the direction of internal politics, not criticizing current U.S. aid efforts.

Not to mention that U.S. aid efforts are hardly going to make a dent in most of those problems, unless there's a huge spike in total aid, not just aid allocations, or if you completely ignore that Colombia spends far more, even in just security but not limited to it, than what U.S. aid represents.
.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 11:03:

one must think of US interests in this ordeal... and it becomes a 'responsibility' as they increase their influence and have their ideological battles. The biggest aid coming from the US is 100% backing of the Colombian-ilegitimate government... not financial

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 11:15:

Then this discussion, as valid as it may otherwise be because I admittedly haven't even addressed any of the specific issues, ends up going off in a tangent, doesn't it?

I'm not saying that the U.S. has no responsibilities at all...in fact I agree it does have quite a few in some regards, but I wanted to say that I don't share this representation of the situation nor the rhetorics involved, especially in light of the current news making the rounds. That's why I said what I said.

If we were having this same discussion, say, ten days earlier, I would probably be talking about the issues and not this. Today, however, things are different, in form if not necessarily in substance, where we could find some common ground and agree about several matters.

Again, that could just be me and if you want to argue otherwise, it's entirely up to you.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 11:32:

you better than most understand the complexity of these issues, but if you want to isolate the discussion to this particular news reporting "it's entirely up to you".
In the end, you can make your 'nitpicks' analysis on the words that were written by swiss reporter... hoiwever, I find that most critical in this situation is the critical thinking that must take place when considering 'he said she said' battles. Unfortunately, most people have picked sides and have taken what was said by one side as if it was scripture...

Anyways... assuming the report to be true... it's not clear what US involvement was? I believe it's mere witness/criminal protection in the US, for whatever my hypotheses are worth... regardelsss, I agree that the US would have no interest in 'aiding' towards the social issues mentioned.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 11:45:

In this topic initiated by webmanco, I'm not nitpicking the Swiss reporter's work, as I may have done elsewhere, but rather its use or reference.

And I haven't said that the Swiss report is automatically wrong or a lie. I've questioned the claims, yes, because there is no evidence yet, but if something comes up and proves that the journalist was right all along, I'll gladly admit it.

If your own critical thinking leads you to prefer that story to the official one, at this point, I might currently disagree, as I've said, but I'm not saying you can't do that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 4, 2008, 12:11:

"might"... sadly the Swiss report is much more believable given the audacious details specified in the 'official' story. An ONG helicopter, reciprocity, Che Guevara shirts, a couple of guerrilleros herding 15 critical hostages... coupled with news of extradition of cesar, 'perfect execution'

can we nitpick the two stories? maybe you'll change my mind

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 4, 2008, 12:42:

Considering that Ingrid Betancourt herself is the source, or one of them, for those "audacious details", such as the Che T-shirt and the pro-FARC/fictional NGO helicopter, (also, it's not been said that the two guerrillas were herding all the hostages by themselves...where the heck did you get that from? The press conferences had several mentions of multiple guerrillas being present in the vincity and in the general area)...then are you implying she's in on it or what?

"Reciprocity" in general, without looking at the details, makes little sense if you understand that the payment would have been made to "César", not to "Alfonso Cano" and his peers, who should be angry if that was actually the case, as the Swiss report argued.

But rhetorically asking for "reciprocity" for not shooting at the guerrillas left behind, and instead asking for no reprisals against the hostages, was what was said, and it's hardly the same as the above.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 4, 2008, 12:50:

Colombian authorities present to the media the new Colombian millionaires:

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Jul 5, 2008, 04:45:

i have always found it interesting that presidential candidates pay millions for jobs than only pay a couple a hundred grand annually. hmmmmmm

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.