Ingrid Betancourt

KOMACHI says on Nov 1, 2005, 11:32:

french garbage It is sad how french goverment uses the Madame betancourt issue for political campaing reasons; also to demonstrate how wrong the world is, and how right they are.
what a bunch of fake smelly arrogant people.


(^-^)/ ...como quiero a mi chinita y a mi Colombia carajo!!!...

(^-^)/ ...como quiero a mi chinita y a mi Colombia carajo!!!...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 11:55:

Ahhh the French They are like pornography...they have no redeeming social value.

I once heard a joke about the French (a little racist, but still funny, sorry if any non-frogs are offended.)

“Do you know why Canada got the French and the U.S. got the Blacks?” The U.S had first choice!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Nov 1, 2005, 12:29:

Ronald But she is a colombian citizen, and she is not the only person kidnap in Colombia, if they want to help they should be supporting all the people kidnapped in Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm (☼Travelguide writer) says on Nov 1, 2005, 12:38:

kat1 (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Nov 1, 2005, 12:44:

i don't know, she is a Colomb She is a Colombian citizen too, she was runnig for presidency, she wanted to be our president, I think then she should be treaty as Colombian. If she gets release because of French involvement I don't think it would be right, and I don't think it will help her in future campains, but what I know? maybe I am soooooo wrong.

And because she is a Colombian citizen too she has to obey to Colombian laws too.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 12:51:

Why oh why... do I have this gut feelin that if the Colombian government wanted her free they could do so? Is she too strong of a force...probably. Can she be bought...doubt it. Would she run for president and win...yes, but would she live? Would Colombians be better off with someone like Ingrid to get rid of the corruption...not if you are rich.

I like Uribe and I hope he is re-elected but for FARC to have as many captives as they say and Uribe can't find them?? Nahhhh it doesn't compute.

After reading "Until Death Do Us Part My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia" There is much more to the story. And if the French get invovled they will screw up whatever positive is going on now. Or she is already about to be released and Jacques Chirac wants to take credit...at the end...like the French always do.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 1, 2005, 12:58:

Freeing her Rikito, let's look at it this way. The US has been looking for the three US contractors who crash landed in FARC territory and have been held for about as long as Ingrid. The US has satellites, special forces, covert listening technology, and every other trick in the book, most of which the Colombian government lacks.

Have they found those three guys yet?

Colombia is a HUGE place to hide. There are hundreds of people who have been held for years, including police, soldiers, priests, elected leaders, several nationalities and all social classes. Why would it be any easier to find Ingrid? More importantly, why should the Colombian government devote any special effort to finding her that it's not to finding the others?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Nov 1, 2005, 13:16:

Don't forget... Bentacourt was warned that they couldn't protect her right before she went ahead and did that publicity stunt.

BTW, when in Colombia, you are a Colombian citizen. The French have no jurisdiction over this issue.


The Pepster

ColombianBlog.com

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 13:27:

Becasue the stakes are not high enough yet After my days in the USMC I was assigned to the NSA. Mostly in the Middle East and Africa...never in South America except for one little excursion to BA.

There is more to the story that of Ingrid we will never know about. Why are the French so interested? Ingrid's parents are both Colombian. Maybe she was naturalized because of her father's diplomatic stint, but believe me when I say that if the frogs are involved there is some other shit going on that will never see the front page or any other page! Take a look at why the French are so against us in Iraq for example. Why? Because they were up to their frog holes in illegal food for oil payoffs and have been caught. Beware, if someone ever tells you that they are French…grab hold of your wallet!

Does the Colombia/US know where she is? Maybe not specifically but they could find out without a lot of difficulty. The satellite stuff they show you on TV is not even remotely near what we really have available.

I do not know Ingrid’s entire story, but for someone that high profile to be still held captive is very unusual. FARC will bargain for anything…anything. Make them the offer that Urine knows they want and see what hits the fan.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm (☼Travelguide writer) says on Nov 1, 2005, 13:28:

litost says on Nov 1, 2005, 13:56:

Rikito: nice conspiracy theories, but you are totally off. Ingrid never was, or probably will be, a huge political force. I mean sure, she has enough support to get elected to the Senate whenever she wants, maybe even an important city mayor position, but she´s never been even close to presidential chances. The whole drama and attention surrounding her kidnapping have sure given her an important place in international news and public opinion, but this doesn´t mean that in colombian reality she is any closer to becoming a future president. We all wish the army had already freed her or the government had negotiated her liberty, but than again we wish that for the hundreds of other citizens held captive. It´s a very sad, enourmous tragedy nobody deserves blame for other that the bastards who put a price on human lives: FARC.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 14:08:

I Agree with you ...but with the French involved it is not a conspiracy theory. French politics is filth. Just like American and British...they will do no unprovoked good.

FARC wants more than some pesos, a decent bottle of aguardiente, and
a few of their drug buddies.

If Ingrid's mom is Colombian and her dad is Colombian...isn't Ingrid
Colombian? The naturalization thing is a matter of convenience mainly for the kids.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:10:

I don't beleive you Rikito... The first thing they tell you at the NSA, CIA, Isreali Mossad, British MI-6 5 or 10 and even Canadian SCRS or French Ministry of Interior Special Ops is NEVER EVER to divulge your envolvment past present or future with them in order to protect yourself, your family or your friends.

Why do you think that Cheney underhand is facing criminal charges and a 30 years prison sentence?

If you're so keen on saying that you used to be with NSA, you're either a liar or a disgraced agent...

Brunito, a frog who's proud to be one.

ps: btw, we sent the USA packing twice in the 1900s so I guess us frogs knew what we were doing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Hunter says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:18:

we sent the USA packing twice in the 1900s What two times were they then brunito?

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:23:

France The French involvement is easily explained. It's all about domestic French politics. Ingrid's a big popular cause in France, largely due to the efforts of her French family. No big conspiracy needed to explain any of it.

Rikito, since you're more James Bond than me, clearly, please explain how the Colombians are supposed to rescue Ingrid, even if they know where she is, especially in light of the fact that her family has personally begged Uribe to guarantee that the government will NOT attempt any rescue?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:24:

Here they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_(1775)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Hunter says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:33:

brunito Regarding the first, which is generally called the 7 years war, didn't the English and Colonial Americans kick France out of Canada, parts of presnt day USA and many other places around the world.

Regarding the War of 1812, it didn't involve the French, it involved the English fighting the USA.

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cam0940 says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:34:

I KNOW you're not trying to say we lost those wars, B.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cam0940 says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:35:

I can't even believe you had the audacity to say that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:41:

You are watching to many Gerard Depardieu movies I never said who is was or if I was ever an agent. And that is all crap anyway. There is only one sub-organization of the U.S. govt who cannot divulge such information and the NSA is not one of them. We were a sub org communications and listening org. under CIA but we were (are) not secret agents at all. And that was 25 years ago for me. If I were that important I would have been a noxious weed a long time ago...wait...my ex already feels that way about me.

Oh...please tell me when you sent the USA packing twice in the 1900s?


Who saved the French in WW1?
Who saved the French in WW2?
Who evacuated your ugly asses from Dien Bien Phu?
What country has lost more lives saving the French from their own incompetence in the 1900s?
Who forgave their loans to the World Bank for giving into the Nazis?
Please tell me one positive thing the French have added to the world in the last 100 years...besides Bridget Bardot...I'll give you that one.
Even the wine taste like old socks except for Merlot...ok that's two.

And, the Canadian SCRS is one degree higher than Eagle Scout the French Ministry of Interior Special Ops is were you go to get French furniture isn't it.

Why are there so many shade trees in Paris? So the Germans won't get sunburned.

The fact is simple...as long as everything is fine, doesn't cost too much or any money, makes the frogs look good deservidly or not they will help get Ms. Betancourt free, but if gets tough then it's au revoir!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:43:

and one more thing Brunito the picute of your Princessa is beautiful. She does display the beauty of Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:44:

I'm not saying you lost those wars I'm just saying that both times the USA lost important battles against french canadian militia.

I guess you guys forgot I'm from Quebec? :-)

I know I'm on a string here but that's what happens when some people start generalising about other people like Rikito has been doing and nobody puts him on notice for it,

It's like the US senate who criticizes the british MP about the gas for medicine scandall and everytime he tells them to bring him to court they find an excuse.

What? people are alowed to bring charges against others without proof but don't you dare do the same against them? (does Halliburton ring a bell to anyone?)

Anyway, off topic but at least I know I'm off topic anyway.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:47:

Let's have a Molson eh? Or 10. By the way...the frogs did hold thier own in Gulf 1

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:51:

I know I know nothings bugs anybody more then having someone tell you you're wrong, your're doing it for the wrong reasons plus you're full of shit and then having them prove it to you!

That's what I call the french foreign minister's speech to the UN security councill in late 2002 early 2003 before the Iraqui war...

;-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:53:

you're not so bad after all there is still hope for you! ;-) as long as it's not a Canadian but a Dry!

ps:adrimm or Sylvia, do you still have the link to the frog spoof of the I am Canadian ad?

Rikito, you've got to listen to that one

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:55:

Rikito, thanks for the pic comment! :-) I'd tell her but then she'd be pissed off at me because it's on the website...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Nov 1, 2005, 15:55:

That the U.S. was wrong invading Iraq? Of course we were! Absolutley wrong in every regard. But look...we had some extra bullets and we needed the oil.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

KOMACHI says on Nov 1, 2005, 17:11:

Why? Why was France against a ridiculous Iraq occupation?
Not because they are the world's source of justice no.
France has the biggest Arab population in the world, meaning the biggest minority in the country.
Imagine what would happen if France was hand to hand with the countries who stupidly supported Bush?
Exactly same as Madrid or London (which has the biggest Arab ghetto in a European city) Lyon goes in third place and then Marseille.
They need the oil as much as everybody does, it is hypocritical.
Let’s see who we got ripped off comparing with iraq with the French and we can judge.
The Colombian I.D scam or Cedulas (what a waist of money and time)
The Bogota river treatment plant (billions wasted and the plant can only decontaminate 20% of the river)
Ex Bogotá’s mayor (Jaime Castro) in early 90’s millions of dollars in radio equipment for the Colombian police sold by a French company and they both knew the radios didn’t work for Colombian frequencies.
Sold by whom? A fella who owns hotels in Colombia (Cartagena and Bogota) and his partner, the son of ex-president Francois Mitterrand who was in jail because he sold guns in Africa (French colonies) for genocides
What about that French Colombian actor who was busted by DAS or Colombian secret service with thousands of pre Columbian antiques (items prohibited because they belong to the national treasure) in is house?
When Michelin bought icollantas, they did bad…
http://www.uom.edu.mx/trabajadores/17solidar.htm
http://www.linclen.com/todos-ICOLLANTAS-S-A-3788989.html
The BNP Paribas bank and Colombian oil?
What they want with the INGRID ISSUE? Elections coming soon in france?… only they know… I know for sure they are lazy arrogant and likes to eat well….
HUMMMMMMMMMMMMM…..
Think I should submit this to the French consulate comment box: “begin observing foreign holidays, Between French (and Colombian) holidays, grèves (strikes), 6 weeks of vacation, unlimited sick days, mental health leave and a litany of catholic, Islamic and Jewish days of importance; I think they’d probably average negative work days. One more holiday will tip the scale of our global economy. France’s gdp would accelerate its shrinking, forcing a withdrawal from the EU, reversing the illogical decision of the governing body to spend 2 weeks a year in Strasbourg, resulting in a decline in consumption of certain cheeses, white wines and sauerkraut. It. could be catastrophic…

I THINK IS INSULTING HER BIG PICTURE IN SOME SQUARE IN PARIS…
There should be 4200 pictures, if they really F%$# care.

(^-^)/ ...como quiero a mi chinita y a mi Colombia carajo!!!...

(^-^)/ ...como quiero a mi chinita y a mi Colombia carajo!!!...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 1, 2005, 17:27:

... I like Ingrid, I really do sympathize with her, but I also think she's being overrated in some sectors (creating what we could call a bit of a "Joan of Arc" complex...and no, I don't like the "Jesus" or "Adam" complexes either, for the record).

She probably could do well enough in Colombian politics if she came back, but I think she has, at this precise moment, more chances of ever becoming president of France than of holding the office in Colombia. Of course, that could well change...it's not a biblical prophecy or anything.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 1, 2005, 17:40:

Sure, Ingrid Betancourt posed a threat to A. Uribes candidacy. Still I cant imagine he has something to do with the matter or that he is not interested in her release.
Sure there are many people still kidnapped and all should be freed, but as it is like always: if the 'man on the street' is kidnapped, noone cares, except his family.
If someone prominent is kidnapped then you can get a campaign rolling.

But I see, there are still many 'french haters' here ;).
Most government havent done always everything right and everywhere you find that self interest, but there is no government around which has done as much wrong as the Bush regime.


UMM

UMM

My Forum

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 1, 2005, 17:51:

the threat I'm curious how Ingrid posed a threat to Uribe?

I don't claim to understand Colombian electoral politics but they seem so far apart on the ideological spectrum that I would think she'd actually help him by taking votes away from more moderate candidates that might actually threaten Uribe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 1, 2005, 17:55:

... Especially since the climate prevalent in the 2002 election was rather radically pro-war or at least radically anti-Caguán, even if it has since changed.

In such an environment, Ingrid may or may not have performed well, but I don't think she could have won, not without doing something completely unexpected and risky.

Coincidentially, that makes me think...what if the FARC had released her well before the election took place? Could the kidnapping have altered the balance in her favor so quickly?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 1, 2005, 17:56:

Every politician is scared that someone else might take votes away from him.
If you dont know whether you got 50% or not, or if you would have to go into a re-run, then better dont have too much competition or people who take votes away from you.
Anyway, I heard the song yesterday on Radio Caracol where they seemed to promote it. So, it has nothing to do with french. Only thing is: I wanted the song and I tried to find it.

Better to help one person which has been kidnapped than helping none.
Better helping two people who have been kidnapped than helping one.
etc...
UMM

UMM

My Forum

poco says on Nov 1, 2005, 18:06:

Curious Do people think she is still alive ? When was the last official "sighting"?

Better not get too friendly with the FARC

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm (☼Travelguide writer) says on Nov 1, 2005, 18:36:

umm says on Nov 1, 2005, 18:41:

Firstly I have not posted this as political post beacuse freeing of hostages is not necessarily political.
Secondly, its is NOT a "not-colombian" threat because IB has been kidnapped in Colombia nad in Colombia every day people are still kidnapped, as if it would help doing so.
the FARC, Marxist rebels, do that often although that Carlos Marx did not teach that kind of practices. Carlos Marx would probably turn around in his grave if he could see what has become out of his movement.
UMM

UMM

My Forum

brunito says on Nov 1, 2005, 20:14:

oh well I did'nt ask for a comment or lack thereof of political correctness comment, I just asked if you had the link...

maybe if the site was a little easier to manage and had more offerings as far as topics are concerned, we would'nt get that much 'reminded' about post or threads being in the wrong topic?

As I've said in previous posts when Peter asked for suggestions, there are alternative technologies that are much more user friendly.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Nov 1, 2005, 20:33:

"FROGS??" I just hope the moderators close this lethany of racist crap.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brunito says on Nov 2, 2005, 04:14:

Frog is not in as much as a racist surname as it used to be Frog is to french canadians and french what yankee is to americans. Of course if you take it out of context...

Enough already with the political correctness crap!

Too much political correctness has resulted in what? The rise of the ultra right movement in the States as a backlash and as a result, 8 years of Bush and his minions... (big generalization here)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

livingsouth says on Nov 2, 2005, 05:30:

You guys went way out in left field with this discussion.
If anyone was watching this unfold one would have known she got herself in this situation. The Colombian government specifically instructed Ingrid not to go to the area to discuss options with the FARC. She was making a political move to get votes. I'm sure she's thought this decision in her head a million times of why didn't she listen......

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Nov 2, 2005, 08:25:

livingsouth I've been repeating this over and over. No one is condoning her kidnapping...but Jesus...she had small children. She gave more of a crap for a stupid publicity stunt than about the family she left behind.

It's inexcusable...if my mother did that I would not be proud of her. I would think of her as totally selfish.

The Pepster

ColombianBlog.com

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aldb says on Nov 2, 2005, 10:24:

I'm realy astonished by the comments I can read on this topic;

I'm not French, but belgian and working hard for an humanitarian agreement since the kidnapping of Ingrid; before that I was note aware of what happened in Colombia;

You will find our website above;

I can assure you the déclarations of Vice President Santos is only a matter of political tactics and so when you seem to take it serious (as comming from a Vice-President, I believe!) all this topic has no sense at all.

Every party in France, but also in all of Europe is in favour of negociations between Uribe and the Farc; They all agree on this pointand, and, as they all agree it's simply not possible that the case of Ingrid and the other hostages could have any importance in a electoral campaign (notforseen for many months).

But, the humanitarian agreement becomes little by little a electoral question...in Colombia with the approaching elections in may; this is why Santos tries to argue the opposite...

I'm living near France and listen every day to the french news; so I can assure you what I'm writing is true..

The Uribe government has always had the same tactic; give the impression to negociate, but acting the opposite, like they did with the interventions of the UN (James Lemoine), the Church (MgrsCastro), Switserland; I'm afraid this will be the same for the French;

If the political hostages cannot be freed before the elections, they will stay "en la selva" for at least 4 more years;

At least now, with direct negociations between france and the Farc, thier is a (very small) hope for these people (some of them are hostage for 8 years now...

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 2, 2005, 11:57:

Santos What position is it that you say Santos is arguing?

The Uribe administration was pretty clear that they WOULD make a humanitarian exchange if the #'s were equitable and the FARC who were released in weren't convicted of crimes against humanity and wouldn't go back into the conflict.

Meanwhile, the FARC is demanding Trinidad and Sonia and others who aren't even any longer in Colombian custody or control. They're also requesting something like 300 or 400 FARC for 65 kidnapping victims.

Who of these two parties is being unrealistic and unreasonable?

I'd be very surprised if Santos were simply posturing on this issue, given its intensely personal nature for him.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 2, 2005, 11:57:

To aldb... The way I see it...

The Uribe government does want to negotiate, but on its terms and not on FARC's. Everybody knows what those terms are, and how they've been modified.

The government doesn't want to negotiate something that gives military or political advantages to the FARC, hence a demilitarized zone in itself is not likely. But other proposals have been put forward, in particular the naming of specific places where, without a demilitarization, an exchange could take place.

The FARC also wants to negotiate, but just as well, on its own terms and not on the government's. Everybody also knows what those terms are and their respective modifications.

The FARC doesn't want to negotiate something that doesn't give them a military advantage or, at least, a political one. So they want a demilitarized area and have asked for the release of all guerrillas as their starting objectives. This might change, but to date, they have not given indications that they'd be willing to substantially renounce to those terms, though they have indeed changed the specific geographic locations involved.

Now, given that the FARC is the party that actually kidnapped Ingrid Betancourt, and is an illegal organization, you'd expect that the French would try to put more pressure on them, not on the Colombian government.

Unfortunately, since that is not the case and there is a certain degree of equivalency in the French websites, the FARC can relax, because while they can ignore the condemnations thrown at them, the rest of the pressure's falling on the government which actually has to answer to public and international opinion, to a degree.

Sincerely, unless France is willing to give the FARC a huge amount of money or weapons, or something else of that extravagant kind "a la Montesinos", I doubt that anything more than a symbolic liberation of a couple of hostages will result from such direct negotiations.

Frankly, I believe that the government could and should be a bit more flexible than it is, but in a manner the least beneficial to the FARC and its interests as possible, which is a hard thing to balance. Don't think Uribe is willing to take that risk though.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Nov 2, 2005, 18:11:

I can't believe what I'm reading! "At least now, with direct negociations between france and the Farc, thier is a (very small) hope for these people (some of them are hostage for 8 years now... "

I don't know how any country...any government would suggest that one HAS to negotiate with the FARC. They are terrorist organization that KIDNAPS PEOPLE. KILLS PEOPLE. INNOCENT PEOPLE!

God, when are people going to stop treating the FARC on the same moral ground as a legitimate head of state like Uribe.

I'm no fan of France but it shames me to think that this is when the France wants to act. How come they won't release Roman Polanski to the US...a convicted child rapist or that other piece of human garbage Ira Einhorn (convicted killer). What moral high ground can they possibly have.

The Pepster

ColombianBlog.com

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 2, 2005, 20:04:

If without negotiation nothing would happen, then it is better that someone negotiates.
If one person can be freed than it is better than none.
If two persons can be freed then it is better than one.
At the end it does not matter who or which country tries to free the people as long as there is reasonable hope that they can be freed.
UMM

UMM

My Forum

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 2, 2005, 20:33:

France n' Farc I don't think there's anything wrong with France talking with the FARC about Ingrid, as long as they're not promising any action that bears on the Colombian government or people. And, of course, they need to respect the territorial sovereignty of Colombia, so none of these sneaky commando actions over the Brazilian border. They might also want to consider what will happen if they appease the FARC with any kind of big settlement. I'd worry about open season on French people in Colombia after that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 2, 2005, 20:40:

Pepster, we obviously disagree about Ingrid... You say: "She gave more of a crap for a stupid publicity stunt than about the family she left behind."

From another point of view you could say she was campaigning to become the President of Colombia and make the country better for all families. It wasn't a stupid publicity stunt, it was a conscious political action completely within the law.

Ingrid has more guts than Uribe. Uribe doesn't go anywhere without a fleet of bodyguards. She went unarmed with just a white handkerchief to fulfill a previous promise to the people of Caguan who she intended to represent as president. She had a duty to go. You do understand the concept of duty?

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

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 2, 2005, 21:19:

Guts or Naive? Platano, this is a serious question, do you think Ingrid was being courageous or naive when she tried to drive to Caguan? By that I mean do you think she feared the FARC but felt a sense of duty, or do you think she thought they couldn't/wouldn't touch her and was surprised when it happened?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 2, 2005, 22:52:

Mr. H, This is a serious answer to your question:

Ingrid had a choice. She could have been in France in a comfortable villa, or she could have been in New Zealand on a peaceful sheep farm, or she could have been anywhere else on earth living a life of ease. She is not naive. You don't serve your country as a Senator, do battle with corrupt politicians and citizens committed to armed struggle, regularly receive death threats, and remain naive.

She was in Caguan that day out of a sense of duty, fully aware of the risks, and with the guts to fulfill her promise, which is more than we can say of some other politicians. She has as much guts as the Indians who confront FARC nonviolently and demand, successfully, that FARC stop "jodiendo su pueblo". They, and Ingrid, went unarmed. Neither were naive about who the FARC is and what they are capable of. Nonviolent direct action requires more courage than shooting high up above from a Blackhawk or hiding behind trees and shooting from a distance.

I am never going to agree with people who call Ingrid stupid or naive or after publicity. People who say that are ignoring Colombian history. Is Uribe naive because he receives death threats and yet continues to travel out to rural areas? NO! (I absolutely reject the whole Colombian idea of "dando papaya"... I hate that expression. It makes the victim the guilty party.)

I affirm the right of every Colombian to travel to every corner of the country... it is a Constitutional right... and I have exercised it freely all over the country. La libertad de locomoción. (especialmente para Quijotes locos como yo que no tengan miedo de ejercerla.)

And I think Colombia is long overdue for a woman president whether her name be Piedad or Ingrid or Fulana. The men have made quite a mess of things.

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

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aldb says on Nov 3, 2005, 04:49:

who want peace I agree with umm; who cares about who did something as long as some people tries something to free innocent citizans?

I'm very pessimistic as I believe neihter the Farcg, neighter Uribe want to end the war; For the Farc war is the meaning of their live and their leaders take great profit of it; at the other hand the men in place take also great personal profit from the american aid to the Colombia Plan; a great part of them are involved in the drug trafic (as even Uribe was: see the ns archives), even if they have to collaborate with the paramilitary killers; http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB166/index.htm

So wich of them cares about the poor, the hostages, the 3.500.000 internal refugees, the 4.500.000 external refugees; who want to take realy to free the hostages and make this necessary first step to PEACE?

this is the press relaese we hace send for the third anniversary of the kidnapping of Ingrid and Clara:

On 23 February 2005, Ingrid Betancourt and her associate Clara Rojas will start their fourth year as hostages in the hands of FARC in Colombia.

For Ingrid and Clara, for more than 3000 hostages, for civilian and military, for men and women, for elderly people and up to 400 children who languish in the jungle at the mercy of their torturers, hopes of an imminent release have never seemed so remote.

Held somewhere in the insalubrious regions of the Amazon jungle, without any contact at all with their families, they try to survive in living conditions that are extremely debilitating. If they are freed one day, those who survive will probably remain affected by their experiences forever.

What to condemn first?

The cruelty of their abductors, who continue without qualms of conscience, to carry out planned kidnappings and to kill civilians as a 'normal' way of pursuing a fight that they would have us believe, is a fight for freedom?

The indifference of the Colombian government who cold bloodedly allow thousands of its citizens endure this agony - some for more than seven years-, and whose chief concern seems to be the glory of a hypothetical military victory?

The trivialisation of this situation by the general public, especially in Colombia, where a significant part of the population appear to rank kidnappings in a category " trials of everyday life"?

Or the unbelievable naivety of some groups and political organisations in our countries that continue to support the Colombian guerrilla groups in the name of their so-called Marxists convictions?

To the risks run by the hostages, add tropical diseases, violence of their torturers, random bombings by the Colombian army, helped by the USA under the Patriot Plan and, even worse, the overwhelming feeling of despair. Months and years go by without anyone, apart from their relatives, seeming to be bothered by their fate.

The clear and consistent message given to us by their families is this: they are broken hearted by the indifference of their government: they are terrified by the militarist policies of their president and the effect these will have on the life of the hostages: they ask us to send this message loud and clear:
" Our only hope, now, is pressure from the countries of Europe on our government and on the guerrilla
groups"

Now members of the International Federation of Ingrid Betancourt Committees, the support committees of France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Ireland and other countries continue tirelessly their struggle. They have decided to speak out on behalf of all these families by sending, in the weeks to come, an SOS to local, national and European elected representatives.

As we sadly mark the third anniversary of hostages Ingrid Betancourt and Clara Rojas, we ask all elected representatives and members of the media who have always supported us to continue to do so. We ask them to increase their efforts to convince the parties in Colombia to seek and find a peaceful solution as a priority.

Allowing the problem to fester or pretending to solve it through violence is totally unacceptable.
A humanitarian agreement, the first step towards the release of all the hostages, is the only acceptable alternative.

MORE INFO ON www.betancourt.info

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 3, 2005, 05:50:

I dont know why anyone is scared of the FARC or of going to Caqueta or so. I have been to San Vicente del Caguan. I have talked to some people of the Farc and they didnt do anything to me. I have met more people of the FARC on my trip from Bucaramanga to Berrancabermeja. Also there they didnt do anything to me. Guess at the end it always depends on how you talk to the people. UMM

My Forum
Plantas Medicinales de Colombia

UMM

My Forum

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 3, 2005, 07:05:

Dar Papaya "I absolutely reject the whole Colombian idea of "dando papaya"... I hate that expression. It makes the victim the guilty party."

Another thing we actually agree on. It's the Colombian version of "She was dressed sexy so she deserved what happened to her..."

The thing you say about Ingrid having the option to have been anywhere else living a life of leisure instead of campaigning in Colombia rings true for much of the ruling class of Colombia. It's one of their endearing traits, actually, that rather than live a comfortable life teaching at Harvard or being a NYC lawyer, a guy like Uribe will dodge constant death threats to do what he sees as a "duty". I hadn't really thought of Ingrid in that way but you're right.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 3, 2005, 07:24:

"In the absence of real contact or real political successes..." Tinto, "absence of real political success" does not apply to Ingrid. She experienced real political success... by a vote of the Colombian people.

You appear to believe Ingrid cannot or would not or could not bring an end to civil conflict in Colombia. I believe she could have, based in part on her real political success. Therein lies our difference of opinion.

Those who criticize Ingrid for being of the ruling elite share that view with FARC, and FARC has done untold damage to Colombia by kidnapping Ingrid.

Plátano X, enjoying that refreshing Green Kool-Aid
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 3, 2005, 07:45:

umm, I have also had many pleasant conversations with guerrillas (as my guards were rotated regularly). Individually they are intelligent, caring, and patriotic people. (After all, they are Colombians, and Colombians are chevere!)

But groups who put on uniforms, march in step, swear allegiance to a flag, and blindly obey the orders of a Commander-in-Chief, are dangerous... be they of AUC, ELN, FARC, or FAC. Mob psychology takes over.

They just follow orders and become killing machines for a cause which is always depicted as a noble cause. (World War I was the "war to end all wars," don'cha know?)

Plátano X, now attending KAA meetings (Kool-Aid Anonymous)
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Nov 3, 2005, 11:10:

Ingrid and her choices I was going to write a post about Ingrid and her choices but I see that I'm too late. Platano has already done that admirably well.

Cheers,
Desi

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 3, 2005, 15:44:

aldb I honestly don't like having to defend Uribe and co. anymore than necessary, but in these cases...it's better to do so than to shut up and accept certain statements made along rather absolute terms...

"great part of them are involved in the drug trafic (as even Uribe was: see the ns archives), even if they have to collaborate with the paramilitary killers"

aldb, you say "even Uribe was" as if that was the final word on the subject and there was no possibility of discussing the matter. But you haven't actually tried to read the DIA document yourself and analyze it carefully, constrasting it with sources that point out its numerous errors, have you? Does the word "raw intelligence" mean anything to you? I don't know, but I doubt it.

It's funny...when U.S. intelligence documents point to something that is impopular for some sectors (Irak war, Al Qaeda), they are only lies and lies. But when they point to something that those same sectors agree with (the DIA document), they are the truth and nothing but the truth...where's the critical thinking, and analysis of the specific points in either case? Usually nowhere. Some people don't bother to actually go deeper and to check facts that don't agree with their absolute perspectives on the matter.

"The indifference of the Colombian government who cold bloodedly allow thousands of its citizens endure this agony - some for more than seven years-, and whose chief concern seems to be the glory of a hypothetical military victory?"

So what do you propose then, in concrete terms? Is it acceptable to release ALL the hundreds of jailed guerrillas in Colombia in exchange for only 60 hostages? I don't think it is.

The FARC doesn't want to exchange the THOUSANDS of hostages in its power, only the 60 politically important ones. That's something completely clear in all their communiques. So to act as if it's possible to free those THOUSANDS of hostages through an agreement with the FARC if only the government wanted, is, at least, naive.

Is it acceptable to demilitarize an area that will allow the FARC to move its forces towards military and strategic goals, just to facilitate the negotiations? I don't think it is (except under very specific conditions, more flexible ones than those currently proposed by Uribe however)

It's not simply a matter of "glory", it's a matter of pragmatism. Apparently people don't remember the Caguán peace process and the FARC's actions, pretending that it would be extremely easy to reach an agreement with the FARC, if only the so-called "glory" of military victory was abandoned by the "indifferent government". I guess people do forget history too soon...it's not a matter of military victory, it's a matter of weakening the FARC to the point that they want to negotiate seriously and not how they did in the Caguán. At least that's the theory, though obviously it can change if facts allow for something different.

Some people are under the illusion that the FARC will want to negotiate seriously while it has strategic and tactical advantages that allow it to be patient and continue towards their perceived completition of their "strategic plan".

This doesn't mean that an exchange can't be negotiated with the guerrillas, but not under the conditions most favorable to them, which seems to be what some percentage of the foreigners that are putting pressure on the Colombian government want.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Nov 3, 2005, 17:31:

juancegomez, I smell a euphemism.... "...it's a matter of weakening the FARC to the point that they want to negotiate seriously..."

What do you mean by "weakening"? Uribe has not been able to weaken the FARC despite massive USA support. But some people have gotten rich. The FARC says a political solution is necessary.

"ANNCOL: Se dice que ustedes han intentado matar a Uribe. ¿Es cierto?

MÁRQUEZ: Es Uribe quien dice que va a aniquilar a la guerrilla en dos años. Es lo que le ha prometido a los inversionistas, a los empresarios, al país; y hasta le ha puesto precio a nuestras cabezas. Pero ya ha transcurrido más de un año y no ha podido mostrar ningún resultado contundente a pesar de la intervención militar creciente de los Estados Unidos en el conflicto interno de Colombia. Las FARC están intactas; o mejor, están en desarrollo, y en aplicación de tácticas de guerra de guerrillas a las que el comando del ejército prefiere no referirse porque le están causando daño. Uribe es un vendedor de ilusiones para ricos. No hay ni habrá derrota militar de la guerrilla. La solución es política, es con cambios estructurales en lo político, económico y social que beneficien a las mayorías. Uribe está gastando en pólvora la plata que debiera invertir en la solución de los graves problemas sociales del país. Los colombianos no deben aceptar que este presidente los siga estrangulando con más impuestos. Y lo peor es que quiere más plata, pero para arrojarla a la hoguera de la guerra."

SOURCE: Interview with FARC comandante Iván Márquez in 2003:

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 3, 2005, 19:13:

I don't, but if that's your interpretation... "What do you mean by "weakening"? Uribe has not been able to weaken the FARC despite massive USA support."

First, I mentioned that that was the theory.

But on the other hand, we've already discussed that. I disagree with you on that.

The FARC have definitely been weakened and there are ample things that show it, beginning with the increasing numbers of FARC commanders killed, captured and deserters (even if we would toss away half the reported numbers, for the sake of getting rid of an unknown percentage of errors and so on).

There is a huge difference between being weakened and being defeated, as I would believe you should be able to understand. The FARC are still going strong, but less so than they were some time ago.

Obviously the FARC is not sitting still, they are also trying to get the most out of the current situation, both in military and in political terms, which clearly gives them some benefits, thus not everything is going wrong for them.

But they have lost some freedom of action, operational space, a degree of their personnel and a considerable quantity of infrastructure. If that is not "weakening", then please tell me what that is.

"But some people have gotten rich."

Obviously. Including the FARC, not just U.S. contractors and Colombians involved in equivalent activities. Those 4x4 Camperos driven by Mono Jojoy during the Caguan era don't come cheap, as well as the 10,000 AK-47s bought from Montesinos and company.

"The FARC says a political solution is necessary."

Yes, that's what their political discourse says, as well as their propaganda (not the same thing, I know). But in terms of their "strategic plan", at the very least, their military leadership believes that a political solution will only come in a situation which is favorable to them under military and political terms, or simply as the result of the government's surrender (which is also a political solution, strictly speaking). That's not rocket science, even "Jacobo Arenas" wrote such things in the books he published in the 1980's and later information has confirmed it.

You don't seriously expect the FARC to *want* to reach a political solution when they are in a favorable state that makes them dream about toppling the government, or do you think so? No, not while in a state which allows them to act like they did in the Caguán.

It's funny that you are implying that the government is being militarist but, right now, you apparently can't see clearly that the FARC is also as militarist. Or at least some leading sectors of it are, while others aren't, just as some sectors of the government are also in favor of a "closer" negotiated solution, for the sake of accuracy.

But my point is this: the militarist sectors of the FARC deserve to be fought by a militarist government until there is a time, even if only in the far future, when a negotiated solution is seen as possible by both parties, when the more reasonable sectors have more influence as a result of either exhaustion or simply physical substraction of matter.

I would want something else, ideally an immediate negotiation, but in practice I'm not really too optimistic right now.

They all want a political solution where they are calling the shots, *both* the government and the FARC. Ideally, I would prefer an intermediate solution being found instead of choosing between either position, and I support all realistic efforts made in that direction, but in case of ultimate necessity...I prefer the earlier over the later, when the push comes to shove.

That ANNCOL interview, which I had read already as sometimes I do summon the peace of mind necessary to read that website without negative effects on my blood pressure, really cracked me up for a dozen reasons, but nevermind...

The discourse is impecable as a discourse, but you should read between the lines and see the possible practical implications, platano. Especially, what "Ivan Marquez" evades answering or simply doesn't say. You do that, even to extremes, when talking about Uribe and co., but are seemingly shy to do so with the FARC, at least in this case.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 3, 2005, 21:10:

This is rich "ANNCOL: Se dice que ustedes han intentado matar a Uribe. ¿Es cierto?

MÁRQUEZ: Es Uribe quien dice que va a aniquilar a la guerrilla en dos años.

For those who don't speak Spanish:

"Anncol (FARC "News Agency"): It's said that you guys have tried to kill Uribe. Is this true?

Marquez (member of FARC directorate): It is Uribe who says he's going to annihilate the guerillas in two years..."


Oh, yeah, never mind those mortars we fired at his inaugeration that killed more than a dozen people, or the other 10 or so attacks we've made on his life...

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. At least they should cop to what they're trying to do.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 4, 2005, 02:03:

Re Marquez comment: "those mortars we fired at his inaugeration that killed more than a dozen people," Guess the attack was badly planned, just killed a bunch of innocent people, most probably mainly poor ones. Seems that comment was mainly meant to show off, but in fact they have embarrassed themselves. At the end you see again: Everyone including Uribe waving around with huge words and what they can do. Everywhere a lot of fighting spirit. This way Colombia surely doesnt find peace. Guess if the FARC hate Uribe so much, then it would be better to set Ingrid B free before the elections. Thats how they might be able to get rid of him. On the other hand: what would happen if Ingrid B would be elected as President?? UMM

My Forum
Plantas Medicinales de Colombia

UMM

My Forum

aldb says on Nov 4, 2005, 05:32:

is the humanitarian agreement inacceptable? According some american official sources (sorry I don't find the references anymore)winning a war against the guerilla in her mountains would need at least...1.000.000 soldiers; (see how much soldiers are need in the flat deserts of Iraq)

So even weaken them is very unrealistic;

I would also like to answer to the point of view the humanitarian agreement with an exchange of 60 hostages for 500 guerilleros could be "inacceptable"

I don't think so and share the opinion of senator Navarro Wolf (former M19 guerilla, and now candidate for the presidential elections I think); the humanitarian agreement is the necessary first step to global Peace negociations between the govrnement and the guerilla;

Seen from that point of view, the humanitarian exchange is certainly not inacceptable: it's simply the necessary first step for the peacefull future of the country;

www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 4, 2005, 06:17:

Humanity and humanitarian exchange is certainly acceptable.
It is only not acceptable for those who can make their mark through armed conflict. Like THE USA who always like to bully their way through, they earn money through war, because weapons are bought in the USA.
Uribe might not be interested in the release of I. Betancourt at this time because then his re-election might be in danger.

Both sides have to change their mindset before peace is possible. People just have to 'want' to find a solution then they can find one.
I would not mind having the Bolivarian party playing a role in Colombian politics, but then the FARC also has to act the way so that someone would elect them, then they have to show that they can really help to create a better future for all Colombians.
UMM

UMM

My Forum

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 4, 2005, 08:11:

2 things Just to be clear, the comment about never mind the mortars... was my editorialization making fun of Marquez's apparent refusal to acknowledge the FARC's own violent attacks against Uribe.

Also, people here keep saying that a humanitarian exchange is only "not acceptable" to people attached to a violent solution. Yet Uribe, in fact, offered an exchange of roughly equal numbers and of non-violent offenders for the hostages and was refused by the FARC. I don't think he's the one being unrealistic or inflexible.

Another thing, I don't think anyone in the Colombian government proposed total military defeat of the FARC as an ultimate solution. The theory of the current government is to provide security to previously insecure parts of the country so that an investment in social improvements can pay off and render the FARC and their friends largely irrelevant. That, obviously, will take time and a pretty fierce committment by the Colombian people. And if the FARC feel haggard and hunted enough in the mean time that they want to negotiate a peace, well, all the better.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cam0940 says on Nov 4, 2005, 09:53:

Well said, Mr. Hollywood.

Incidentally you can't say the inauguration day disaster wasn't an assassination attempt just because they missed. Light artillery isn't an exact science. It can be close, with proper training and equipment, neither of which the FARC have (obviously). I think the fact that they used a weapon designed to cause multiple injuries is a sign of how savage they really are. Terrorists even, and the idea of negotiating with them as though they were a legitimate organization is pathetic.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 4, 2005, 10:59:

aldb "according some american official sources (sorry I don't find the references anymore)winning a war against the guerilla in her mountains would need at least...1.000.000 soldiers; (see how much soldiers are need in the flat deserts of Iraq)"

Well, that's a theoretical estimate, but such proportional superiority is not always strictly necessary, or else no relatively strong guerrilla in the world would have ever been defeated.

As to the Iraq situation, I believe that there are substantial differences involved, it has its own complexity.

"So even weaken them is very unrealistic;"

I don't think so, since they are already weaker in 2005 than they were in 1996, though they are still obviously stronger than they apparently were in 1990.

"I would also like to answer to the point of view the humanitarian agreement with an exchange of 60 hostages for 500 guerilleros could be "inacceptable""

Let's see how you do that, then...

"I don't think so and share the opinion of senator Navarro Wolf (former M19 guerilla, and now candidate for the presidential elections I think); the humanitarian agreement is the necessary first step to global Peace negociations between the govrnement and the guerilla;"

Excuse me, but as far as I know, Navarro Wolff, however, gave no indication regarding the matter if he would accept the exchange of 60 people for 500 guerrillas, which is the specific issue at hand.

He did accept the "humanitarian agreement", but he didn't say whether those terms, those proportions, were acceptable or not.

I believe, according to what I've read and heard about his positions, that he'd agree to a similar demilitarization as the one that the FARC demands, but not to an exchange of such proportions, not without larger additional guarantees (for example, the end of all kidnapping, which is difficult for even the ELN to agree to, nevermind the FARC...).

He's actually quite reasonable, IMHO. He could even be able to negotiate a more sensible agreement, involving a small number of people, if both he and the guerrillas are in an environment where they can relax a bit. But that's speculation for now.

Precisely, I wouldn't say that an exchange of "60 for 500" is the "one and only" necessary first step, it's more like a risky gamble that might or might not backfire.

And besides, it's not like most guerrillas aren't being released already, from time to time, when they reach a point where they have ended their sentences or taken advantage of time reductions. Their situation is a dozen times better than that of Ingrid Betancourt and the thousands of others. So there is no equivalency with kidnapping.

If the FARC is not a in state where they may seriously want to negotiate peace, they'll likely just reincorporate those 500 people into their rebel army and continue the war, and will still keep kidnapping people, nothing will change. Is that acceptable for you? Perhaps it is, but it's not acceptable for me, at least not solely like that.

"Seen from that point of view, the humanitarian exchange is certainly not inacceptable: it's simply the necessary first step for the peacefull future of the country;"

See above, please.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aldb says on Nov 6, 2005, 04:30:

juangomez about Navarro Wolff's point of view, see: http://www.revistacambio.com/html/columnistas/antonio_navarro/articulos/3701/

and about the position of the Uribe administration, I would like to bet with you renaud's song will be the excuse of the administration to stop all possibilities of negociations between France and the Farc, even if they have to go as far as a diplomatic rupture with France...

This will end like the interventions of the UN, the church and Switserland.

Uribe simply do not want the end of the war and neighter the FARC does; he wqant to give the impression of negociations because of the elections, but will do all what can be done to stop all attemps for peace

www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 6, 2005, 06:34:

aldb,
are you AB's friend?
Anyway, if someone wants to create problems then that person would do it because of any reason, because of a song or even because today the sun doesnt shine.
Some people have simply too much testosterone in their blood and are too power hungry which makes it difficult to get along with that kind of people.
Still, peace is always negotiable, with a positive outcome for all parties. For that I would leave the gringos out of the game. They have nothing to do with it and they are also not helpful. Writing gringos I mean the Estadounidenses.
UMM

UMM

My Forum

aldb says on Nov 6, 2005, 09:24:

umm Umm,

If we are talking about the same AB, no, I'm not, but I know AB, YP, JCL, etc. well.

I am just for more than 3,5 years a belgian member of the International Federation of the Ingrid Betancourt committees. Nothing to hide...

In that quality and as a european, your precision wasn't needed: I don't feel like a gringo, just like a man trying to be honnest; just like a man who knew nothing about Colombia before Ingrid's kidnapping and who do not find fair our western countries and press react immediatly when a Israeli our a Palestinian is killed in the West Bank but ignore more men and women die in Colombia every day because of the war;

www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aldb says on Nov 6, 2005, 11:41:

precisions important precision: what I tell here is are personal opinions, not involving the IFIBC or others

www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 6, 2005, 12:41:

aldb "about Navarro Wolff's point of view, see: http://www.revistacambio.com/html/columnistas/antonio_navarro/articulos/3701/"

Thank you, it's a nice letter, but it doesn't contradict my point, especially since the matter of the numerical proportions is not addressed.

"and about the position of the Uribe administration, I would like to bet with you renaud's song will be the excuse of the administration to stop all possibilities of negociations between France and the Farc, even if they have to go as far as a diplomatic rupture with France..."

I would like to bet too, and my position is that it won't lead to that...even though I admittedly dislike the equivalency displayed in the song's lyrics, but that's besides the point.

In short, I guess I should say that I am more inclined to agree with the recent LE MONDE article by Alain Abellard. I just read it and found it sincerely honest about a few of the flaws in the position some of you Europeans are assuming, specifically France and co.

"This will end like the interventions of the UN, the church and Switserland."

Not necessarily, especially since those interventions have their own stories behind them, they are not all equal.

"Uribe simply do not want the end of the war and neighter the FARC does; he wqant to give the impression of negociations because of the elections, but will do all what can be done to stop all attemps for peace"

That's your interpretation as an European. Fine, I respect it, but I have to disagree with it, at least regarding your general conclusions, because I feel they are somewhat out of context.

Again, let me remind you of what was happening when Pastrana was president, during the Caguán talks, and the manner in which they ended.

Taking all that into consideration, it would be foolish to do exactly the same thing without forcing the FARC into a more flexible position (for the record, I think Uribe could obviously be more flexible, and in fact...I don't support his reelection, for completely different reasons, if not entirely unrelated).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aldb says on Nov 6, 2005, 14:02:

le monde I can understand you like the Le Monde article as it is exactly what the Uribe administration tries to tell to the papers;

But this article simply forget France may be the most active country in favour of an humanitarian agreement, they are not alone; they could have mention the European Counsel (all the ministers of foreign affairs)has taken this decision: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/newsWord/fr/gena/86408.doc
(sorry I can't finf the English version)

They don't mention the Swiss interventions, the belgian delegation in feb. 2005
http://www.caracol.com.co/nota.asp?id=145680

Not a word about the nearly 3/4 european deputies of all countries who wear white scarves with "Peace and Justice In Colombia, leave the parlement when Uribe tried to explain his politics of war;

Not a word about the words the day after that, Pope JP II told to Uribe "I make wishes of Peace and Justice in Colombia", making a reference to the famous scarves of the parliament...

Not a word about the motions voted by the Senate of my country.

Not a word about the propositions of chavez http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/news/world/americas/12954840.

....etc

Le Monde is not what it used to be

Yesterday (but Le Monde cannot know it, so it's not a critic), the IB committees received the wishes of the Israeli President Katzav...

So a good article? France alone? Surely not!


www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 6, 2005, 15:14:

... "I can understand you like the Le Monde article as it is exactly what the Uribe administration tries to tell to the papers;"

Maybe that is partially the case. But I didn't say that the article was perfect and that I like it as whole, as it does have certain omissions. Honestly speaking, the omissions also include some that are less favorable to your argument than you think. So it's not a complete analysis of everything.

I will just insist that I do find that the article mentions some valid points. Some self-criticism is good once in a while, don't you think?

It's funny, in a way, that the last position assumed by Ingrid Betancourt on the subject of kidnapping when she was free is made totally irrelevant and almost directly contradicted by a number of her would-be international supporters. Nice job.

"Not a word about the nearly 3/4 european deputies of all countries who wear white scarves with "Peace and Justice In Colombia, leave the parlement when Uribe tried to explain his politics of war;"

This is a completely different subject, but now that you mention it....That just shows, curiously, that in supposedly the most enlightened of continents, it's politically correct to engage in a certain form of political intolerance and deafness, evading serious discussion, even when that is precisely the opposite of what is demanded of Uribe. It is ironic and naive, to say the least.

"Not a word about the words the day after that, Pope JP II told to Uribe "I make wishes of Peace and Justice in Colombia", making a reference to the famous scarves of the parliament..."

I doubt that was a voluntary, direct reference (or even a quote) from JPII, given that peace and justice are wide, universal terms often used even in completely separate circumstances, not with the precise and unilateral meaning that those European legislators chose to assign it.

The Hugo Chavez, etc. references are good in themselves, but they aren't part of the exact same position suggested by France and directly made by a number of the European movements in favor of Ingrid.

There's a difference between what some of these movements are asking (exchanging 60 for 500 now, if only the "evil dictator" Uribe would be willing), and what Chavez and everybody else is proposing (that an exchange is made, without speaking about what it should or should not involve). Those two things are not equivalent.

The ultimate intention may be the same, but the specifics are completely different and even contradictory. So in a sense France is indeed alone in its specific interpretation of the matter, even if it's part of a wider overall intention in favor of the freedom of the kidnapped.

Saying that X or Y person is in favor of an agreement of the subject of the kidnapped is NOT equal to saying that an agreement should involve necessarily 60 for 500.

In fact, here in Colombia, while the agreement itself is popular, that isn't equivalent either.

The same polls that show a majority in favor of a prisoner exchange with the FARC *also* show a majority *against* a demilitarization, and *against* a 60 for 500 proportion.

So it's not as simple as implying something like "everybody in the world wants to put pressure on the nasty president Uribe to exchange 60 hostages for 500 guerrillas...his guilt is equal to that of FARC". It's a bit more complex than that

Myself, I also just wonder if France would have easily freed all of its jailed islamic criminals in a second (or call them terrorists, but I don't usually like the word...) in order to secure the release of its kidnapped citizens in the Middle East, especially in Iraq...I don't think so.

Look, I have to make this clear, I am not a stereotypical and blind "Uribe supporter", even if some people want to see me like that.

How could so-called generic "Uribe supporters" be, as I am, opposed to Uribe's reelection, opposed to drug war policies, in favor of wider social policies, etc.

Again, this is not just a simple "black and white" situation, where either the government is bad and FARC is good, or vice versa, or even just a situation where everybody is bad except Ingrid, who is good (which some of the pro-Ingrid movements appear to believe).

No, there is much more complexity and, yes, even ambiguity, than that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Nov 6, 2005, 17:15:

aldb wrote: "and press react immediatly when a Israeli our a Palestinian is killed in the West Bank but ignore more men and women die in Colombia every day because of the war;" Sure there are elements which try to make the conflict in the middle east the most important. Europe is nearby, the USA is especially interested because of the wealthy jewish elite living in the USA which cannot be disappointed, so what do you expect. Colombia is nothing compared to that. Only some colombian workers living in the USA, not much business interest from all sides in Colombia and whe world perceives Colombia only as major drug producing country with nothing else there and with Hollywood underming the reputation of Colombia even further by displaying drug gangs and assassins in the USA mainly as being Colombians. And then there are naturally also all the other conflicts/problems like in Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ivory coast, Kashmir, Liberia, Congo Chechnia..... Also here no real solutions are being sought beacuse for the USA there areas dont promise lucrative business, the Europeans are careful not to be involved too much and in the countries themselves people have to suffer. UMM

My Forum

My Forum

aldb says on Nov 7, 2005, 04:00:

black and white Indeed, this is no black and white situation; not the black and white situation the official propanganda diffuses.

The FARC, who kidnapp (and even make an industry of it) are the first bad boys, but Uribe is also "indigno" by doing nothing to free colombian citizens and, worse, to stop at the latest minute the various attempts in favour of negociations;

I would also like to critisize the arguments of the proportion of 60 to 500 as there is no value for freedom and for life; as umm said, if one single person can be freed, it would be a victory for everybody.

www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 7, 2005, 16:27:

Doing nothing? What do you call Uribe doing nothing? Do you have any idea how many kidnappings have been prevented and how many have been rescued since Uribe took office?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aldb says on Nov 8, 2005, 09:35:

Kidnapping prevented? No, abs Kidnappings prevented? No, absolutely not, but I guess Uribe has his own statistics, like he has on everything (but not these one:
http://www.lasvocesdelsecuestro.com/noticias_view.asp?id=9587 )

People rescued: Yes, exactly 10: all were killed in the attack and all the soldiers of the FARC vanished in the jungle
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1356238,00.html

Alle the hostages families are strongly opposed to these actions;

www.betancourt.info
vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

www.betancourt.info vida y libertad para todos los secuestrados

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 8, 2005, 12:12:

... Definitely, many kidnappings have indeed been prevented. They still continue to happen but at a lesser rate than the one existent during the previous administrations. In fact, the problem is now less one of kidnappings, though they still happen, and more a problem of extortions (which are different ).

If you believe that all the statistics are a lie, then are we to suppose that all the previously higher kidnapping statistics were part of a lie made up by Pastrana and Samper, in order to help Uribe sell his programs later on? Or they were all telling the truth but now Uribe is the only one lying? That sounds too much like something out of the X-Files, for me.

Besides, you'll have to talk to the UN and to other organizations that do compile those statistics on their own and also use the government's statistics. They have all agreed that the kidnappings have gone down, even if they try to find other explanations for them, or have differences as to the exact degree of reduction. They don't agree fully with the numbers, but they do accept that kidnapping has decreased.

In other words, if you can prove otherwise, we woul