Pablo Escobar; Angel or Demon? The Documentary en Espanol

MitchAlvarez says on Feb 8, 2008, 21:17:

damn i wont be there till the 20th.

but mt you love the whole pablo thing brother lol

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Feb 8, 2008, 22:23:

Nothing of this world is pure. I am sure that Pablo did some good deeds for some people in his lifetime. However; in the balance of things, he lived too good a life for too long and his death was too swift in the end.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 8, 2008, 22:28:

I wouldn't say he lived the good life for too long. His last few years were spent either in prison (luxurious but nevertheless) or in the trunks of taxis moving constantly from place to place. His end was neither good, nor swift.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Feb 8, 2008, 22:41:

I never said it was. Only too good and too swift and too long. I have not an ounce of pity for him.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 8, 2008, 22:46:

What i mean is that the "good' life for him didn't last all that long, because he soon began a descent into megalomania and then paranoia. he didn't enjoy any of his riches (or his family even) the last several years of his life.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Feb 8, 2008, 22:57:

Funny how that happens to people who find themselves in those positions.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 8, 2008, 23:01:

Yeah, i don't think it is a coincidence.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Feb 8, 2008, 23:04:

Kind of reminds me of Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 8, 2008, 23:12:

Best movie ever.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

paulr says on Feb 9, 2008, 13:27:

Does anyone know of a good place to download this movie with English subtitles? I´ve tried on a couple of download programs but they don´t seem to have it? Thanks

Life is like a ten-speed bicycle. Most of us have gears we never use.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 9, 2008, 13:35:

he was a scumbucket

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Feb 9, 2008, 15:12:

Ray Liotta? :O)

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Feb 9, 2008, 15:48:

The situation he placed himself in.(Ray Liotta in Goodfellas) Not the physical person.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Feb 10, 2008, 17:38:

Fok Pablo Escobar! I hope the devil is poking him in the ass really hard with his pitchfork as I type this!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 10, 2008, 17:49:

jajajajajajajjaa

Simon, there's LOTS of inconsistancies on this board.

You ain't any of 'em, god bless ya!

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 10, 2008, 19:55:

jaja, i second that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 10, 2008, 20:30:

yep, in arrogance, wealth, and evil ;)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 10, 2008, 22:17:

i'm guessin, he's your hero, because of being the 'King of Violence'...
I think the key word in your statement there, rubito, might be 'trying'... as opposed to 'doing'

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Feb 11, 2008, 01:19:

I was initially surprised at Rubito's remark. But, I asked myself, why should I be? After all, Hitler, Stalin and (I'm assured) Genghiz Khan have their apologists.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 11, 2008, 02:04:

"...trying to do good for his country instead of sell it to a few private interests."
Do not forget Pol Pot.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Feb 11, 2008, 03:18:

Or "W!"

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 11, 2008, 07:07:

jaja, Rubi, funny.

"...trying to do good for his country instead of sell it to a few private interests."

The only private interest he was interested in, was himself, man are there naive people here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 11, 2008, 07:19:

I haven't seen the movie, and don't know the real story, but hard to believe the guy's motive for spreading his money around was altruistic.

Surely he was counting on buying support, protection etc. for his very violent business?

I'm sure he's a fascinating guy, but clearly in the ranks of other mass murderers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Feb 11, 2008, 07:40:

nice trailer,
what ever about pablo good or bad ,its a colombian story 1st and formost ,and entering that he got to the top ,good ,bad evil ,many things ,but the man was the top dog that they cant take away,
i was lead to belive he was going ,he was leaving colombian ,was set to go to germany,had the visa and all,then the plane came down ,that was the real undoing,but i was told pablo do not bring down the plane but the cali cartell did to put the blame on pablo ,if thats right it worked ,germany and the world stopped him he was now limited only to colombia.

www.unionjackedfilms.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Feb 12, 2008, 21:32:

Here is a pic of one of his fincas that got bown up. It was beautiful! I sow it when his wife was there. this is in El Penol, 2 of my brothers have a finca closed by.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Feb 12, 2008, 21:58:

Another photo

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Feb 12, 2008, 22:03:

ese man tenia mas fincas que calzoncillos

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Feb 12, 2008, 22:07:

Pa que tanta plata y terminar asi!? Tambien estube en Anapolis, cuando estaba en su furor!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Feb 13, 2008, 02:35:

Like one of those slick Holocaust deniers.

But without the slick.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 13, 2008, 03:05:

I'm all for legalizing all drugs, absolutely. But just because the colombian gov't did not go along with his plan does not give him the right to go around murdering people.

A lot of people say Uribe is some sort of terrorist, I haven't seen any evidence, (but then I haven't looked very hard). the stuff people have posted here seems to be very sketchy, extremely biased.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

morphus says on Feb 13, 2008, 05:00:

" he would kill anyone who stood in his way and was responsible for the killing of 30 judges, 457 policemen, and other deaths at a rate of 20 each day for two months"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Feb 13, 2008, 05:02:

"Give me an effing break. That's just silly melodrama to bring the Holocaust into this."

I won't give you a break, effing or otherwise. My reference to Holocaust deniers was to underscore the point that all self-conscious apologists for evil are scoundrels and buffoons.

I didn't conflate the Jewish Tragedy with Escobar's criminal undertaking. However, for those innocents whose limbs were fused and bodies eviscerated in his bombing campaign, I dare say that'd be a fine point to argue.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

morphus says on Feb 13, 2008, 05:20:

"Escobar's and Uribe's families are genealogically related, sharing a distant ancestor"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 06:33:

"Just to clue some of you guys in since you're obviously ignorant of the subject.

In 1984 Escobar offered to pay the Colombian government's external debt, to the last penny/peso/etc. His only conditions was that they legitimize the cocaine business. Instead of taking him up on his offer they decided to take him out instead, and that's when the REAL violence started. "

An ignorant... talking about a urban legend...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 13, 2008, 06:38:

Actually Rubi, just to clear up some facts. It wasn't Escobar personally that made the offer, but the "extraditables" that made it (do you know who they were?) and the offer wasn't wasn't made in exchange for legitimizing the cocaine business, but to abolish extradition. Other than that, some of what you said may be accurate.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 06:42:

Well, billyb, it wasn't even a proposal to pay the Colombian government's external debt. A couple of books on Pablo, like Mark Bowden's "Killings Pablo", talk about that.

Interview with Jorge Ochoa

"What happened in Panama when you got there and decided to have meetings with the government?

After Lara Bonilla, we went to Panama, and we tried to make contacts through the government. . . . We offered the government to stop the business. No one controls the business. . . . Pablo didn't control it, I didn't control it, nor the Mexican [Rodriguez Gacha]--nobody controls the business. The control, the business, exists because of supply and demand. We offered to the government that, in our respect, we would stop the business. But when they say that we offered to pay the debt, that was a total lie. That's a lie.

From what you can remember, what were the points of the proposal that you made to the United States?

I don't remember, exactly. But we offered to give our strips, our planes, the routes, and to never traffic again. The offer was basically that. We would talk to everyone that we knew and ask them not to work in the business. That was basically the offer. What they said about external debt was a lie."

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 13, 2008, 06:50:

You are right Robi. Colombia's external debt at that time stood at $12 billion US, and there was no way they were going to cough up that much dough. And accepting it would have been the equivalent of selling your sovereignity to a bunch of low lifes. All I can say is that i'm glad certain people don't have the vote in Colombia;)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 06:52:

"Personally I hope and PRAY that one day Colombia will just say a big FUCK YOU to the rest of the world and legitimize the whole cocaine business, regulate and tax it, and let the chips fall where they may. And there are MANY Colombians in AND out of Colombia who feel the exact same way on the subject."

You may want to have a look at this video and rethink twice about your childish post...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro says on Feb 13, 2008, 07:55:

Bearing in mind how Panama turned out in 1989.

I am sceptical that it would have been a good idea for Colombia to declare itself a narco-state in 1984.

que nota!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 13, 2008, 09:43:

you guys forget who wrote that post? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 13, 2008, 09:54:

where and under what circumstances does the Escobar family live these days?

What I have, I do not want to lose, but Where I am I do not want to stay, but those I love, I do not want to leave, but those I know I no longer want to see, but Where I die, I do not want to go;I want to stay where I have never been

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Feb 13, 2008, 10:13:

You must be derange and not from Colombia to even suggest that Colombia be run by narcs!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 13, 2008, 15:24:

At that time he was listed at $7 billion and that was an Exaggeration. Rubi, try to got some of your facts straight.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 13, 2008, 15:25:

I seriously doubt the guy himself knew what he was really worth, now everything else are estimates

What I have, I do not want to lose, but Where I am I do not want to stay, but those I love, I do not want to leave, but those I know I no longer want to see, but Where I die, I do not want to go;I want to stay where I have never been

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 15:33:

Rubito: "That guy is obviously a Marxist idiot dreamer"

Short Curriculum Vitae of the idiot:
Francisco E. Thoumi
Economist, Colombia

Francisco Thoumi studied Economics at the ‘Universidad de los Andes’ in Colombia and has a PhD in Economics from the University of Minnesota. After his studies, he worked in high-profile academic positions in the California State University and the George Washington University and held important positions within the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank. Furthermore, he worked as a Chief within the National Planning Department of Colombia. During his career, Mr. Thoumi has evolved as an expert, researcher and writer on drug policy issues. Among several positions in this field, he worked between 1999 and 2000 as a research coordinator for the former United Nations Office on Drug Control and Crime Prevention under their Global Programme Against Money Laundering and between 1993 and 1996 as a regional coordinator under United Nations Drug Policy’s UNDP Research Programme on the Economic Effects of the Illegal Drug Industry in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.


Where is he telling something which can be addressed as Marxist in that video? Mainly, He is saying that legalizing drugs will turn Colombia into a "ghetto" state, because no other nation would do that. Certainly, not the US or Europe.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 15:39:

Rubito, and this is the first time I tell this to someone, I hope that once you'll live in Colombia, you'll get in touch with some of the "primordial part" that you romanticize. Then, we'll see how you react...

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:31:

"You simply don't know what you're talking about."

You haven't noticed? he's not the type to let a detail like that get in the way of trying to sound like he does.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chelesupercono says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:34:

Escobar was indeed a bad guy but at least he never sold out to the Gringos.......Colombia has sold their sovereignty long ago to the Gringos...what a bunch of crap! The corrupt Govt., Police and Army where just as bad as Pablo or maybe worse......VIVA PABLO!!!

never go to bed with someone crazier then you are, you will do it and you will regret it.......

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:37:

How is it realistic that Colombia become the only nation in the world to legalize cocaine, and what would that achieve? Nothing. It would still be illegal everywhere else, and thus unless the Colombian government were to have illegally and openly become narcotraffickers, it was a completely pointless option.

Secondly, I don't know any Colombians in Medellin that liked Pablo Scumbag Escobar.

It must have been great fun, making sure to be home by 11 pm every night for fear of getting killed by one of Pablo's cronies, or roaming gangmembers. What a wonderful world for Paisas who had the joy of not being able to stand on their home balconies at sunfall for fear of being shot by the rampaging youth gangs that Pablo funded.

Evil is not relative. At least in Uribe's Colombia the people in Medellin people can stay out till all hours of the night, and stand on their balconies.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:41:

You are loosing your time manINred.
Maybe the government should purposely abandon a part of Colombia to itself and let some romantic fellows move to live there for fun...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:49:

It may not be "realistic", but I don't see why it couldn't be done manINred.

You say "the Colombian government were to illegally and openly become narcotraffickers", which sounds bad, but the whole reason narcos have a bad name is because the drug trade is illegal...if it's legalized the violence that goes along with it disappears too.

The ontario gov't in Canada are 'drug trafiickers', they are the only legal source to sell alcohol. To some people, maybe like the Taliban, alcohol is a an evil thing. So should the ontario gov't kow tow to some fanatic's view of what drugs should and shouldn't be sold?

I'm sure lots of people made a similar argument during prohibition. But now do we call people selling alcohol 'traffickers"?

Anyway, I'd just like to know what the anti-legalization crowd would do? More attempts to destroy the crops? More of the same everything? Does anyone actually think it's working? Seriously?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:56:

No it doesn't Podborski, not in this situation. The international drug trade would still be illegal, and it was in the international drug trade that the cartels made most of their money. It still remains illegal to sell in the rest of the world. It just means that in Colombia, Pablo Escobar is given free reign to produce in Colombia then sell externally, he made no money selling within Colombia, unless the government were to overtake the illegal aspect of his business. If this were to have happened, Colombia would have become ostracized from the rest of the world, they would have legitimized the trade of a murderous scumbag. They country back then was certainly not self-sufficient enough to be able to take on a closed economy. Crime still would have been just as much an issue, since the industry they were dealing with (INTERNATIONAL drug trade) was very much illegal.

I am actually for legalization of most drugs, including cocaine, but it would have to be done internationally (well, at least in the States and Europe) for it to be of benefit to Colombia. I hope it happens, but it won't anytime soon.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:56:

Look Pod, I am not anti-legalization at all. But, Colombia cannot simply be the only one.
Alcohol, on the contrary, is widely accepted. And was widely accepted even during American prohibition.

Thoumi makes some good points about what to do.
Drug production is not concentrated in Colombia because it is the only place where it can grow or be produced.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 16:57:

And there's a huge difference between the LCBO and SAQ. These two companies import legal substances and their market is within the country that they import/produce... they don't export legal products within Ontario/Quebec and sell them illegally outside of the provinces. In this sense it is the exact opposite scenario from Colombia with the cocaine trade.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:10:

I know what you guys are saying, and I agree it isn't going to happen, I'm just disagreeing mainly with 1) the idea it couldn't be done and, more to the point 2) manINred's use of a violent Escobar as an example.

We're talking about a hypothetical world where cocaine was legal (in colombia at least), in which case I argue we would never even have heard of Escobar, he would not have been a murderous scumbag.

So narco traffickers might not even be a term used today, or it wouldn't be one we associate with crime and violence.

The violence would have been in the countries that made drugs illegal.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:11:

eh???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:13:

What do you mean my use of violent Escobar as an example? It's not an example, it was a reality that many had the misfortune to live.

In hypothetical worlds utopia can be achieved, but we don't live in a hypothetical world. Colombia also had the foresight not to become the only country in the world where cocaine was legal.

I never argued that internationally all illegal drugs couldn't become legal, I said that it wouldn't happen, based on conservative views from the developed world. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:15:

And you miss the point about the LCBO. Alcohol is an addictive drug which causes massive amounts of damage to millions of people.

The fact that it is legal takes away all the stigma, not to mention the violence that was associated with it during the times it was illegal. This is exactly my point.

Just hard for me to see why you believe that legalizing this particular drug (cocaine) for some reason would not have the same result?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:18:

Podborski, we are talking about two different things. And I didn't miss your points.

I think that the cocaine trade should be legalized. I never said otherwise. I was talking about a place and time that was real, and how it would be pointless for Colombia to legalize the cocaine trade if no other nation in the world did it, because the cartel operations of the 1980s/90s (and yes indeed today) were based on profits from the international cocaine trade, which would have still remained illegal.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:34:

Ok, I see what you're saying now, I really have no idea what would happen if colombia legalized it and no on else did...it would sure be interesting to see.

I honestly think it would be, on the whole, better for colombia.

And if anyone in the world would do it, I'd put my money on colombians to, but still a real long shot.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 13, 2008, 17:48:

"I honestly think it would be, on the whole, better for colombia."

If everyone legalized it, yes, I agree. Then there would be no dirty money to make off an illegal industry.

However If Colombia legalized it and no one else did, especially now in 2008, then things would get really messy. The government would supposedly take control of the industry (that would be the point, wouldn't it?), and even if they didn't, all the illegal exports would come back to the state. Not only would Colombia, against the will of the international community, have legalized a substance that is shunned by the rest of the world, every ounce of the substance that made its way to the US, for instance, would come back to Colombia, and the Colombian nation would be held accountable for it.

Now, considering America's "War on Drugs", this wouldn't be taken lightly. Frankly, as a US national security threat, this would translate into a "War on Colombia", a war which Colombia would lose. Let's face it, external wars are the last thing that Colombia needs, as the internal struggle continues...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 13, 2008, 22:57:

well.. here we have what the world is made of:
the yin & yang...
not sure which is which?
rubito vs. the rest
...kinda like that movie,... Joe vs The Earth, .

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 14, 2008, 00:13:

'cuse me... Joe vs the Volcano (Galeras?) jaja. that's about right... always blowin, never goin_

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 14, 2008, 00:16:

rubito, did you settle in Colombia....yet?
Happy Trails, to you too! if so.
sinceremente.

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 15, 2008, 18:11:

"So if it's legal in Colombia and not legal in the rest of the world, why the hell should Colombia even care?? "

Most of the world doesn't particularly know or care about Colombians more than any other country like Uruguay, Argentina, etc..., at least from my experience. And you are mistaken if you are implying that the US or the world for that matter couldn't make Colombia any more miserable or treat them any worse than before (or now). They could, and would, if Colombia legalized the drug trade. It would not benefit Colombia in the least, unless at least one big player also legalized coke, which is why it was only in PABLO's interest to legalize it, knowing no one else would. Give him free reign, so to speak. Serving nobody's interest but himself, as was usual with him.

Rubito, I respect your opinion and all, but when it comes from Escobar, I only need to listen to Paisas and people who had to deal with and grow up with that shit when he was around to have no respect for the scumbag. He was worse than the others, every paisa I have spoken to not from Envigado has told me that. His youth gangs and sicaros terrorized the city, and clearly he was not the only source of violence, but he was a great part of it. So no, I am not naive.

I will have to go with the paisas I have spoken to about him on this one. A saint he is not. A scumbag, yes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 15, 2008, 22:23:

Sadly rubito.. the usa is in even more than two

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 15, 2008, 22:24:

Rubito, you never answered my question: are you now in Colombia, for good and happily playing music?

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 15, 2008, 22:32:

Rubi, can I start subtracting time from our bet?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 15, 2008, 22:51:

OK.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 16, 2008, 00:48:

Well, not just my friends, aquaintances, but 'family', randoms, etc....

It's not even one-sided. They are neutral in this, they just want to live normal lives where they don't have to be home by 11pm. Ultimately they are the ones who lived and grew up with this shit, and see it how it is (was). As I said, in Uribe's Colombia, people can stand on their balconies without fear of getting shot.

"Nuke Colombia or invade it? Highly unlikely, even the latter"

No, but they could eff it over like they did Iraq, and they would, so not highly unlikely. Weapons of mass destruction or national security threats like drugs, the USA can eff over whoever they please, Colombia no exception. Colombia would have everything to lose from legalizing cocaine. Just look at Saddam, he didn't even have WMD, just pretended he did.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 06:37:

"Just look at Saddam, he didn't even have WMD, just pretended he did."

complete bullshit. need to see some fotos of the kurds Saddam gassed to change your tune? pretty nasty, but if you believe in the "Saddam had no WMDs" fairy tale, we can provide fotografic proof of not only possession, but thousands of bodies proving his willingness to use them....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 16, 2008, 07:16:

agreed, slguy... and I haven't read everything in this thread, but personally think it's pretty damned far-fetched, that the usa would invade Colombia or mess with Colombia.
First,.. there'd be a bunch of PBH MFKR's out on the White House lawn...marching against it and .... wouldn't we??? yeah, and that wouldn't stop much but, I just can't see it.

Although we got some crazy mfkr's running the country these days.
Now, if Obama is the new pres... I don't believe I'm worried about this issue... however if Hilary is prez... then... her and Bill would be in a dog fight... Bill WOULD BE WANTING TO AT LEAST SAVE ALL THE COLOMBIAN CHUCHA, FIRST.

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 07:22:

You realy deem it worth saving?

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 16, 2008, 07:35:

disgusting ;-)

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 16, 2008, 09:12:

a bit agressive aren't we today slguy.

"Report concludes no WMD in Iraq
Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past
Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

Anyway, this isn't the point at hand. The point is that US and their allies (including Britain) would have no hesitation of getting involved in another county's business. ESPECIALLY in Latin America, which is why Colombia should not be the only country in the world to legalize cocaine.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 16, 2008, 09:13:

sadam had no 'wmd',... by the time they checked.
come on , man in red... we know you are smarter than this.

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 16, 2008, 09:17:

I am smarter than this? Sorry, Bush and Blair were rumbled on this one. Even Blair admitted fault... I cannot remember if Bush did, but I think he did somewhat.

But I have no interest in arguing this topic further.

Bring on Escobar, and I'm content.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 09:26:

I don't mean to be argumentative, but PUHLEASE. this "he had no WMDs" argument gets soooo lame, in time. I'd sooner give Beckham credit for being one of Britain's top 100. ;)

He had them. ask the thousands of Kurd vicitims if you have problems believing me.

How many months was he told that we were coming, before we actually invaded? what IDIOT, in the face of US military might, wouldn't move the damned things out of the country, given a few months to do so?

And finally- while we located no WMDs, we similarly located NO evidence of their destruction - no labs, no facilities where these weapons had been disposed of.

So- where'd they go? They don't exist when they're committing genocide in the north, then just POOF! vanish into thin air. rational thought leads one to believe that they got moved well out of the country, prior to the invasion. But if you prefer to believe that the Kurds gassed themselves, or that Saddam was just "bluffing" about the various gases in his arsenal, is OK with me. I'll send the tooth fairy by, shortly.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Feb 16, 2008, 10:33:

ok i didnt ready anything but were posting rats now? lol what!!

"Ingrid callate la jeta!! Stay in France"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 16, 2008, 10:56:

slguy, as I said I really don't want to hijack this topic.

But I sitll don't buy that. I have problems believing you because if they truly wanted to 'hide' their WMDs, they would have done so and allowed the inspectors to see that they had no WMDs. What's the point of hiding them upon invasion? None. They were defeated due to a lack of everything, including WMDs. Do I like Hussein? No. Do I care about him? No. Is he as bad as Escobar? Probably, which is why the Colombian gov. would have had no business legalizing cocaine when no one else did, that's the only link I wanted to make with Iraq.

"I'll send the tooth fairy by, shortly."

No need to be patronizing, very unbecoming.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 11:18:

sorry. I apologize for sounding patronizing. but really- you "snapshot in time" guys bewilder me.

how can one take one set of circumstances, at one specific moment in time- and define a MUCH longer timeframe by that snapshot?

It's like saying "well, early in his career, Escobar was just a car thief, so he wasn't such a bad guy." or "look! Escobar built some houses for poor people- how bad a guy can he be?" while ignoring the monstrous acts he committed.

How can one ignore thousands of gassed Kurds, and claim Saddam had no WMDs? I simply don't understand the logic.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 16, 2008, 14:22:

slguy... we also were probably vulnerable to absurdity when we were but ... 21,...

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 16, 2008, 14:23:

hell,... sometimes, I still am!

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 17, 2008, 01:44:

"It's like saying "well, early in his career, Escobar was just a car thief, so he wasn't such a bad guy." or "look! Escobar built some houses for poor people- how bad a guy can he be?" while ignoring the monstrous acts he committed."

How did I say that? I never came close to saying that. The US and Britain invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and they even admitted to doing so. I also fail to see how I am morally condoning Hussein, as is implied.

"How can one ignore thousands of gassed Kurds, and claim Saddam had no WMDs?"

I'm not ignoring that. But is destroying a country and causing chaos a constructive means of solving the previous problem? No. Still reports concluded no evidence of WMDs. They were hiding nothing. That's not to say I morally condone Saddam Hussein. But I don't morally condone starting a war over circumstantial evidence, which is what happened.

"slguy... we also were probably vulnerable to absurdity when we were but ... 21,..."

I'm actually 50. Anyway, just ignore me if you're worried about something so trivial as my age.

To respond to Rubito... I never implied that it was 100% his fault. I have no interest in taking sides when it comes to Medellin violence over the past 30 years, I stay objective even as I hear first-hand accounts of people who grew up in the city during that time. I have maintained that he is a scumbag that exacerbated violence. He did, that fact is undeniable, and he was responsible for a large amount of violence in Medellin in those days, so the anger many feel towards him is completely justified. The other cartels can go to scumbag hell as well, as far as I'm concerned, but his cartel was the biggest and most brutal.

And yes, Medellin wasn't particularly safe before 11pm either, but much more safe than after 11 (as I said, largely thanks to the youth gangs he employed, and various other gangs of thugs he emplyoyed)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 17, 2008, 01:47:

Anyway, to sum up...

Escobar = scum

Iraq War = Invalid under the rational provided.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Feb 17, 2008, 10:33:

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.