In order for there to be a Winner, there needs to be a loser

toneloc24 says on Oct 7, 2005, 09:35:

When you say "we," whom are you referring to?

Your solution is way too simplistic nonetheless.

Listen, the internal strife within Colombia is generations deep. What makes you think the AUC is any better than the FARC? They conduct the same actions, only one side is more cozy with the government than the other.

If the "we" you are referring to is the USA, I truly hope that "we" stay the fuck out of it completely and let Colombia work on its peace process internally. "We" have enough of our own problems at the moment.

"Don't tase me, bro!!!!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 7, 2005, 09:48:

Oversimplistic First, painting it as a picture of the Gov/AUC vs. FARC/ELN is simply wrong. While their ideologies might be more closely aligned this way, the real world situation is much more complicated. The Government has killed and captured a lot of AUC. The FARC and ELN have been known to face off over territorial disputes. The AUC and FARC have been known to cooperate on certain narcotics activities.

The real problem in Colombia is a lack of respect for laws, which is compounded by a historical reason to not respect the laws, namely corruption. Throw in the vast black market profits of cocaine and you've got a recipe for violence that isn't going to go away by simply "eliminating" one side. Remember, killing Pablo Escobar was supposed to deal a death blow to the cocaine cartels. Yet just as much cocaine as ever is available and there's still heaps of violence.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 7, 2005, 11:41:

Agreed.. I know my analogy was a bit simplistic but to be a bit more specific, any type of stability, no matter who finally executes it, needs to be decisive.

Only then, in a position of strength, can laws and poverty be addressed. We (Colombians by way of America in my case) then can make a difference. But by having these insurgents and corrupt government running amock, Colombia's socio-economic problems will only worsen.

I would not mind seeing a true dictator take over Colombia, like a Pinochet. I'm serious. We need an iron fist to bring order to this country.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 7, 2005, 12:05:

Be very careful what you wish for Be careful what you wish for. There are a lot of good people who are dead because of Pinochet. And in Colombia you might just end up with someone a lot more like Somoza than Pinochet.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 7, 2005, 12:44:

If we followed that theory...

...then perhaps a Pinochet would have been useful in the 1970s or so, but not right now. Current conditions, internally and internationally, are not as favorable towards that option as they would have been during the Cold War.

I meant "useful" in a historical (and not moral or personal at all) sense, of course...logically, it could have been considered "positive" (again, not in a moral or personal sense) to have a dictatorship in the 1970s, since, hypothetically:

a)society would, in practice, have been forced to follow his rule and come down hard on the armed opposition for a more or less prolonged amount of time (more than what an elected government could usually achieve by itself), even through the use of numerous abuses but also with proportional practical results.

b)society would eventually react against him and his abuses, creating a sort of united front in order to overcome the dictator's power and past actions, probably with the added benefit of incorporating the defeated insurgents into the newer situation as part of the "healing" process.

Of course, that's all "nice" in theory...putting that in practice would be rather ugly, and certainly morally questionable (as it turned out to be, in other countries).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caslug says on Oct 7, 2005, 13:03:

ahhh..the good o'days of US-backed Dictators! COL military could just round up the usual supects(radical student leaders, trade unionist, college professor, housewives, workers, Plus anyone that are there friends) take them up on US supplied Blackhawk and give them free sky-diving(BUT w/o parachute!, no money for parachute) lesson off CTG!

Then they can "give" the children of these people to pro-gov't family to raise as there own. Govt sponsor adoption at it's finest!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 7, 2005, 13:34:

That's what happened in Argentina and for the most part also in Chile and elsewhere.

But the point, as it's been mentioned by Chileans and others, would be that those countries don't have any problems with insurgencies anymore. And not because they "solved" all their main social and economical issues (have Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador "solved" theirs either?).

Again, that's what some people say, not what I myself would put in practice (since I find dictatorship to be morally condemnable).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 7, 2005, 13:38:

candela con candela Of course it's ugly...it's terrible.

This is not going to end pretty no matter what approach is taken.

You think there is any stopping this without some overwhelming violence?

Are you guys serious? Dialog hasn't gotten us absolutely nowhere.

Drugs needs to be legalized. It's just that simple. Narcotics are fueling this insurgency.

Colombia is far too corrupt to be corrected by consesus. Yes, Pinochet has blood on his hands and his country is the envy of latin America. It's going to take a lot of courage and sacrifice, but Colombia needs to be ruled from a position of power and not by Human Rights organizations and toothless World Bodies like the UN.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Neonovo says on Oct 7, 2005, 13:41:

Caslug harkens back to the old "Don't cry for me Argentina" tune But their brave and proud military didn't have Blackhawks then. They tossed the drugged "insurgents" out of planes, over the ocean, least their european-style capital get splattered.

It was thus then that "Los Descamisados" became "Los Desaparecidos"

Paz
Neonovo

0 funny, 0 helpful.

toneloc24 says on Oct 7, 2005, 14:30:

You are kidding, right? "I would not mind seeing a true dictator take over Colombia, like a Pinochet. I'm serious. We need an iron fist to bring order to this country."

To even mention Pinochet.....my God, how simplistic you're thinking. Next you're gonna say Trujillo, Castro, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Hitler......

Colombia is a sovereign nation. Like every other country, they have internal problems. Let Colombia best strategize with a way of dealing and resolving with it.

"Don't tase me, bro!!!!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Oct 7, 2005, 22:06:

OP The FARC would like nothing more than to sucker the Colombian government into using heavy handed tactits that would cause thousands to actively oppose the governemnt and even join the FARC.

You should learn something from the Shiites that you mentioned:

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani strictly forbade reprisals by Shiites, saying, "If half of Iraq's Shiites were killed, it would not lead to a sectarian war." Sistani is aware that the guerrilla strategy is to sucker the Shiites into attacking Sunni Arabs on a large scale, producing a civil war that would destabilize Iraq and give the Sunni guerrillas an open for making a coup and taking over.

Look how easily America's simplistic leaders got suckered into flattening Fallujah and turning the whole country against them. They even fall for Osama Bin Laden's childish taunts. An obvious trap. If American ideas take hold in Colombia it would be a great advantage for the FARC.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 7, 2005, 22:19:

Vladimiro, You are correct. This is elementary war strategy that any commander-in-chief should know: when to fight and when not to fight. Military command must be disciplined and know when to engage the enemy and be intelligent and not fall into traps. Thanks for your comments!

Plátano X, military strategist and pacifist extraordinaire

P.D. You can win every fucking battle (that is military talk) and still lose the war!

Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 8, 2005, 02:25:

"The FARC would like nothing more than to sucker the Colombian government into using heavy handed tactits that would cause thousands to actively oppose the governemnt and even join the FARC."

Probably so if done today.

Not necessarily so if it had been done before, as it was done elsewhere, as my interpretation (not my defense, mind you, as I personally don't want/need to do it) of the proposed theory goes. As seen in the Southern Cone, what good does greater popularity and sympathy do if it comes together with a physical substraction of matter? Not that much.

Curiously enough, it could be pointed out that the M-19 was both at its most popular and most military weakened state during the Turbay administration, when almost all its leadership had been imprisoned by its end, illustrating part of that paradox.

For that matter, Turbay's security statute was repressive enough to cause wide moral condemnation, obviously, but even so, it was moderately repressive and within a democratic framework, compared to the tactics used further to the south in a much more militarized and dictatorial environment at the time. Turbay wasn't a dictator and pretty much had to reverse his own measures by the end of his four year term, in the face of popular exhaustion. Betancur came next and radically changed policy, leading to a different series of events and further complications.

But heck, from a certain speculative point of view, even if widespread repression had benefitted the FARC, it wouldn't always be as bad.

If the FARC had become popular enough due to the actions of a dictatorship, we could speculate that they would have to either moderate part of their discourse and their actions in order to suit the situation and their wider audience, or if not they would more easily reveal the true nature of their leadership and their ambitions and thus be more vulnerable. That's not a prophecy but a speculative hypothesis, mind you, which can't be proved under current conditions as it refers to an alternative scenario.

Either way, in theory, at least we'd move forward or backward, for better or for worse, rather than staying in the relatively (though not totally) static strategic outlook that we currently have to face. That's a rather pessimistic view, clearly...and doesn't exactly represent the complexities of the situation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 8, 2005, 09:05:

On the other hand "The FARC would like nothing more than to sucker the Colombian government into using heavy handed tactits that would cause thousands to actively oppose the governemnt and even join the FARC."

One might consider that the current situation the FARC finds itself in is one of them having to use heavy handed tactics, such as bombing churches, forced recruitment, extortion, kidnapping, bike bombs, etc. and it hasn't done them a bit of good in terms of public relations.

I'm sure in some corners of Colombia they're still doing some good deeds and helping people, but their Robin Hood image of past decades has been seriously undermined by their large-scale viciousness to the very people they claim to represent.

Whether this was the result of a deliberate strategy by their opponents in the government is debatable, but as the FARC finds itself more hunted and more cornered they appear to be acting more, not less heavy handed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 8, 2005, 09:37:

Mr.H, FARC suffers from gadejo (ganas de joder)... I agree with you. The lofty ideals are often subservient to baser motivation.

The FARC is only going to lose support the more it engages in actions which cause life to be more difficult for the average Colombian. I have strongly criticized all their attacks on infrastructure (electricity, water, bridges, etc.)

Where military discipline is missing there is opportunity for some local front commander and his (mostly it is "his" nor "her") ego going for a spectacular action which is totally counterproductive.

I think FARC has become institutionalized to the point that there is an internal momentum that continues of its own course and perpetuates what you correctly call "large-scale viciousness".

Of course, when ego gets involved it seems sometimes the operative factor is little more than gadejo and an armed guerrilla suffering from gadejo is a dangerous thing.

Plátano X, cogitating while safely ensconced in his ivory tower
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 8, 2005, 11:17:

Gadejo Platano, thank you for "gadejo". I've never heard that one before.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 9, 2005, 16:11:

Who is being simplistic vladimiro,

Do you think America went to war over Osama childish taunts?
I mean do I have to spell it out...O-I-L.

I don't get your SHIITE analogy, but nonetheless they can't do anything with America in Iraq.

toneloc24,

Colombia is a sovereign nation...so what's your point.
I'm not suggesting any type of invasion on behalf of anyone.

The FARC really wants nothing more than all out offensive.
Ok, please kill us so we can kill you.

Do you really think the world gives a shit about the FARC? Other than fringe states like Venezuela or Cuba.

Who is going to give Colombia grief over the destruction of these animals? Who cares if they give grief? Who, the hypocritical Human Rights people?

We cannot solve it with dialog (remember Bentacourt...Paloma de la Paz...moronic) or Pastrana's (give 'em some land appeasmant).

No señor, this has to be handled with plomo...total anilation.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 10, 2005, 03:16:

How about creating a win win situation for all?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 10, 2005, 07:30:

Fernando, Thank you for your suggestion. I have also proposed a win win situation and exact methods of implementation have been discussed and discarded as simplistic and impractical. A nonviolent solution would involve each side listening to the other and a willingness to address questions of social justice and human rights.

A nonviolent solution is just not sexy and will never happen as long as each side dehumanizes the other, with a focus on "chase 'em down and kill 'em" and "total annihilation," plus there is nothing in it for the arms dealers.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 10, 2005, 09:06:

In a perfect world... Yeah...maybe in a perfect world.

Name one time...one time an armed struggle was ended with both sides laying down their arms without one having the other against the wall?

Look, some might find what I say uncomfortable...well killing, guerilla warfare and social injustice are even more unsavory.

I'm suggesting a realistic end to this conflict. I'd love to have an idealist philosiphy that would work...but that's all it is. Words and wishful thinking.

There is nothing sexy about violence or destruction. But I'm so tired of this appeasmant and worthless approaches. Colombia has been so corrupt for so long you just don't know who is with you or against you. The senate/congress is bathed in AUC and FARC narco money.

That's why you need a dictator...so he doesn't have anyone underminding his agenda.

Hopefully, Uribe will declare a national emergency, suspend freedom of the press and declare martial law in certain areas and extinguish the insurgency.

Then and only then, from a position of strength, can Colombia begin to rebuild and address poverty. If they don't, they will fail to learn from history and a new band of guerillas will form.

I hate the FARC, but one has to admit, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the amount of corruption and injustice handed down by Colombia's elite.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 10, 2005, 15:13:

"I hate the FARC, but one has to admit, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the amount of corruption and injustice handed down by Colombia's elite."

Yes, partially, as a necessary but insufficient requirement.

If injustice and corruption were the only requirements for guerrillas to exist, then they would still exist in most of the rest of the continent, and they mostly don't.

Personally, one could argue that the FARC continues to exist today because of at least two main additional reasons:

a)contextual and circumstantial situations which were/are mishandled both by the FARC and by the government, including what we could call a question of "political will".

b)the illegalized drug trade in all its aspects and effects, direct and indirect, which added much more fuel to the fire and served as a catalyst for further violence in many ways (coca growers, drug lords, paramilitaries, protection "taxes", etc.)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 10, 2005, 16:43:

You forgot one, Juan 3. Huge ungoverned spaces where a large guerilla army can go to hide and regroup.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 10, 2005, 20:19:

Platano, maybe your exact solution/method has to be refined, optimized.

Sure, violence and looking for violent solutions seems to become more and more attractive, ecpecially also since Hollywood always displays violence in a positive light.

People have too many bad examples and also often too little education to solve problems peacefully.

I think that the FARC and its Bolivarian party could play an important role in politics, I would be happy to see them playing their part in daily politics, but who would elect them?
First they would have to convince the people, show them why it is good to elect them, but you dont always convince people with arms. Noone will elect you if noone likes you.

The FARC should first try to achieve that the people like them and that they can make a positive difference for the future of Colombia. Then I am sure that many will elect them.

The Farc ELN AUC...have to think:
Everyone wants food.
Everyone wants a place to stay.
Everyone wants to raise their children in peace.
Everyone wants some wealth (although thats not really a necessity).
Everyone needs an education.
Everyone needs a job.

So, if any group has an idea how to achieve that and put it into practice then the people will surely support that group.

Many look for violent solutions, but the non violent solutions are real solution and last longest.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 10, 2005, 20:25:

That is true, Mr. Hollywood, however I'd make a couple of clarifications.

-I'd tend to see it as another necessary but insufficient condition. All of them are, truth be told, only a part of the puzzle. Considerably ungoverned, or only very slightly governed, spaces also exist in the territories of all our neighbors.

Even the fact that the FARC has had to repeatedly threaten to expel a few government personnel here and there every so often, even in remote towns, shows that, in a way, at least some sort of limited state presence does exist there to begin with (and sometimes even continues to do so, or comes back, and so on).

-It should be taken under consideration by readers that areas under direct "FARC rule" at any given moment are quite limited by the contrast between their own small numerical size and the huge extension of the country, plus its geographical complexity. Areas under some sort of fluctuating FARC influence (including intimidation), of course, are another matter, as influence doesn't necessarily require permanent presence (not even government or paramilitary influence either).

Probably the only strategically significant example of permanent and semi-permanent presence/rule, in recent years, happened shortly before and during the Caguán talks (as part of the guerrillas' failing to comply with the letter and intent of the DMZ agreements, but that's part of a discussion of its own). One could even say that those vast ungoverned spaces are also a double-edged sword, since the guerrillas have to split their own forces in order to maintain their presence/influence over a wide area, and when they concentrate them too much they become vulnerable to conventional military tactics.

In that sense, I would agree that vast ungoverned spaces are quite useful, but more for the purposes of hiding and regrouping in a flexible manner than for what some people here and elsewhere might tend to believe when they say things like "FARC controls half the country and thus can easily topple the government if the U.S. stopped messing around" and so on.

The FARC are undefeated, yet they are not close to being victorious either, at all. An armed revolutionary project that fails to take power after 40 years and only becomes a loud disturbance to the government's efficiency and popularity, but not to its existence, acceptance and its institutionality, is not necessarily something to be too proud of. Castro did much more with so much less (then again, if Pastrana's book is to be believed, the FARC prefers their idealized interpretation of Castro and leftwing figures around the world rather than the words of wisdom of the real ones).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 10, 2005, 20:35:

Fernardo Metierrez's and platano's last posts, while dealing with slightly to somewhat different matters (from my point of view), definitely point towards some serious concerns that lie beneath the day to day realities and personal interests which, more often than not, prevent us from seeing the entire picture. Unfortunately, that "us" includes not just PBH readers but all the parties in the conflict, hence its complexity.

I've more or less already showed part of my specific thoughts about portions of the content of both posts, whether in this thread or in others, whether directly or indirectly, but today I still felt I had to say something as a response, even if just addressing the matter generally.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 10, 2005, 20:59:

juancegomez Firstly: No offense, but you didnt have to make the second post beacuse It contains some sentences lots of words the meaning of which could have been concluded in one short phrase.

Secondly: In Colombia people have the tendency to fight over matters rather than to sit down and find a reasonable and honest solution.
Well, you see that also in other countries, countries which consider themselved developed or civilized. Have you ever seen how the MPs go up eachother's throats when the Taiwanese government gathers?

I think the FARC could make a positive difference if they would understand that the armed struggle rather damages the cause they are fighting for.

On the other hand government officials dont do too much either to improve the situation in the country because they depend too much on the 'under table' money.

In total there is very little honesty among the government's people and among the rebels.

It should just not be about power and grabbing as much as possible.
Ot should be about the people.
Although not everyone can become rich, it should be possible to achieve that everyone has something.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 10, 2005, 21:17:

Rebels and the Government...one and the same... Ok...

Let's step back. The FARC will never sit down and negotiate. It's not to their advantage. They don't care about the down trodden and poor. They kill to keep their business alive.

The government is corrupt and in bed with the FARC and the AUC.

So...what happens now? What? You're honestly thinking something is going to change in human nature?

You know what the sign of lunacy is? A person that does the same thing twice and expect to two different outcomes.

As soon as the people understand that something radical needs to happen on a unilateral level....This is just going to get worse when Uribe leaves office. This is just the eye of the hurricane. The proverbial calm before the storm.

Neither side is going to budge...nor should they.

I stand by my authoritarian comments.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 13, 2005, 20:13:

pepster Sure they would negotiate.
Only:
the shoot first think later.
or:
we shoot faster than we are thinking
tactics does not work.

As long as there is mutual disrespect it surely doesnt work
as long as there are accusations from both sides it does not work.

People have to calm down first, think and then try to find the right words. Everything is negotiable with an acceptable outcome for all sides.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 14, 2005, 08:38:

Again... All fine and dandy. And while we're waiting for that day, thousands more will die, tortured and kidnapped.

Let's start painting Doves on the streets (Paloma de la Paz)and bury our heads in the sand.

Name one conflict...I ask this again...name one conflict that was settled peacefully with no bloodshed and both sides equally armed with equal strength.

Let's be realistic...being idealistic is a luxury Colombia can no longer afford.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 14, 2005, 08:51:

Lets see it from the other side:
People go into negociations and start with accusations.
People shoot first and they ask questions later. That is the people's mentality/attitude in South America.

I think the armed conflict and the continuation thereof is something Colombia can no longer afford.
I sometimes believe, everyone is struggling so hard for power, that they dont even want to find a solution, and then Alvaro Uribe only looks for revenge. He hates the farc so much that I would not even expect any result from negociations between him or his people and the Farc.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 14, 2005, 13:34:

why? Why would Uribe negotiate..? What does the FARC want that hasn't been given or tried before?

You have this assumption that the FARC wants peace or has a true political agenda benefiting the people.

Can you blame Uribe for hating the FARC...can you blame anyone?

Can we agree tht Peace talks have gotten nowhere with the FARC?

Can we agree, that Uribe's tactics..whether you agree or disagree, has had a fundamental positive effect on the country?

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 14, 2005, 21:33:

Thats exactly the point why negotiations would not work.

Its Uribe's negative mindset.

Uribe hates the Farc.
Uribe looks for revenge.
Only accusations instead of ideas are brought forward.

Why should anyone expect a successful/positive outcome if someone goes into negotiations like that?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

toneloc24 says on Oct 14, 2005, 23:02:

Pepster This one's at you. You seem so intent on picking a side, why not grab your guns and gear, your sons/daughters and/or brothers/sisters and get on the frontline of the war against the FARC? If you are not willing to do so personally, please back down off of the violence talk. It's getting old. If Iraq has taught the US chickenhawks anything, it's make sense BEFORE you commit to something like that. And NONE of them were willing to commit their own family members to something they supposedly believed in. I'm assuming you are?

Colombia's civil war or whatever you want to call it has been around for generations. Pick a side you say? FARC, AUC, Uribe? Get real. They are the same. FARC...AUC...Government...all the same.

Want a quick solution? It's really simple.

Formulate an Iraq exit strategy. Get our boys home, give them a bit of a break and all the pussy that they can handle, then make the strongest effort in US history to guard the US borders with them. East Coast, West Coast, Canadian border, Mexican borders, Gulf Coast, everything. You want to make the Patriot Act have some teeth? Stop molesting children and grandmothers at airports and apply the same tactics to those trying to enter our borders.

Next cut out this Plan Colombia money. Enough is enough already.

What does this accomplish you ask?

First, tighter borders may make it much more difficult to get cocaine and heroin into the USA. Soldiers stationed on the border with a shoot to kill order for those trying to enter illegally. Yeah, the US hospitals will be overflowing with addicts in need of a fix, but oh well. Fuck 'em. The USA is the #1 consumer of the shit. Close down the market, and see what happens.

Secondly, if #1 successful, the funding for FARC, AUC, AND the crooked politicians dries up. Now they have to work and not just talk. Less money weakens the FARC and the AUC. Fewer guns and ammo available as well. Let's see who's still dedicated to "the cause" with the cashflow drying up. Any remnants of the war wouldn't last too much longer.

Third, no funding for Plan Colombia. Let Colombia deal with Colombia. We can always be friends with them, but this is Colombia's problem. As you don't go into a man's house and tell him how to raise and treat his kids, why should we do it with Colombia AND foot the bill?

Of course, this is not realistic. There's too much money to be made through the drug trade, by all parties. No one's innocent, USA included as mysteriously our arms get into the hands of all sides to the war. US Dollars from the cocaine and heroin trade funds FARC, the AUC, and the government.

Very simplistic, right?

"Don't tase me, bro!!!!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 15, 2005, 02:06:

I'd rather see constant low level civil war from now till kingdom come than another fucking dictator.

Trujillo did a lot of good things for the DR, but nobody is gonna stand up and say that the cost was worth it.

In a police state, you don't have as many problems with pickpockets and muggers, but now you have the POLICE to worry about. At least if I kill a mugger in self defense I'm not likely to wind up in jail for it or worse!!!

Chile was a NIGHTMARE under Pinochet. I went to school with more than a few refugees from his era. Their economic explosion came after they got rid of him. Argentina also exploded and then imploded under the Perons. Russia under Peter the Great had probably the best years of its entire history, but he didn't have a worthy successor and the whole country went to hell 10 years after he died.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 15, 2005, 08:10:

Right Back at you Tone Loc Look, I'm not a shit kicker but I may come off that way because it's a very important subject to me.

Since you're bringing up the Iraq war...I was against it.
Exit strategy...they fucked it up.
Plan Colombia a joke.
Ilegal Drugs...just creates the barons and corruption we have. I do not disagree with not one of your statements.

But since you're bringing up the Iraq war alongside the insurgency in Colombia, how do you make this analogy?

Because I'm American born, doesn't make me any less Colombian in heritage than any of you. I resent the Bush and Iraq war comments because not all Americans are behind this moron and war atrocity.

If you think my 'violence' talk is getting old, well I think the idealistic, stick my head in the dirt approach by the likes of you are downright juvenile and dangerous.

BTW, like I said before, know your history. Before cocaine and marijuana, there was a guerrilla.

Stop making this a USA problem. If it's not them buying the coke, it's Europe.

Stop making excuses, Colombia needs to clean up it's own mess.

I think I've made my point, and for those that agree with me, I'm sure they agree they don't want to go back to the days of Bentacourt and Pastrana.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

toneloc24 says on Oct 15, 2005, 08:54:

at Pepster Wolfowitz I'm not Colombian, and this is really a topic for Colombians IN Colombia. Again, if you're not prepared to drop everything and go to the frontlines against FARC with your gun and gear, you're just blowing smoke, esp. from outside the borders of Colombia. After almost 60 years of this violence, when is enough enough? I would think that the last thing any Colombian needs to hear is another plan involving violence.

It is also time for the USA to take responsibility for the drug problem. This war survives on drug money. People are permitting the flow of illegal drugs into the USA. Think about it, for approx. 30 years, everyone knows that most cocaine originates from Colombia. It generally comes into the USA from Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, the Bahamas, amongst other locations. If the USA was serious about stopping the flow of illegal drugs, esp. in today's world where terrorists are now the issue, the borders would have been secure by now. Wanna get a nuke into the USA? Put it in a drug shipment.

I sincerely doubt that this war (FARC vs. AUC and government) would be as potent as it has been over the past 20 years, if the cashflow from cocaine and heroins sales would have dried up years ago. I know Europe is also a market, but it's small potatoes compared to the US market. Approx. 80% of Colombia's cocaine and heroin ends up in the USA. So again, the USA funds the war. The narcos would have way too many issues getting 80% of their product over to Europe. Too much product, and too far to Europe. Who would be the next largest market to replace the USA? China? India? Yeah, right.

The USA has spent BILLIONS on dollars on this war on drugs. Does Europe contribute to some sort of Plan Colombia where billions are being sent to assist in the reduction of narcotics? No. Has the war on drugs and Plan Colombia made a significant dent in US drug sales? No. It's a money pit for the USA. Colombian cities are currently more secure, but the threat remains.

Pick a side you say? Again, I ask why? Take away the drug cashflow and let them all dissolve into irrelevance. Then the Colombian government will have an advantageous situation in which they can govern, and not beg for peace negotiations and financial handouts.

Let Colombia be responsible for Colombia, and the USA be responsible for the USA. That simple.

"Don't tase me, bro!!!!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 15, 2005, 11:40:

Lot's of stuff to comment on, so little time... First off, it should be noted that Colombia only became the "primary producer/exporter" (not the same thing, I know) of Cocaine by the early/mid-1990s. Before that, Peru and Bolivia among other places had a greater share of the market.

Fernardo Metierrez:
"Why should anyone expect a successful/positive outcome if someone goes into negotiations like that?"

And how do you think that the FARC approaches negotiations? With a smile and a warm hug? Frankly, both the FARC and the government have had moments of sincerity, but also moments of radicalism.

On paper, it seems to be just a matter of convincing the appropiate people on all sides to make the appropiate moves at the appropiate time. But it's extremely hard to put that in practice without running into greater or lesser complications.

toneloc24:
I really don't think that all sides are exactly equal, but I can understand that such may be the perception of some foreigners/ foreign-born expatriates. I respect it, it's your right to believe that disengagement and isolationism will resolve everything and make the issue go away, but a lot of things make me completely disagree with it.

The U.S. government has wanted to be, for better or for worse, the "leader of the free world", so to speak, in order to defend its interests and promote its policies, and won't stop doing so anytime soon, I'm afraid. The U.S., as a source for both good and evil, likely won't stop messing around with other countries around the world while it still has the power to do so. You might force an administration or two to change the particular tactics involved, but the overall strategy seems to remain in practice. It's too tempting.

Now, I do think that you're simplifying things quite a bit regarding the drug trade. Tighter border control, unless it reached the proportions of a true police state never seen before, won't significantly stop the flow of drugs nor their consumption inside U.S. borders, not to mention internal production.

Therefore, most of those who benefit from the drug trade will still do so. It's true that the drug trude is currently the main fuel for the war in Colombia, but it's far from being so easy to handle.

The problem is prohibition itself, and its continuation hasn't solved anything. That didn't work near the 1920's with alcohol, won't work now with drugs. The issue is an issue of demand, and demand has to be fought with educational campaigns and reasonable restrictions, not with total illegalization.

Personally, I find that it's a tremendous example of worldwide hypocrisy to allow people to smoke and drink freely, within certain limits and regulations, yet drug use must be heavily repressed and considered as a criminal activity. That isn't the exclusive responsibility of the U.S., but as the world's superpower, its influence in defining, defending and putting prohibition in practice can't be underestimated.

If anybody could push for a change in worlwide policies relatively easily, it'd be the U.S. On paper, at least, though I imagine that inside the U.S. itself there's still too little awareness about the problem for attitudes to change too soon.

"Next cut out this Plan Colombia money. Enough is enough already."

On the contrary, one could say that it's not nearly enough nor has it been correctly allocated, though I understand that from an isolationist U.S. perspective it might well be so. Military aid could be cut somewhat, just likely not by 50% or more, not without negative consequences. Much more importantly, in funding social and economic alternatives for drug growers and providing institutional aid, very little is being done.

That's the Achilles' heel of the Plan. Ironically, Pastrana himself admitted this when he originally structured most of Plan Colombia around social and economic aid (he even compared it to the Marshall Plan, to the despair of certain U.S. personalities). But, for different reasons, it didn't work out that way in practice.

Still, that actually would at least reduce the drug trade's impact in practice, though it wouldn't eliminate it completely. In the best case scenario, the industry would eventually move out of Colombia, but as long as prohibition still exists, it would survive.

"why should we do it with Colombia AND foot the bill?"

It's not just the U.S. that should foot the bill though. It's just the largest and most poweful single party involved. Everyone, of course, including Europe, Colombia and the rest of the region, should contribute. That's also why I believe that a true and serious worldwide discussion about prohibition, its limits and its practical merits is long overdue.

But as far as the U.S. is concerned...it's because that's in your government's political, economic and ideological interests, or so it seems to think. You can pull the U.S. completely out of Colombia now and change nothing else, but then you'll have to learn to live with the worst effects of the drug trade as long as its prohibited.

"Very simplistic, right?"

Unfortunately, it kind of seems that way.

"After almost 60 years of this violence, when is enough enough? I would think that the last thing any Colombian needs to hear is another plan involving violence."

Leaving aside the "60 years" bit...Problem is, neither the "plans involving violence" nor the "plans involving peace" have been pushed hard enough by anyone, inside and outside of Colombia. Negotiating peace isn't cheap, nor is winning a war.

"The USA has spent BILLIONS on dollars on this war on drugs."

Yes, but it has spent too little of it where it's worthwhile.

"Does Europe contribute to some sort of Plan Colombia where billions are being sent to assist in the reduction of narcotics? No."

It has actually provided the vast majority of the social and economic aid available, though it pales in comparison to the total amount of U.S. (repressive) counter-narcotics aid.

Ironically, some Europeans campaigned against Plan Colombia because they saw it as "too militaristic", even when they were expected to provide overwhelmingly non-military aid. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Has the war on drugs and Plan Colombia made a significant dent in US drug sales? No. It's a money pit for the USA. Colombian cities are currently more secure, but the threat remains."

And they will remain, as long as Plan Colombia's flaws continue to exist and, more importantly, as long as prohibition is seen as the only way to fight drugs.

"Pick a side you say? Again, I ask why?"

Because some of us are actually directly affected by all this, I suppose. Still, rather than simply picking a side at random, or any at all, one should analyze the virtues and vices of each. IMHO, the analysis doesn't reveal a total equivalency.

"Take away the drug cashflow and let them all dissolve into irrelevance."

If only stopping that cashflow would be so simple...

"Then the Colombian government will have an advantageous situation in which they can govern, and not beg for peace negotiations and financial handouts."

Well...see above.

"Let Colombia be responsible for Colombia, and the USA be responsible for the USA. That simple."

If only you were right...


pepster:
"Stop making excuses, Colombia needs to clean up it's own mess."

In theory, yes. But in practice, it's not just our own mess, I'm afraid.

"I think I've made my point, and for those that agree with me, I'm sure they agree they don't want to go back to the days of Bentacourt and Pastrana."

Then I guess I can't really agree with you too much.

Tinto:

"Now that Colombia has their helicopters and some better equipment and training, I'd like to see the military portion of Plan Colombia diverted to Mexican border control."

That probably would have positive effects in the short term, but wouldn't solve the problem in the long term and, one could speculate, things could get out of hand here again and in the Mexican border itself, bringing us all back to step one.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 15, 2005, 18:29:

You could be right...guess I spoke a bit rashly Strictly speaking, I'm not completely sure, hence I'm willing to compromise on that point. My apologies to you and those that consider them necessary.

I do have my doubts about both the U.S. and European aid amounts being necessarily constant over the years though.

And after quickly reviewing the information easily available on the net (which is not necessarily complete), an additional set of questions pops up:

Do loans and credit lines count as aid? What about aid formally provided outside of Plan Colombia (since that label has become ugly), but considered to be part of its social component in some studies yet is omitted in others? What about the difference between what was originally pledged and what has been put in practice? Etc.

Apparently both the U.S. and other sectors of the international community change their minds from time to time as to the definition of what classifies as aid, hence figures differ.

In fact, according to a May 2005 U.S. State Dept. report, it is argued that European counter-narcotics aid for alt. dev. et. al. is inferior to the one provided by the U.S., but I have my doubts about that, given the previously mentioned issue of definitions. Check the bit about "Other Sources of EU Funding" down here, a point which cuts both ways, so to speak (affecting the U.S. itself):

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/46736.htm#european

The report has some curious phrases:

"The level of European support is growing and is comparable to or sometimes greater than similar assistance provided by the United States."

"There is, quite simply, no single source of complete or comprehensive information on the universe of European assistance to the Andean region."

"Nevertheless, spending for financial, technical and economic cooperation, as programmed in the context of the country and regional strategy papers described above, does not provide the full picture of European aid to the Andean region. Assistance also comes under a range of "horizontal" budget lines covering specific themes such as democracy and human rights, drugs, refugees, etc. These are not linked to a specific country or region, making it difficult to obtain precise figures."

Hence I realize "vast majority" could clearly be too strong a term. Therefore, maybe it should be replaced by the simple "proportional majority or at the very least rough parity", for the sake of the argument.

And by the way, rather than simply referring to Europe, I'd also change my phrase to "non-U.S. donors (mostly Europe but also Japan, Canada and a couple of others)" as a more comprehensive term, more representative of what I was thinking of.

Even a rough parity still illustrates the point. In fact, even if it were to be the *minority* component, that would more clearly show the irony of Europe (and the other countries) as a whole being relatively stingy, regarding non-military aid (which should be their concern, as opposed to the U.S. being the mainly repressive/militaristic party involved, from the perspective of anti-Plan Colombia activists).

And, of course, if European aid was supposedly inferior to U.S. aid in all categories, then that basically means that social and alternative development is getting screwed up as a whole, reinforcing the the argument that it has never been really enough and pales vs. military aid.

Evidently we can't just rely on international aid alone and must make more sacrifices, something that politicians and especially congressmen loathe to do in all countries, but to believe that "enough is enough" and that all aid should be cut to ridiculous amounts at this point (merely five years or less after all this even became an issue) may be significantly counterproductive, at least.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 15, 2005, 19:05:

European Vs. US aid Juan, I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but European aid to Colombia is nowhere near even the amount the US gives soley to humanitarian and alt-dev programs. I'm talking about giving by governments, not private donations, btw. It's possible that European NGO's are giving more.

I believe that it's unrealistic to talk about Colombia's problems as if they are only Colombia's fault. Colombia's been fucked up forever, but the drug corruption and violence isn't a Colombian creation. When the US and Europe stop their hypocritical prohibition on drugs while their citizens are consuming literal tonnes of cocaine, then we can talk about it being Colombia's sole problem. Remember, all those drug profits that buy the private armies, etc. are NOT coming from Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 15, 2005, 20:09:

juancegomez: And how do you t juancegomez: "And how do you think that the FARC approaches negotiations?"
Sure, if someone greets you with fire you answer with fire.
Isnt it always like that?

Mr Hollywood: The donations from the USA are mainly: I give you money and for that you will buy weapons and glifosfato from 'us'.

I dont know why you all dont get it into your minds.
The 'solve it all' solution are not always weapons.
Naturally, the USA as biggest weapons producer has somehow to make business. So, for them everyone should buy weapons because you can solve it all with armed conflict.
THATS SICK!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 15, 2005, 20:22:

"Sure, if someone greets you with fire you answer with fire.
Isnt it always like that?"

Not always. You'll find people on both sides greeting fire without fire, and people greeting a lack of fire with fire. It has been a matter of perceptions more than of strict reality.

The FARC distrusts the government and the government distrusts the FARC and both have legitimate reasons to do so, given their shared record. But they both had have rather egoistical perspectives as well.

That doesn't mean they are absolutely equal, but it helps to try to understand where each of them is coming from and where they each think the other side is going, and vice versa. Why? In order to someday try to get them both to stop messing around, hopefully.

"I dont know why you all dont get it into your minds.
The 'solve it all' solution are not always weapons."

Not always but not never. And, in Latin America at least, the solution has been a mix of both weapons and a lack of them, with the predominance of the former. That doesn't mean that the solution is only in weapons, no.

It means that, IMHO, a lot more depends on the complex yet fleeting whims of circumstance than one tends to realize at first sight, when trying to find a solution. Or rather, effectively implementing one of the many possible solutions.

They vary not only according to each country, but also according to the country's own past and its changing present. At a certain point in time a military solution may seem to be more likely than a non-violent one, and vice versa.

There isn't only a single solution set in stone, whichever one we all end up experiencing.

I'd want a non-violent one, in theory, and that explains my criticism of certain policies being undertaken right now, but I doubt such a thing will happen without more than a few extra bodies being buried, as cold as it may sound.

"THATS SICK!!!"

It definitely is, from a moral point of view.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

DonkeyDust says on Oct 15, 2005, 20:54:

You win a war with your youth and a fierce patriotism. Spend the USA $$ on training poor youth... male and female... to be proud of the country, to be willing to make the ultimate scarfice, and to be educated.

Accept chldren from age ??? maybe (orphaned) babies and up and train them to be warriors and educate them to help the country.

Possibly have them at the right age to help build or repair homes for the homeless using what ever trade they are learning. At the same time build strong bodies and minds with a military upbringing and political.

Thier reward... after a tour of duty..age 24 or something, (if the drug cartels havent killed them) ...a good vocational or professional foundation on which to build thier lives. I am sure in history strong warrior nations did just that. Germany went on the principal and look what they did against the world. I don't think they would have been as strong with out conning the youth. In this case of course I would prefer rather than ethnic cleansing that they were taught just to be clean. je je je

I would pick from the street kids and others particulary the poor. I suspect it could be better than having you head in a platic bag of gas. It certainly couldn't hurt the country if it were possible to instill good morals and education. Blah blah blah blah somebody shoot me. je je je

Latitudes attitudes & platitudes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 15, 2005, 23:06:

The USA gives far LESS non-military aid to Colombia... if you consider the aid amounts as a percentage of gross national product. Whether you look at European, or all non-USA aid doesn't matter.... the non-USA amounts are far greater a percentage of their GNP than the USA gives to Colombia as a percentage of its GNP.

DonkeyDust... you might appreciate this song by Canandian Buffy Sainte-Marie. She wrote it in the basement of the Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early 60's about the time FARC was getting organized. Seems as applicable to the world situation today as then and applies equally to AUC, FARC, ELN, or the official Colombian Armed Forces. The song is titled: "Universal Soldier"

He's five feet two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17
He's been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an athiest, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn't kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA,
and he's fighting for the Russians
and he's fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way

And he's fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it's for the peace of all
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls

But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on

He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 16, 2005, 01:26:

juancegomez: "The FARC distrusts the government and the government distrusts the FARC and both have legitimate reasons to do so,"

See, there you got it. Seems these reasons have to be cleared first before they can start finishing the armed conflict.
and
In South America lots of conflicts (actually too many conflicts) are solved using violence, conflicts which could be solved better by mutual understanding and discussions. Sometimes a word helps in clarifying a misunderstanding.

Donkeydust: "patriotism, patriotism..."
Patriotism never helped anyone.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 16, 2005, 01:28:

juancegomez: "The FARC distrusts the government and the government distrusts the FARC and both have legitimate reasons to do so,"

See, there you got it. Seems these reasons have to be cleared first before they can start finishing the armed conflict.
and
In South America lots of conflicts (actually too many conflicts) are solved using violence, conflicts which could be solved better by mutual understanding and discussions. Sometimes a word helps in clarifying a misunderstanding.

Donkeydust: "patriotism, patriotism..."
Patriotism never helped anyone.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 16, 2005, 07:24:

Fernando, if you think US assistance to Colombia is mainly for glisophato, I suggest you read this: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2005/lac/pdf/colombia_cbj_fy05.pdf

Even the direct military aid includes a lot of money spent on things like training the gaula in rescue techniques, human rights training and other capacity building measures, not just a bunch of chemicals to dump on coca. The Plan Colombia budget breakdown is available as a public document, so take a look.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

DonkeyDust says on Oct 16, 2005, 07:59:

Perhaps a different slant on Patriotism and war. Can you not prepare youth not just for war… but for careers and family also?

Perhaps creating a similarity to Israel in military and also with the communal kibbutz to give the children (who would often be homeless) family values and structure?

Would recruiting poor children in strategic areas "dry up" some of the recruits for the narco terrorists?

Can you picture a child who has grown into a man? This man is homeless, alcoholic etc. and on the street if with a gang of other similar ilk. He can be at the same time…scary, despicable and sad.
Or picture this same man cutting your throat to get your wallet.
Now picture this same group of men who have grown up in a kibbutz like environment with a strong military and family background.

I agree... be careful on the patriotism… but feel the pride in knowing you can help make your country And the world) and your people stronger.

This same strategy might not be so good for Switzerland but Switzerland probably is not in need of drastic action although the required to have military service and keeping a gun by the door (attitdue of defence) may not have hurt.

Just a thought in light of the fact that something is not working down there and hasn’t been working down there for 40 years.


No estoy de acuerdo, con todo escrito. Especialmente despues un poco tomo.

No estoy de acuerdo, necesariamente, con todo escrito. Especialmente despues un poco tomo.

Latitudes attitudes & platitudes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 16, 2005, 09:35:

Youth I agree that Colombia must do something to bring hope to all the young people out there in poverty which will, by itself, make people who have never receive anything but a kick in the pants from the Bogota government suddenly see a different side of things.

I can't imagine using Israel as a role model for anything but disaster. They're pretty much the only other country that's been dealing with constant conflict for 50 years and ongoing. And they seem to be making it worse, not better.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 16, 2005, 20:57:

Colombia has been at war for over 40 years How long do you think Colombia has been in conflict...a few years?

I started this thread making a statement on the reality of matters and every other poster if not most, give the same idealistic "let's reason...let's talk about it".

Go ahead...continue talking...wait until Uribe leaves office.

It's going to get ugly in Colombia. I'm sorry..uglier.

Let's give the FARC some land so they can fortify their forces.

Let's pay off the AUC so they can come out and create havoc and mischief out in the open.

Let's appease... appease...appease.

Some of you have used the Bush analogy of how this doesn't work. The firm approach.

The only thing that clown did wrong was attack Iraq.
He was right with Aghganastan. Reagan was right with Libya.
You have to smack down the enemy. Iraq was not the enemy.

Violence...you say is the wrong way to solve a problem. I'm sorry if you think the "violent" talk is getting old. Well, too bad, the violence is not going away by wishing it.

I'd like to hear from some of you if you think Lincoln should have reasoned with the South. Using your passive tactics...we'd still have slavery in America or at least an apartheid system like South Africa's.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 16, 2005, 21:06:

toneloc24 I am American by birth and Colombian by heritage.

I've been to Colombia at least a 1/3 of my life.

I've spent all my summer vacations and every other Christmas.

All my family lives there...my dad is retired there...my grandfather too.

If you disagree with me fine...but don't try to shut me up with pick up a gun and fight and leave it to Colombians to discuss this problem.

Just ignore this thread and move on...I'm not asking for a personal attack..I'm asking for opinions and exchanging views. Since you don't to seem to offer either without attacking me...I'll take whatever you say with a grain of salt.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Fernardo Metierrez says on Oct 16, 2005, 21:10:

Mr. Hollywood "Fernando, if you think US assistance to Colombia is mainly for glisophato, I suggest..."
No worries, I know the plan colombia and what the USA gives as aid.

I actually did not only refer to glifosfato, but it seems thats the only word you made out in my sentence.

In general they should use the money NOT for any military infrastructure or training either.

None of the money should ever go back to the USA but be used inside Colombia, giving work to colombians, using Colombian raw materials to build necessary infrastructure like scools, streets or even water pipes.
Use the money to develop the country, which would also be in the interest of the Farc.
Use the money to help people to have a better life.
Use the money to create a generation which is better/more completely educated, a generation where also the poor can afford to go to school. Get the gamines off the streets and let them learn and do something useful.

Money spent for military purposes is wasted money, money which could be used for better/more important things.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 16, 2005, 22:13:

Fernando, You say: "Use the money to develop the country, which would also be in the interest of the Farc."

If the money were to be used as you suggest, to promote the well-being of the people, that would not be in the interest of the FARC. That would take away from FARC's recruitment, which depends on the continuation of poverty and governmental neglect.

What is in the interest of the FARC is what Pepster suggests: smack down the enemy. FARC loves that Uribe was elected, the man with balls and ganas to eliminate the FARC, as he promised upon his election. FARC loves it that the toughest "hombre" hasn't been able to stop them. They can use that in their propaganda. Violence is the language they speak so they understand a man like Uribe and know how to survive him.

They were thrown for a loop with Pastrana... had to equivocate, stall, and horrors... talk to the government! They were put on the spot and had to explain their actions and respond regarding their atrocities and violations of human rights. But FARC supported Uribe's election (I read that in an interview with Raul Reyes during the election campaign of Uribe. Uribe was FARC's man).

They can deal with violence. They don't know how to deal with nonviolent protest against them as many of the indigenous people have so bravely shown. It's bad public relations when they respond with violence to someone who comes to them in peace, in a nonviolent fashion. (And FARC does care about public relations since they claim to be a "popular" movement dependent upon support of the public). So far I'd say the indigenous have won, and the FARC has lost, when the FARC has been confronted with nonviolent tactics.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 17, 2005, 08:06:

FARC's Candidate? Man, that is a wild theory.

First, Uribe was FARC's worst nightmare, and judging by the amount of attempts on his life, I don't think he got their vote.

Yeah, FARC was thrown in a loop with Pastrana, they couldn't believe what this guy was doing. They had a chance to end this and it ended up blowing up in Pastrana's face. So for all this talk of negotiating with these criminals, there is your perfect example that the FARC, unlike other ideoligical subversives, are frauds.

They hide behind tired socialistic rhetoric, that has never been supported by their actions.

Short of Platano's crazy FARC theory, he is right. The best way other than a strong police action to end this nightmare is to cure the cause.

Poverty and injustice. Either deal with it now or as soon as the FARC is crushed.

You need strong security alongside social reforms, healthcare, training, labor laws. I mean everything a civilized democracy must enact to protect it's population. Colombia too long, has catered and cow-towed to the rich. Didn't matter which side you voted for, they looked out for their own. Much like what America is becoming with our CEO, I mean our president Bush Jr.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 17, 2005, 10:14:

Well, I did make most of my pertinent comments on the first page, so forgive me if I shorten my current replies a bit...

Fernando:
"Money spent for military purposes is wasted money, money which could be used for better/more important things."

In theory, I'd support you 100%. In practice, I can only support you 60%-70%, since I don't think Colombia can afford, given the current situation, to stop absolutely all military spending. However, the fact remains that much more money definitely should be spent in some of the other mentioned areas, which I agree are definitely key to solving our problems in the long term.

The thing is, long term problems will only have long term solutions, and it's very tough to implement those if you simultaneously have to deal with short and medium term issues as well. In other words, we need both social and military spending, in great amounts, which is far from cheap or easy.

Hey, as I've grown to point out, the rest of South America hasn't properly dealt with poverty and injustice for the most part (even Chavez is far, far from achieving that), even with little to no armed opposition available, so it's a rather difficult scenario for everybody in this continent.

Still, I'm personally closer to agreeing with platano's views than with pepster's, overall, but as mentioned before, I have my own differences with each of them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 20, 2005, 10:33:

On early comments "Look at the Israeli/Palestanian problem, the Sunni Arabs and Shiites of Iraq."

Aside from being armed conflicts between groups, what other parallel is there between these and FARC-Government? I think these are poorly chosen examples, convenient only to advance an ideological point. A better example is FMLN-Government in El Salvador, URNG-Government in Guatemala, or even the myriad of guerillas in Colombia that gave up their arms WITHOUT BEING CRUSHED at the end of the 80's (M-19, Quintin Lame, a faction of the EPL, etc.)

Win-win situations, all of them, are realistic and certainly more possible that "crushing" any one party in the Colombian conflict. It has being tried for 50 years, no success yet, and we only see more conflict ahead.

"We need to take a side. I find the AUC just as evil as the FARC in some respects but I think we can get a better deal siding with one devil over the other."

If so, why the AUC/Government over the FARC (if those are the sides you want to draw)?

"painting it as a picture of the Gov/AUC vs. FARC/ELN is simply wrong"

Mr. H. makes a good point. Elements of the central Government, particularly within the military, as clearly sided with certain blocs of the AUC. Local governments have different alliances. Throw in a mix of economic (i.e., narco, agro, oil, etc.) and social (indigenous, peace communities, unions) interests, and you have a knot that is not easy to untie. Pepster's idea of the conflict--with its characteristic reactionary overtones of "them" vs. "us"--may apply well to a futbol game, but not to reality outside of the stadium.

"But by having these insurgents and corrupt government running amock, Colombia's socio-economic problems will only worsen."

And the insurgency and the "corrupt government" (here I agree: Uribe's government has set a new standard in corruption) are what? alien to Colombia? They are elements of the country and as such should be dealt with. What guarantees that the dictator you ask for would be any less corrupt? Any precedents? Pinochet?????? Hmmm... I don't think that needs any comments.

What I fail to understand is what kind of country would Pepster like us (Colombians) to live in. I, and I believe most Colombians, would like a country where we decide how to run it. Such principle is established in a little booklet call the Constitution: it is what DEFINES the Republic of Colombia. A dictator would sort of preclude the possibility of self-government. If you REALLY like dictators, you should head for Haiti, there seems to be a market for those there.

"This is not going to end pretty no matter what approach is taken."

Well, I don't read anything saying that this is a matter of aesthetics.

"You think there is any stopping this without some overwhelming violence?"

As I showed it before, it is the only realistic way.

"Are you guys serious? Dialog hasn't gotten us absolutely nowhere."

I was wondering the same thing from you. And it's true: dialogue has not being fruitful in Colombia (it has been though in other conflicts). But, where has the intensification of the conflict taken us? Well, pretty much where we are now. It seems pretty dumb--to put it mildly--to try the same thing over and over an expect different results.

"but Colombia needs to be ruled from a position of power and not by Human Rights organizations and toothless World Bodies like the UN."

I didn't know that HRW and the UN were naming cabinet members and organizing the Colombian military. "A position of power"? What is that?

"The FARC would like nothing more than to sucker the Colombian government into using heavy handed tactits that would cause thousands to actively oppose the governemnt and even join the FARC."

Vladimiro is absolutely correct here. It's a tactic that has worked for them before. Remember the all-out offensive in Arauca, when it was declared "zona de consolidación y rehabilitación"? All reports coincide in describing massive human rights violations (the government didn't even have the decency of hiding them) followed, recently, by a consolidation, but not of military troops, but of FARC presence off the oil production areas (which is what ultimately matters in Arauca). Excellent job!

"but as the FARC finds itself more hunted and more cornered they appear to be acting more, not less heavy handed."

Also true. Same thing for the ELN some years ago, when they still had some military muscle. Like the M-19, ELN and EPL, there are plenty of elements in the FARC that are very favorable to negotiations, but they will never be dominant within the structure as long as the main currency of the conflict is military. Extraditing them to the U.S. doesn't help either.

"Name one time...one time an armed struggle was ended with both sides laying down their arms without one having the other against the wall?"

I mentioned several above. Now, if you are going to argue that any of them were "against the wall", please provide some solid evidence that that was the case, not any more of that foam about "plomo" and annihilation. I can argue with data, not with screeching slogans. The only exception in my list is the M-19, which was admittedly in a military debacle. Not, mind you, so much due to government actions, but mostly because of their own ineptitude.

"Look, some might find what I say uncomfortable..."

Not as uncomfortable as outright idiotic. My commentary, mind you, is on your opinion, not on you--who I happily don't know.

"I'm suggesting a realistic end to this conflict. I'd love to have an idealist philosiphy that would work...but that's all it is. Words and wishful thinking.

Realism comes accompanied with evidence, and I don't see any in your opinion. What I see is plenty of wishful thinking.

"Hopefully, Uribe will declare a national emergency, suspend freedom of the press and declare martial law in certain areas and extinguish the insurgency."

Fortunately, even though I have a bad image of the fans of Uribe, I still have a few neurons clicking enough times to know that you are giving them a bad name. That's quite an accomplishment!

"Then and only then, from a position of strength, can Colombia begin to rebuild and address poverty."

Why? Why not address all these issues WHILE in a conflict? Not just poverty: why don't we apply the Constitution to it's full extent WHILE in conflict? What is going to happen? It's not going to work? Has it been tried before? Just once???

As for the reason for FARC's existence, I mostly agree with juancegomez and Mr. H.'s assessment. You have to look at 50 years of history (at least!) and look for some invariances to explain the FARC:

Hypothesis 1: "It's the drugs!" Where the drug business financing the FARC from 1964 to the 80's? Does anybody have at least a well informed guess as to what percentage of FARC operations is financed by their involvement in coca production?

Hypothesis 2: "It's poverty!" Then Bolivia would have 18 guerillas fighting the government. But they don't.

Hypothesis 3: "It's pure evil!" Maybe.

Hypothesis 4: "It's corruption!" The most corrupt government in Peru, Fujimori's, actually eliminated Sendero Luminoso.

You see where I'm getting at. As juance would say, "it's too complex". A critical element in the case of Colombia, though, is the systematic exclusion of certain marginal sectors of society--rural, mostly agro-frontier--from the political game. While in the rest of Latin America populist movements where integrating these sectors while modernizing their economies, Colombia went on a different direction, developing the clientelist system that still refuses to die. Now, I'd like to see how Pepster's dictator would play in this scenario: political exclusion of the marginal fought with political exclusion of absolutely everyone. Brilliant!

Do I have a better solution? I WISH! I know it's not "plomo", or at least not JUST "plomo". This is a political as well as a military conflict. We need a political as well as a military solution. The political part of the equation is extremely complicated: at least 6 consecutive presidencies tried different formulas, and they all failed. It is easy to accuse them of "corruption". Because, of course, WE are pure, it is THEM that are evil, corrupt, impure. If anyone has a good suggestion, please articulate it here. If you persuade me, you have my vote. In the meanwhile, let's calm the fuck down and think before we cheer for more shootings.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 20, 2005, 22:41:

For Sr. Tertius I love your sarcasm in not having an opinion on me but only on my statement by quickly saying that you're happy not knowing me...

well likewise.

on the FMLN situation, they were on the ropes and the government chose to negotiate because of the popular support the FMLN enjoyed unlike the murderous FARC.

My comment on the UN and Human rights groups is that they pressure governments into certain decisions that weaken their resolve against subversives that hide under political ideology.

If you want me to clear anything else for you I shall. In the meantime...calm yourself the "fuck down". I'm rather outraged by what's going on and don't feel the need to feel otherwise. You go ahead and keep making excuses and have your wishful thinking. Hopefully, Colombia will turn for the better when Uribe is re-elected.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.