Pictures of Bush visit

manINred says on Mar 11, 2007, 19:22:

A good president Alvaro Uribe is... and while I don't think the same for good ol' Dubbya, you can't deny his popularity in the States... can ya?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 11, 2007, 19:25:

I think he did it out of courtesy, he is a 'paisa' after all.

Hey, that Condi doesn't look too bad there, but she doesn't come close to the recent ex Colombian foreign minister. That 'Conchi' Araujo is a real babe!!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 11, 2007, 19:27:

BTW, I love that Bolivar painting, where can I get one?

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Mar 11, 2007, 19:29:

x-rays Bush security people shookdown President's Uribe guards, one by one. I would not be surprise if x-rays were demanded. :)

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Mar 11, 2007, 19:33:

Join the Colombian Navy. Bada-bing!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on Mar 11, 2007, 20:49:

Simon This picture is for you!

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 11, 2007, 20:52:

Gracias Monpirri!
What a Gracias Monpirri!

What a beautigul painting! I had never seen that one before. Do you know what it's called or who painted it?

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on Mar 11, 2007, 20:53:

De nada compatriota! I will forward details soon.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:10:

Beautiful Thank you for the lovely painting.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:23:

See Mario If you can do better! It is the thought that counts!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:23:

Yeah, I guess I didn't like it that Uribe did that, but he was just being polite. Paisas are very courteous.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:27:

That is called R E S P E C T!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:27:

http://www.presidencia.gov.co/prensa_new/fotos/2007/marzo/11/index8.jpg

The 'Palacio de Nariño' is really beautiful!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:31:

Mario,I think Lisa is Mario,

I think Lisa is referring to what Rubito said about Uribe placing his hand over his heart duing the US anthem.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:33:

Not me! I AM A LOVER NOT A FIGHTER!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:38:

SI SIMON Thanks and yes, los Paisas somos muy corteses.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:50:

(((What proud Colombian who gave a fart about their country's sovereignty wouldn't be in a rage over that?))) Well Rubito, I don't think most Colombians agree with you, that Violence is the Price of Freedom. You're cracking me up, with all that craziness about Father Darwin & Darth Vador. lol

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:50:

Simon Bolivar

Sorry picture is out of focus and paiting has a soft finishing

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:55:

Mario If you meant well, then let's leave it like that. I just do not like when people jump on us (Colombians) with criticism.
I like this PBH, and I only dislike one 'individual' that follows me like a bad rash!, other than that I am cool.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 11, 2007, 21:57:

Just for one moment, here: Rubito. Okay. If I was taking $700,000,000.00 down, I would also demand a shakedown of the Uncle Uribe's guards. Man, I wouldn't want my visit to be made of the stuff of movies, either:

I can see the headline:

FARC DRESSED AS COLOMBIAN NATIONAL ARMY ASSASSINATES PRESIDENT.

Remember the saying: TRUTH MANY TIMES, BECOMES STRANGER THAN FICTION???

EXERT THE FORCE!
TURNAROUND;
SHAKEDOWN.
Take no chances.
hell no.

I'm not a fan of GWB; I think he's lost his mind, long ago. But, I think they and we all know how F**kg Crazy things can happen in Colombia.

F**kg AAA. I'm bringing down $700 mil. You want it? This is what we need. No sh*t.

Get a Grip.

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Mar 11, 2007, 22:00:

Rubito You know what really bothered me? It was "ley seca" while Bush was here! Motherfucker Uribe wouldn't let me drink because his boss was in town checking him out. Fuck him. I tried one of them Italian beers that Bavaria is importing now.

The subserviency of Uribe is beyond belief, but nothing really surprises me anymore. What I'm really surprised of is that there's no picture of him wiping Bush's ass after he took a crap.

Sorry folks, but this is my old home, and this motherfucker is not welcomed (if he were, what's the deal with the insane security?). It pisses the crap out of me. He should be thankful of the money COLOMBIANS are putting into the plan that benefits his "base" and stay the fuck away from here.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 11, 2007, 22:14:

your 'old home'? why not make it .... home forever more? Why some of the Colombians (and Rubito) want to make something other than 'what it is', out of this, baffles the sh*t out of some of the rest of us.

The insane security is because you have a F*KG CIVIL WAR STILL RAGING IN your old home, boy.

Remember Oklahoma City? One of your FARCboys comes along, parks a truck, and up goes a few thousand people. It's not such Far(c)Fetched Thinking.

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 11, 2007, 22:18:

but, I tend to agree with your last line Sr T.

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 11, 2007, 22:22:

Does Uribe pay US taxes too? of course; but, he has more loopholes than the rest of us

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Mar 11, 2007, 22:22:

While Uribe criticism is democratically allowed and even welcomed...

HE WON AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY victory in the elections. Sounds like a few of you are bitter at that. Jealous? Probably. I'm placing my bets on the majority of Colombians that voted for him to know what's best for them. Not some bitter annoying people who put him down at every opportunity, using PoorButHappy as a Uribe slandering medium.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Mar 11, 2007, 22:49:

Mario, what's up with the "Condisleeza" stuff? I think she is about as an intelligent and genuine a person there is.

Rubi ... I talked to people using Comcell and Moviestar cells in Bogota on the 11th. Nice hype but not true. Also, my wife talked to her family via Windows messenger for a little while today ... they live in Bogota.

What's wrong with another President respecting the US flag or the US? I think that is - respectful. The US President displays the same respect for other countries that are friendly to the US. I am sure a diplomat for the US wouldn't put his/her hand on their heart for say Iran, but I have seen it for most friendly countries. Or at least salutes, etc.

One of the only things I agree with in the above Bush / US dissing posts is that I think US citizens shouldn't have to pay an airport exit tax when leaving Colombia. It would only be symbolic: But maybe the US government could withhold the amount charged in airport exit tax for departing EEUU citizens from Colombia, from the amount the US pays Colombia in aid. And then, the US should allow the exit tax to be tax deductible for citizens. It would only be symbolic and have little finacial effect, but it would make a point.

I have my problems with the US, but I am getting pretty sick of this anti US crap. It is just plain hate. I don't get it. Maybe I am not as drunk as some of the more passionate posters.

Last thing Rubi. You heard a rumor that the US was allowed to operate military in Colombia for the Presidential visit ... SO? What's your point? And, if you heard that as a rumor, then you already know what most know - that the US has hundreds of soldiers in Colombia, and has for years. That would be like me getting upset that there are Colombian soldiers in the US ... which there are. They train them at Eglin AFB in the panhandle of Florida in things ranging from Explosive Ordinance Disposal to flight training there.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 12, 2007, 08:08:

"HE WON AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY victory in the elections."

CORRECTION: He won an overwelming majority of the election from Colombians that actually voted, which was not impressive even by Colombians standards. Most Colombians know democracy does not exist in Colombia. Hell, I would not vote in Colombia. I would be killed by both those pro-government and anti-government.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 12, 2007, 08:09:

MORE PICTURES http://colombia.indymedia.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=4148

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 12, 2007, 08:23:

EVEN MORE http://colombia.indymedia.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=848

http://colombia.indymedia.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1668

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 12, 2007, 08:28:

Mario got right to the point.....but I'll be a bit more specific. As I understand the total amount of "assistance" over the past 6 years is close to 5 billion dollars. Once again, making it the third largest recipient of US aide. Uribe, makes a point of coming to Washington on "bended knee" to make sure the tap is not turned off. Keep in mind, Plan Colombia required Congressional authorization so Uribe has to kiss a lot more than Bush's ass for the $$ to keep flowing. Do you guys think he makes his repeat visits because he cannot get enough of Washington Monument?

I'll remind you what Colombia's own Vice President Francisco said about the need for US aide. He said Colombia would be Sudan if it was not in reciept of those funds.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070311/NEWS01/703110367/1002/NEWS01

I think that is pretty funny that the country's own vice president would admit to such. OK....so now that we have that out of the way, what's the big deal about the guy showing some respect huh???

Good Grief, it is amazing how it takes the G5 to come in here to get people thinking straight!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 12, 2007, 08:31:

"Noisy protests are fine, but the rioters, once they started breaking glass and throwing rocks and steel barriers deserved to be shot with rubber bullets"

I agree.

On the other hand, I could not find pictures of the peacefull protests or footage on Colombian news media of the protests organized by the Polo Democratico. I guess that is not politically correct in Colombia.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Mar 12, 2007, 09:01:

How could I be so stupid??? to overlook the fact that Colombia is in the firm grip of a dictatorship. Thank you cali373 for bringing that to my attention. Very insightful of you.

Thank you also for clarifying that Uribe won votes in an election. I was under the impression that winning votes WAS NOT a pre-requisite for winning an election. duhhhhhh how could I be so moronic?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 12, 2007, 09:30:

Secret Service agent frisks member of the Guard http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/030907bushlatinamer/im:/070312/photos_pl_afp/8ce09841100f3f2046f80fb4d73a52fa;_ylt=AkypYwF0bcukHL0AChTEAPkKO7gF

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Mar 12, 2007, 10:01:

Actually, speaking of kissing ass Lula and Bush in a nice hug

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/030907bushlatinamer/im:/070310/photos_pl_afp/a3193a5ae77a0a9e7152bc5d6ded36fb;_ylt=AoXVPB4R6WGszr2h6ktHqEUKO7gF

I think people are making too much out of this whole thing. As much as I don't like Bush, bear in mind that his even coming to Bogotá is seen as a political FAVOR to Uribe.

And as far as the rioting goes, there's nothing special about that, they rioted in Montevideo and in Brazil, too.

Rubito, I think you're letting your own dislike for Bush drag you into the realm of Conspiracy Theory. There was no interruption of cell phone service or internet across Bogota. Perhap your loved ones forgot to pay their bills? The fact is that the Secret Service has technology that steps on cell phone service in a bubble around the president. I've been talking on the phone in Washington DC when the presidential motorcade goes by and as they approach, your signal will suddenly drop. This is intended to deter the use of cell phones as detonators for any sort of bombs intended for Bush. I'm sure they used the same thing in Colombia but it only covers a couple blocks at most.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Mar 12, 2007, 10:13:

Size small De Condones:
Llama George W. Bush a Alvaro Uribe Vélez

GWB* "Mi queridou Ugribe... Quisiera hacer negocito con tigo."

U* "Si cómo no presidente Bush. ¿Qué se te ofrece?"

GWB* "Nuestras fábricas de condones cerraron y estamos que ya queremos usar unos. Entonces querer saber si nos poder mandar un pedido de 1 millón de condones."

U* "Puess... si, cómo no presidente Bush."
GWB* "Pero te puedo pedir un favor?"

U* "¿Cuál?"

GWB* "Que sean todos de color rojo, blanco, o azul. ¿Tu saber no? Después del september 11 estar más patriotas, ah, y que tengan un medida de 10 pulgadas de largo y 4 pulgadas de ancho."

El presidente Uribe se queda asombrado por las medidas que pedía el
yanky.
"Ehhh Ave María!!!! quién los ve a estos gringos !!!!!" pensaba Uribe.

Total le contesta:
U "Bueno Bush. dejame voy a llamar a un amigo en Medellín pa' que los
haga y te los mando pa' llá.."

GWB * "Muchas gracias Ugribe!"

Después de hablar con el presidente americano, Uribe llama a la fábrica de condones en Medellín:. - "La Casa del Condón, buenas tardes."

U * "Quiubo Jaramillo, cómo te va... te habla Uribe, te tengo un
;camellito..."

* "Contame a ver..."

U* "Pues me llamó el presidente Bush y dice que quiere un pedido de 1
millón de condones blancos, rojos, y azules y con una medida de 10 pulgadas de ;largo y 4 de ancho."

* "Ehhhhh Ave María, 10 pulgadas!!!! ese man está es chicaniando!!!."

U* "Pues quién sabe Jaramillo, pero él paga, así que vos, hacelos."

* "Cómo no Uribe, contá con ellos. ¿Alguna otra cosita Presidente?"

U* "Sí. En cada condón quiero que escribás: "Made in Colombia, Size:
Small"

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Mar 12, 2007, 10:29:

Uribe on BBC Mundo Hoy A newsman from BBC Mundo Hoy asked Uribe:

how come President Bush being such a close friend of yours, Bush will stay only a few hours in Colomba? Uribe got upset and request for serious questions. Uribe later added, although there are several colombians working on BBC, they like to put down the country, and that those paisanos even if they are journalists they should be more Colombian friendly.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 12, 2007, 11:01:

G5:

That assistance is obviously not insignificant, but indeed actually important.

However, that doesn't mean it's anywhere as essential as appearances would imply, once any of us sits down to do the mathematics of it all (how much of that aid is actually something Colombia can "freely" dispose of, the specific destination of each segment, what % of what does it all represent, and so forth).

In other words, obviously it's not something that the government would want to walk away from, especially when you are talking about a government that agrees with the reasoning behind it. But it wouldn't be the coming of the Apocalypse if we did either.

In the link you posted, Mr. Santos made an absolutely ignorant comparison to Sudan that anyone with a post-high school level of education could easily disprove. At least in the short term, it's absolutely unwarranted to make such blatant speculation.

Seems like he merely wants to exaggerate things in order to make any/all achievements look better and more significant than they really are. It's a classical rhetorical move. But one that can be easily shot down. His gratitude for U.S. aid may be genuine, but that comparison is totally idiotic.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 12, 2007, 11:15:

If a Secret Servie agent If a Secret Service agent frisked a Colombian honor guard, it's only fair that the honor guards frisk the Secret Service agents too!


I think Vice-President Santos was only speaking in hyperbole when he made that Sudan comparison.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 12, 2007, 11:28:

Well Juance...I knew spin was coming. But from U ? LOL. You can try to minimize the aide all you want (amount they can freely dispose of...etc etc), but just forget the silliness. Also, as long as you opened that can of worms (told you guys carefull)if you will recall, the GSA had reported that there were several million dollars (dollars not pesos) in funds that have not been propery accounted for. And......Mr Juancegomez, the matter only became public because upon questioning Colombian officials about the funds, and giving them time to account for them, not only were they unable to account for them, but there was evidence that the funds ended up in the hands of various politicians, which in turn spent the money on ponography, among other personal items. OK, so tell me more bull.

Now, you may not appreciate the comments by the VP in his comparison to Sudan, however he did make them. Was it strange for such a high ranking official to belittle his country like that? Sure it was. Do I think it was a valid comparison? Of course not....BUT, you liberals want it both way. Colombia is scared SHIT, that the funds will abruptly disappear under the leadership of Pelosi & Reid incorperated....Remember those characters? The liberals have been against sending those funds from DAY ONE (1). They claimed that it went to perpetuate a pattern of Human Rights abuses. In other words, what better way to scare the powers that be on Capitol Hill than to create a situation of desperation.......Huh....maybe??? In other words, I don't think Santos is as stupid as you think he is. He would not have said them without at least the tacit approval of Uribe.

5 billion in aide.. Just keep saying that to yourself. Here, I will repeat that number.....5 billion. I am sure there is a mindset over in Bogota that has grown very content with that money and they really are very very scared of Pelosi and Reid. Things were a lot more secure under Rs than they are under Ds....you can be sure of that.

Simon....in all do respect, hyperbole or not, he is the vice president and he does not have the liberty to make comments like that. Keep in mind, with the exception of PBH, most of the world has a pretty bad view of what Colombia is like, so you don't need idiots like the vice president of the country to further the negative image in that manner. When I speak in a negative manner about Colombia, only a hundred people or so here some guy named Gomezman pontificate. The VP's views are heard throughout the world, and obviously are taken seriously by those that already think Colombia is one big pot hole. I will say this Simon, I am glad you are so willing to cut him some slack. That said, next time Joe Blow (myself) says something negative about Colombia, please cut that guy the same degree of slack.........Thanks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

elmodefoque says on Mar 12, 2007, 11:38:

USA agents frisking Colombian honor guards in Colombian territory is a slap in the face of every Colombian.
I’m not the most patriotic modefoque in the planet, but that to me is a real fokin low blow. It makes me miss the days of Samper.

any colombianita willing to date me, IS UP TO NO GOOD

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 12, 2007, 11:48:

Fair Enough Gman. Santos Fair Enough Gman.

Santos should not have said that.

Yeah, Elmo, that was pretty disprectful. If I was that honor guard, I would have yelled out "Get your hands off me, white boy!!"

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 12, 2007, 11:58:

Thanks Simon No question, there were better ways to "Kiss Ass" and play up to the DC crowd, without ridiculing your entire country. I'm surprised he is not getting villified in the Colombian media.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

elmodefoque says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:00:

There should me a limit to There should be a limit to what people are forced to do to receive
700, 000.000,0000.000.000.0000 dollars. I personally would NOT do it.
If I were a Colombian honor guard, no fokin way no FOKIN how a modefoquin agent from a foreign country is gonna try to frisk me while i'm holding a loaded weapon. He's gonna have to try and kill me first.

any colombianita willing to date me, IS UP TO NO GOOD

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:14:

I wouldn't spend alot of time worrying about it Elmo (you being in 'honor guard'...lol)

Ciao! Gustav. Bienvenitos, Ike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:18:

Puleaze Elmo, we all know that for $5 billion you would give el beso negro to the entire Secret Service detail. And nobody here would blame you.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

elmodefoque says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:21:

5 billion??? Hell, even for 500 dollars i'll kiss that modefoques hairy blonde ass, but never wearing a colombian honor guard uniform.

any colombianita willing to date me, IS UP TO NO GOOD

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:32:

One thing is being courteus and another different is being an a.. kisser.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:39:

Big league vs. small league It's ironic to see few members who have a history of antogonizing colombia want to capitalize or judge an infortunate incident.
Let's say, that Vice president had a poorbuthappy day.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 12, 2007, 12:39:

Rubito,
I am pissed off Rubito,

I am pissed off about that frisking! And the colombians I know are too.

That was a slap in the face of Colombia's sovereignty!!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 12, 2007, 13:25:

"Lo unico que falto fue que los muchachos de la fuerza aerea se les pusieran en cuatro a los gringos y que les dieran por el orto...con vaselina y todo........."


Ha ha ha, that comment from El Tiempo really cracked me up!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 12, 2007, 13:51:

Sounds like a worthless Sounds like a bigoted, worthless piece of shit to me.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 12, 2007, 14:20:

W-O-W ..Indeed ....Thank - You Rubito Around these parts, I'll take a complement anywhere I can get one......and nobody better to accept one from than RUBITO!!!!

I also know that with Rubito, you have to earn it....No freebies. He calls it like he sees it. (As I do BTW)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 07:52:

The U.S. national anthem is Different from the pledge of allegiance. Uribe was merely showing respect by putting his hand over his heart. It is common for presidents to do the same for visiting dignitaries. As far as the gaurd being searched well...so what! They should have been searched considering Colombias reputation Regardless of if you agree with it or not. The secret service are hired to protect the president it's that simple. If Something had happened what would you U.S. haters have said? And by the way the Vice President was correct in his Statements whether you like it or not. it's called an analogy. He may have been way off but I understand the point he was making, and thats all he was trying to do was make a point. All I hear at PBH is the Empire this and the Gringos That. You guys are out of your minds. You are the emperialists! You are the ones that expect the U.S. to bow down and give, give, give! You want Money? Why so that you can say it fuels Narco terrorism? If the U.S. takes it away and things get worse then the U.S. is using it's vast economic strength to weaken Colombia. Colombia has natural resources, Colombia has Gold, oil, Etc. But the U.S. is using colombia and colombia can't profit because the U.S. wont allow it. Thats a bunch of crock from people that would prefer to sit on their collective asses and wait to be given shit. I say shut up! Get off your asses and do something. The U.S. doesnt controll Colombia so stop complaining. Leftism, Chavism, Far right, only colombia can make the country better. Yes The u.s. has influence in Colombia but are they wrong for wanting it? Hell No! Colombia wants influence in other countries and so it is with every country. If Colombia could gain something from another country by giving up some money or oil or gold or whatever they would do it. Currently in consideration of the state of events & Groups it's difficult to Use your own resources however the U.S. is not to blame for that. why protest president Bush? what does it get you? nothing! just more media coverage of crazy latinos protesting for nothing and showing the world that it's not safe. you are all your own worst enemies. It makes me Sick. You are not Colombians. Most of you certainly are not as educated as you would like us to think. Your a Hate Group. Your the KKK in disguise. I'm done. If or when the Great U.S. Empire crumbles. there will be a price to pay for many many countries. Those countries will then remember the good the U.S. did. the Aid the U.S. gave. They will see that it is no longer there. they will be poorer and they will have no one to turn to, to ask for help. The U.S. has some serious fault and Bush is one of them but he's gone in less than 2 years. Let's move on. The u.s. will make more mistakes but the aid and help given to many that are not U.S. citizens out weighs the mistakes..

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on Mar 13, 2007, 08:12:

You do not have to be DAS or the FBI to find out who are the persons who want to start a campaign to interrupt the ongoing Colombia-USA relations, or at least attempt to provoke controversy.
As I said above the Vice president had a poorbuthappy day! That's all!!!
PBH members who are so fired up about all these nonesense should not be so verbal...just take a look at your own record bashing Colombia on PBH.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 08:29:

Like I said the U.S. has plenty of faults as well as Colombia. We should really stop the bashing. Don't Colombia Bash and don't U.S. Bash. Everyday I look at PBH and I read the hatred that's being spit out by some of us and I don't think thats what this site is supposed to be. You can love colombia without Bashing and blaming everything thats not perfect in colombia on the good ole U.S.. Colombia is not perfect but we can have some great discussions on the great things about colombia. The people the culture the geography food so many good things.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rene Borbon says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:05:

Bush and the US, Colombia What a bunch of inferiority complex minded Colombians on this board! Bush visits most of Latin America -- a few communists protest here and there --- and immediately people start talking about America as the evil empire. Two evil empires were defeated by the US - Germany and the Soviet Union. Booo, wooo, wooo, a Colombian honor guard was frisked --- so what? That is the Secret Service's job! My (Colombia's) sovereignty was insulted!? What a baby. Colombia has known military corruption and a decades long unresolved civil war --- of course the Secret Service is going to frisk the locals. Colombia and the US are great nations, each with their own things to be proud of. Personally, I'd like to see the US military go into the jungles and destroy FARC for the Colombians -- then go home -- leaving Colombia free of Marxist drug producers and smugglers. But we all know if this were to happen --- another Colombian cartel would form and start all over again -- because of the demand for cocaine. Personally, I'd like to see the US stop ALL foreign aid and bring home all troops --- but people can't seem to keep their neighborhoods in order.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:13:

Well G5, that's how you see it....not me Sorry for not responding yesterday, but I temporarily lost access to the net for a few hours there.

You can call it spin if you like. I call it presenting observations that differ from yours. Nothing more to it, really.

Now, I am only "minimizing" the aid because I believe that "maximizing" it is not only an exaggeration not supported by the facts but also goes against even simple mathematics. This has been talked about numerous times here already and I've posted links to the numbers as well. I don't have the links here right now, but I've posted them in FT and P&W before.

The nominal value (which says nothing about what amount of money goes where in practice) of yearly U.S. aid to Colombia is estimated to amount to 10% or less of the yearly Defense budget, which is in turn around 9-10% of the overall budget for 2007, last I checked. In other words, yearly U.S. aid to Colombia is nominally worth about 10% of 10% of our budget, to put it in simple terms.

Do you really think we would go off a cliff if it were reduced or cut? It would obviously hurt some programs and efforts, no doubt. I would be an idiot if I considered it insignificant, which I am not doing. But it's not like it's cutting off our supplies of oxygen.

Btw, I don't see how the fact that some funds have been somehow diverted or lost to corruption is relevant to the rest of the discussion. Yes, there are greedy and corrupt officials here, and they might as well end up embarrassing the country before U.S. officials from time to time. I'm not going to deny that, but it's a tangential matter, at best, unless you want to suggest something else.

The Colombian government, the current one at least, obviously want to keep or even increase aid to Colombia. That is definitely the case. I didn't say that Santos was speaking out against Uribe's wishes or anything like that. Precisely, my point is that's the official position of the government and a common theme in the rhetoric it employs. Uribe often tries to make it seem like "todo tiempo pasado fue peor" in order to make his administration look better and better, which may be the case in some respects but is an utter lie in others.

Let's talk about the U.S Congress next then. Do you really think that the Democrats will cut all aid to Colombia? They might as well cut military funds, add more conditions and provisions, but they'll still provide at least some aid, and they may even increase funds for non-military matters despite any other restrictions. That's precisely what some of them have said already, on the record.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:17:

Rene Borbon I agree with you on your comment except that I do not think US troops should go to Colombia to engage in a war or to go into the jungles.
Let Colombia and Colombians handle this part.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:35:

The key is to stop corruption in the military. You do that by paying them well. By giving incentives for being in the Military. By making it worthwhile. Once you have done that then you can go to war against these groups. Of course there will still be corruption but there will be far less corruption. You them make it so that soldiers are culpable with regard to military crimes. You do the same with the police. You pay them well and make it so that being a cop is a good thing and good earnings. Then you can go to combat. you make so that these groups don't have towns to work in because the town has a well paid police force. Make it so that crimes against humanity must be confronted and people caught do go to jail. You actively hunt murderers. You prosecute crimes instead of looking the other way.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rene Borbon says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:41:

Rubito, the Russians History Lesson:

The Russians desperately needed a second front in France to make the capture of Berlin possible. Also, German cities and industry were reduced to rubble by American and British bombing missions -- making it possible for the Soviets to enter Germany. The Soviets destroyed themselves by building their military in response to America's wealth and military investment.

America on the brink of collapse -- you'll be waiting a long time.

As for US - Colombian relations -- keep them going and improve them. Both nations will be better off.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:53:

History Lesson for Rene Borbon The allies finished of Germany, not the US, as you, Rene Borbon, so bombastically claim. And I would hazard a guess as to say that YES, the Russian climate and Hitler's idiotic decision to fight it ultimately resulted in his demise. A series of things happened in WWII that unmistakably led to German demise and to bombastically claim that it was the US solely who defeated Nazi Germany is ignorant and erroneous.

Also... no I'm not going to get into it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 09:57:

Yes, the Eastern Front ...was in fact what eventually bled the Germans mostly dry, so to speak.

The war on that front was of epic proportions, both in terms of operational magnitude and the mutual barbarity that it carried along with it.

The Nazis vs. Soviets side of the struggle is often overlooked as far as the common WWII discourse in the West goes, but it's definitely recognized as a key theater by most academics.

This doesn't make the Western Front useless, no, but its importance is often overestimated a bit more than necessary.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rene Borbon says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:09:

Germany, History Lesson I see some people on this board have the disease of only choosing which facts of history are important for them. Without the US in the war, the allies were pressed to defeat Germany and Japan. It was the industrial and military power of the US and its air force that caused the destruction of German industry and its ability to make fuel and those superior German weapons. The eastern front was no doubt a more savage part of the war --- but I've seen and visited the huge cemetaries in France where tens of thousands of British and American soldiers were buried. My argument is that Britain and the Soviet union could not have defeated Germany without the US. Yes, the Soviets captured Berlin, but Patton wanted to go into Berlin but was prevented from doing so by politics. Wasn't Colombia a Nazi ally in the war?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:16:

Ugh... *sigh* And you are the one who started spreading the disease in this instance. To claim that USA could've won the war without either Britain or the Soviets would be just as ignorant, moreso from your patriotic standpoint. Re-read your first post stating that the US defeated Nazi Germany, that's wherein the whole outrage of this off-topic and tedious debate lies...

So, we 'choose' our facts, you 'choose' your wording.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:20:

OK Juancegomez I'll say it again....short and sweet.

5 billion dollars over a 5-6 year period.
No, I'll try harder: 5 B I L L I O N

Third largest recipient of US aide. It is twist. It is not just "Your opinion." No logical thinking person would agree with that interpretaion. Sorry.

5 Billion dollars. And that, my friend, is supposedly only to combat the "War on Drugs". Now, there is not one clear thinking person, who has even a miniscule amount of knowledge about the political affairs of Colombia, that does not think that the line between drug eradication, and supporting Uribe's Armed forces is a clear one. For the last 5 years AT LEAST, the guerillas (you choose which one) have been known as Narco-guerillas. Hence, it is impossible for anyone to say that the money is being used only for anti drug efforts, and not also for support to help fight Colombia's civil war.

Above said, one of the reasons that Colombia IS a safer place for the last few years, is because of the reciept of American dollars to help Uribe in his battle with the guerillas. The VP ...Santos did not have to say Colombia would be a Sudan without the money. But HE DID. And buddy, he is surely in a lot better position to know about just how much Colombia relys on that aide than you, myself, or anyone on this Board will ever be. He is the Vice President, not some two bit columnist for Semana or El Tiempo. Keep that in mind.

I just wish one idiot, on here.....just one, could tell me where I am wrong. Nobody can.....NOBODY. Pardon me for introducing the old cliche'. Nothing to intellectual about it, but it applies again and again. MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT WALKS. Yep. That is about it. American money has done a much to improove Colombia's situation. If you want to Juancegomez, or anyone else wants to think other wise, than you keep telling yourself and the other anti American numb skulls on this board that. I call that mental masturbation. If you say it feels good. Good for you. It feels good.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:25:

Rene Borbon The U.S entry into the war definitely sealed Germany's fate, in the long term, and contributed to speeding up its end.

But in the short and medium term, the grinder had already been set up on the East, not the West. Most casualties, by far, were inflicted there.

The Pacific War was much more U.S.-centric, of course. The USSR didn't really have much of an influence on the Pacific Front, except for declaring war on the Japanese very late in the game, by which time the U.S. already had secured the upper hand and had even contemplated the invasion of the main isles, the use of the atomic bombs aside.

Btw, Colombia sided with the Allies shortly after the U.S. entered the war. But I would have loved to see any alternate-reality version of WWII where we sided with the Axis instead of the U.S. Might make for a decent novel or movie.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:32:

Re your last sentence I think they call that country "Argentina"



;-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:43:

Wait a minute there. Did I miss something, or am I somehow disputing the figures themselves, G5?

Although you are rounding them up/down slightly, that's not really important and I'm not calling them into question. So I don't see your point in repeating that "short and sweet". That is not the issue I'm talking about.

It is also you, not I, who is assuming that there can only be one interpretation and that it must the "correct" one, bar none. Seems a bit excessive and even too ambitious, IMHO, but then again that assumption is also part of your opinion. C'est la vie.

But if you insist, I am, however, also going to repeat the fact that U.S. aid to Colombia isn't merely a huge amount of cash thrown off a plane.

Exactly how much is or isn't that aid worth, on a yearly basis, is also important and can't easily be tossed aside.

Exactly how that aid is used, what are the specific destinations for it, also matters.

"Now, there is not one clear thinking person, who has even a miniscule amount of knowledge about the political affairs of Colombia, that does not think that the line between drug eradication, and supporting Uribe's Armed forces is a clear one."

The premise is a rather grandiose assumption that is also logically questionable, since I doubt you (nor I nor anyone else) can speak for all "clear-thinking" people.

Now, that aside, the line you speak of has been more or less clear, depending on the U.S. administrations involved. But it has changed a bit over the years. It's, if anything, less clear now than before, but it hasn't ceased to exist.

"For the last 5 years AT LEAST, the guerillas (you choose which one) have been known as Narco-guerillas. Hence, it is impossible for anyone to say that the money is being used only for anti drug efforts, and not also for support to help fight Colombia's civil war."

Leaving aside the term "narco-guerrillas", a certain amount of overlap does occur, I'm not denying it.

But that is not the main destination for nor reasoning behind most of the aid, in practice. Some Hawks might wish it were so, and have tried to find as many "dual-use" applications as possible, but that is a result of improvisation rather than design. A truly counterinsurgency-based aid program would look considerably different.

At least 90% of Colombia's yearly defense budget is not funded in any way by the U.S. That should tell you something, I'd hope.

"Above said, one of the reasons that Colombia IS a safer place for the last few years, is because of the reciept of American dollars to help Uribe in his battle with the guerillas."

If by "one of the reasons" you mean one of many factors, but not the main one, I could and do agree. I just oppose the maximization of the premise to near-absolute levels.

"The VP ...Santos did not have to say Colombia would be a Sudan without the money. But HE DID. And buddy, he is surely in a lot better position to know about just how much Colombia relys on that aide than you, myself, or anyone on this Board will ever be. He is the Vice President, not some two bit columnist for Semana or El Tiempo. Keep that in mind."

In theory, that should be the case. But in practice, I'm sorry, that in no way means he shies away from the use of rhetoric, exaggerations and sometimes even lies. He is human, after all.

Heck, that doesn't prevent people like GWB, the President of the United States of America, from engaging in clear misinformation and propaganda from time to time, not only about the state of his own country and its internal affairs, but also about those of the U.S. military's operations elsewhere in the world (see the Middle East, for instance). And one would suppose that he'd be in a far better position to talk about those matters too, than anyone else anywhere in the world. Yet he's not always right, to put it lightly.

Holding office or executive authority alone is not enough to demand immediate acceptance or respect for one's opinions and declarations. I'm sorry, but no. Not for Uribe, not for Santos, not for Bush, not for Chavez, not for Zapatero.

""Nobody can.....NOBODY."

Unfortunately, that's a highly subjective declaration which remains to be proven, logically or otherwise.

"American money has done a much to improove Colombia's situation."

It has contributed to, but it's not necessarily the only nor the main factor involved. It has had positive effects, but they are not absolute.

"I call that mental masturbation."

I'm sorry, but I think you just described what you appear to be doing, attributing to yourself the only "correct" way to describe the situation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:49:

I saw a basketball game the other day. Team 1 was getting there butts kicked by team 2. Somehow as time was running out team 1 took out a player and put in a kid that was on the bench for the entire game. the kid came in and made 4 three's in a row. the kid played a total of 5 minutes in the game. Team 1 won the game. who won the game for them

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:50:

I saw a basketball game the other day. Team 1 was getting there butts kicked by team 2. Somehow as time was running out team 1 took out a player and put in a kid that was on the bench for the entire game. the kid came in and made 4 three's in a row. the kid played a total of 5 minutes in the game. Team 1 won the game. who won the game for them?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 10:55:

I'd wish everything was as simple as basketball is ...you'd even have me unrestrictedly cheering on for the kid, then.

But that metaphor loses most of its steam, when you try to apply it to things that are far more complex than basketball.

The premise itself tends to break down, as does the description of the "game" and its expected conclusion.

Unrestricted cheering/bashing becomes far too infantile, when you go above that level. Some things deserve to be cheered, others deserve criticism.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:01:

It's basketball and it's called an analogy and it is meant not to be complex so that everyone can understand. The kid won the game for team 1 even though he had very little to do with the game in the 1st place. it is quite simple and it is meant to be simple.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:08:

Even you understand what i'm saying Juan. The metaphor loses it's steam only with you because you quite simply are not willing to see that it is in fact just as simple as the analogy intends to make it. I could have explained using a more complex game like chess but im sure even that would not satisfy you. So...believe me. It's just as simple.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:09:

Swin88 Granted, I am guilty of typos and a slight rush.

Which may bring a smile (or a smirk, perhaps) to your face, but in no way changes the rest of my point.

If you think the subject is as simple as any sport you can think of, this becomes a moot discussion.

It is not as simple because it either forgets or tosses aside things that do matter, in order to make it all fit.

But here, you have far more players, more rules, more motivations, more actions and reactions, more commentators, more camera angles, more coaches, and many more things at stake than any sports game on this planet can boast of having. You can't easily paint this by the numbers, at least not realistically. None of us have access to all the necessary factors to make such a sweeping comparison.

But well, that's still a valid opinion. Just not one I agree with, and I think I've mentioned why already, by pointing to specific issues that should be addressed. This doesn't mean "I'm right", but just that there's plenty of room for debate.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:16:

Juancegomez Please. Don't throw out terms like "numbers" and "mathematics" in an attempt to obfuscate the issue.

And now, with your last post, you give me this stuff about my "subjective declarations" and that I make utterances that I attribute to myself as the only "correct" way to describe situations. I know what I am saying. You are not going to change my method(s) for presenting my case. Sometimes I am more objective. On the other hand, their are times when I think you (anyone) is so off point and away from reality, stronger language is needed. In other words, don't tell me how I should debate. Thanks.
My Commet:
The VP ...Santos did not have to say Colombia would be a Sudan without the money. But HE DID. And buddy, he is surely in a lot better position to know about just how much Colombia relys on that aide than you, myself, or anyone on this Board will ever be. He is the Vice President, not some two bit columnist for Semana or El Tiempo. Keep that in mind."

Your Response
In theory, that should be the case. But in practice, I'm sorry, that in no way means he shies away from the use of rhetoric, exaggerations and sometimes even lies.

Huh?
What the hell does than mean? That response was as nonresponsive as one can get. You sound like a politician that when asked a simple Yes/No question on a Sunday morning news show, coming back with anything but a simple "Yes/No" answer, but instead goes on commenting on something related to the issue without ever answering the quesion.
In other words, more obfuscation and nonresponsive answers.

Maybe youre right. It's about Mathematics. It's about the 5 billion that could be used in this country. Better schools. Drugs for the poor. Nominal/catastrophic health care for a large segment of citizens that have nothing. That's just a start.

BTW. What is this 90-10% stuff? 10% is a lot. I'll tell you what...ask the average Colombian if their life would be significantly affected if they lost 10% of their income. Just ask them. Not only would they not have the money to use (live) the way they have been living, but now they would have to "dig in" to the remaining 90% to pay for items that they need because that 10% is no longer there. Here in the US, (or Colombia) can you think of any worker that would not be jumping for joy if they were not given a 10% raise? Pardon me for being subjective again, but I'll take the liberty of doing so. Answer: No you cannot think of anyone that would not be jumping for joy upon getting a %10 raise. Some things aren't subjective. They are obvious...maybe even rhetorical.

Look, if you want to say that the lemon you ate last night was as sweet as sugar, better (sweeter) than any Florida orange you have eaten, be my guest. You will not find many believers, but hey, whatever makes you feel good.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:31:

I'm just as guilty Juan and i'm horrible speller, so no I don't smirk at all. For the third time...it's an analogy! not meant to be compared to but meant to clarify in more simple terms so that it is better understood! I picked someting that everyone understand. a basketball game is a war of sorts, no? 2 teams in combat. trying to end the game in victory. 2 countries at war each trying to end the war with a victory. Are getting a grasp as to why I used basketball? if you want you can make each individual player an individual country. the allied countries on team 1 and the others on team 2. the kid off the bench we will call him America. he joins the game/war alittle late. He's not beat up as much because he is fresh off the bench or new to the war. he comes in and puts in 4 three's in a row or he comes in and makes some decisive blows to the enemy. As a result even though america did not play much. he did not lose as much as the other players/countries on his team he was a major cause of his team/allies winning the game/war.

I think the original basketball metaphor was more to the point. a bit more simple. easier for the average person to understand, and use as a tool to explain things such as war. Alot of us have never gone to war but i'm willing to but almost all of us have seen a basketball game. So...it was meant to clarify a more complex situation in laymans terms....do you understand now?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:34:

even with my typos?
even with my typos?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:39:

G5 "Please. Don't throw out terms like "numbers" and "mathematics" in an attempt to obfuscate the issue."

When those numbers and mathematics can make a difference, that's not what they are doing.

"You are not going to change my method(s) for presenting my case."

Nor am I going to seriously try to force you to do so. I, like others, just happen to comment on them.

"Sometimes I am more objective. On the other hand, their are times when I think you (anyone) is so off point and away from reality, stronger language is needed. In other words, don't tell me how I should debate."

I'm as free as anyone else here to make and submit to observations, as long as they do not break the rules of the forum.

Either of us can think the other one is off point. That's inherent to any debate. Doesn't really make stronger language a necessity, but a choice. One you're quite free to make, and I'm quite free to comment on.

"What the hell does than mean? That response was as nonresponsive as one can get."

Your opinion, but I beg to differ.

I mean that, in theory, you would be right and Santos should be in a better position (as VP) to know just how much Colombia does rely on that aid.

Yet the fact that he is VP, that he is in a "better position" as an official, says nothing about whether his statements will be "better". Which you directly implied by pointing out his "position" in the first place, contrasting it with that of others, presumably in "inferior" positions.

Personally I don't see the confusion there. Even if my wording could always be better, the point stands.

"In other words, more obfuscation and nonresponsive answers."

Your opinion.

What was really the "question" then, in that paragraph, when you wrote that VP Santos should be in a "better position" than X, Y or Z?


"Maybe youre right. It's about Mathematics. It's about the 5 billion that could be used in this country. Better schools. Drugs for the poor. Nominal/catastrophic health care for a large segment of citizens that have nothing. That's just a start."

And while this is entirely off-topic, I can even agree with this.

"BTW. What is this 90-10% stuff? 10% is a lot. I'll tell you what...ask the average Colombian if their life would be significantly affected if they lost 10% of their income. Just ask them."

It would be significantly affected, up to a certain degree. Am I denying that? I even wrote that those programs funded by that 10% would suffer.

But, using your scenario, those Colombians would still have 90% of their income and could meet most of their needs with it, except for those affected by that 10%. Losing 10% of one's income is not an automatic death sentence. It's a blow, but not automatically a deadly one.

"Here in the US, (or Colombia) can you think of any worker that would not be jumping for joy if they were not given a 10% raise?"

Definitely, and justifiably so, but they'd hardly escape from poverty or totally change their financial situation just from that 10% alone. It's not the stuff of miracles.

If they were poor before, they usually would still be in a similar position, even with that 10% raise and any proportional improvement it brings.

"Look, if you want to say that the lemon you ate last night was as sweet as sugar, better (sweeter) than any Florida orange you have eaten, be my guest."

Whatever.

"You will not find many believers, but hey, whatever makes you feel good."

If I cared about "feeling good", I'd either not post at all or I'd simply join "Team USA" or "Team Anti-USA" in their respective chants.

I'm not seeking "believers" nor do I make any effort to do so. I'm just debating and presenting my opinions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyone is free to read my posts and either agree or disagree, partially or fully, with my positions. That's up to each person.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:42:

Secret Service Behavior You know, I really despise Bush, but all this hand-wringing about his security detail's behavior is just goofy. First of all, it's the exact same for EVERY US president. Trust me, when President Obama Barak visits Colombia it'll be just a big of a pain in the ass. And they'll frisk President Navarro Wolf's honor guard just as closely.

A friend of mine worked advance for a previous president, arranging protocol on foreign visits. His description of the job is that they'd go into foreign countries, the foreign functionaries would make all sorts of ridiculous demands about what the President of the US was and wasn't going to do while there, then my friend would listen patiently and then say, "So, do you still want the president of the US to come to your country? Here's the conditions."

Never failed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:51:

Thanks for getting back to the subject G5. I believe I am on the same page as you. Alot of PBH members be they colombian or american or british or from wherever, they don't seem to be honest. I mostly try to read posts. I don't think I comment that often, however sometimes i'm moved to say something after reading the hate that some of you have for your northern neighbors. G5 you are correct 10% is huge. I would hate for someone to take away 10% of my earnings, hell I would probably start a protest. I'm sure of it. I love colombia. I love the u.s. but you guys harp on some silly shit. The guard being searched, the national anthem with the colombian president with his hand on his chest. it's like you look for reasons to bash the u.s. and colombia. your mad at who? the colombian government because it has good relations with the u.s.? that's crazy. someone explain to me because i'm not sure. Does the u.s. import more goods from colombia than it exports to colombia? also tell me whats so bad about the trade situation? explain these things to me. I think most comments are made without having true knowledge of the facts. I do know that these trade agreements are very extensive and i doubt that any of us have read them. I for one have not. so tell me why it is so bad to have a trade agreement with the u.s. don't tell me that the u.s. screws people. give me facts. tell me how they are screwing colombia. educate me please.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:52:

Oye Juance, usted dónde aprendió a escrbir tan bien in inglés?

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:53:

Swinn88 I'll explain myself again.

To put it in simple terms, I don't think the analogy applies to the case under discussion. It makes things look too simple, precisely.

Why? Here are a couple of reasons:

-The situation in Colombia hasn't yet reached the point where it can be universally described as either a "win-or-lose" scenario. There are many different opinions about it.

-In any sport, you can and do have clear winners and losers (or a clear tie), at any given point in the game.

-The problem here is that the Colombian conflict is mostly stagnant. It's lasted 40 years already and could arguably last 40 more, with gradual changes in either direction. We simply do not know what will happen.

-The drug war side of the issue merits a debate of its own. Although, again, opinions differ, the one universal fact is that the trade continues and people keep getting high worldwide. If an end to that is what's being sought...the strategy appears to be lacking.

-There are different opinions and descriptions about the effects of America's intervention. There is no absolute consensus, whether in Colombia, Europe or the U.S., as to what it has or hasn't really accomplished.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:56:

Simon En Bogotá, Colombia, donde nací y he vivido toda mi vida (y seguiré viviendo, hasta que haya que decir "apague y vámonos"...algo que espero no suceda, pero no puedo adivinar el futuro).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:56:

"And they'll frisk President Navarro Wolf's honor guard just as closely."

Now that's funny!Geting back to reality, we would never elect a former TERRORIST as president.

About the frisking, if the secret service frisked the Colombian honor guards, then the correct thing would have been for the honor guards to frisk the secret service as well!

We have to protect our president too!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 13, 2007, 11:58:

"donde nací y he vivido toda mi vida (y seguiré viviendo, hasta que haya que decir "apague y vámonos"...algo que espero no suceda, pero no puedo adivinar el futuro)."

Qué Dios te oiga, paisano!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:01:

Long ago Mr. Uribe accepted that the U.S. and its employees were not out to kill him.



www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/22161.htm

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:05:

Swinn88 There are different opinions about the pros and cons of the free trade agreement too.

Some quick (simple Google search) links:

http://www.ifw-kiel.de/VRCent/DEGIT/paper/degit_10/C010_023.pdf

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17682&prog=zgp&proj=zted

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3810

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2005-October/008470.html

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:07:

Juan I will explain again also. It is that simple. Most people excluding you would understand better after using an analogy as such. I know kids that sling and sell drugs they think they dont know math. as a result you explain things in terms they understand. So explain using drugs instead of straight numbers and the whole math thing is clarified. Now they understand. It's the same thing. you dont want to understand that it's that simple. perhaps incapable of understanding that it is that simple. It's an Analogy!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:10:

thanks.
thanks.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:11:

"Long ago Mr. Uribe accepted
that the U.S. and its employees were not out to kill him."

You never know, there could always be a rogue agent.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:21:

You would not? There's been lots of head of states that have been former terrorists; it's just that they were called by another name back then: freedom fighters, partizans, guerrillas, patriots, insurgents. But it won't be Navarro Wolff; just because his party has a more charismatic leader in Carlos Gaviria.

About Uribe's hand on the heart: pura lambonería. A Colombian stands with his back straight, his head high and arms hanging by the sides whe he/she respects the flag, any flag.

About frisking the Honor Guard; a humiliation.

Cheers,
Desi




"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe
they are free." —Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:22:

Off Topic? Deciding where and how American Tax dollars should be appropriated, based on whether or not the ends being sought are actually being achieved, is "Off Topic"?

OK, so let me get this. The 5 billion dollars in aide to Colombia is minimal. Let's assume that what you say is true. Then that only begs the questions as to whether the money should be spent in the first place. And you would call an inquiry of that nature "off Topic"? I suggest you rethink that aregument again.

Juance.......You said:
"Yet the fact that he is VP, that he is in a "better position" as an official, says nothing about whether his statements will be "better".

Really? The Vice President's knowledge of the country's finances would not put him in a "better" position to know the value of US aide? Then who would would you suggest knows more than himself? Do ya think you can name a dozen people maybe? Would one of them be you, or someone on PBH maybe? Would it make you feel more comfortable if I substituted the word "better" with "more knowledgeable"? That is probably a more accurate depiction of the situation anyway.

No matter how you slice it, the VP stated what he felt. You or nobody else needs to demur his words as if he meant something else. In fact, to demonstrate how correct I am, if there was a need to clarify anything, he would have done so by now. He was asked. He stood by them. Your interpretaion of what he was saying has no value what so ever. No one person, can ever clarify or define the intent of another person's words. Only the speaker himself can do so. Unless of course you were in his mind at the time the words were uttered, I suggest you leave that topic only. Any further attempt to explain the rationale behind what the VP meant only reflects poorly on your ability to present your opinion on the matter. It is just as poor as when a person attempt to attack my spelling in an effort to discred my argument. I kind of relish it because I know that when a person feels the need to attack my spelling instead of addressing the issue head on, that is a clear sign of a concession as to the validity and/or strength of my point of view.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:23:

"Could be...
But what's the "Could be...
But what's the point of patting down a secret service agent? You KNOW they have a gun or guns in their possession."

I know that. I meant they should do it out of symbolic mutual respect, reciprocity, since they (the sercret service) are on Colombian soil .

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:30:

Swinn88 I would "understand better" if the points I mentioned didn't apply. I disagree with the application of the analogy and I'm surely not the only person in the world who would agree that sometimes analogies aren't really relevant, when the problems are more complex than they make them seem.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:53:

G5, "Deciding where and how American Tax dollars should be appropriated, based on whether or not the ends being sought are actually being achieved, is "Off Topic"?"

Not how you're putting it now, but what you originally wrote was, at least, not the main issue we were talking about when this all began.

I already said I would agree with such a proposition, but that's not the point. Or rather, when did it become the point, I ask?

Not even the Democrats are making that sort of declaration, as much as one would want them to.

"OK, so let me get this. The 5 billion dollars in aide to Colombia is minimal."

It is nowhere near equivalent to Colombia's national government budget (whether the entire budget is considered or simply its defense sector) over the same amount of time, at least.

But I've never said it is "minimal", however, if by that you mean "insignificant". It has a certain significance, and importance, but it is not the main element nor the main source of funds.

"Let's assume that what you say is true. Then that only begs the questions as to whether the money should be spent in the first place. And you would call an inquiry of that nature "off Topic"? I suggest you rethink that aregument again."

It seems you were not making an inquiry there. You declared what you think (and so would I) would be a better destination for that amount of funds.

"Really? The Vice President's knowledge of the country's finances would not put him in a "better" position to know the value of US aide?"

It definitely should, in theory. but his statements aren't always inherently "better" in practice, or at least don't need to always "reflect" the knowledge he has.

Must we must believe all his words just because he is in a "position to know"? Even if has been proven wrong or incorrect in the past?

"Then who would would you suggest knows more than himself? Do ya think you can name a dozen people maybe?"

Other than the president, I couldn't. Not by name, no.

But the point isn't whether he should know more, but whether his statements are "better" because of that knowledge. He is not an automaton that merely repeats what he knows, you know.

Though I'm sure there are officials who deal with the subject matter more directly, instead of making PR declarations to the press whose accuracy is not absolute.

"Would one of them be you, or someone on PBH maybe?"

Evidently not (including yourself).

But that doesn't mean I can't criticize him. Free speech and all that, you know.

"Would it make you feel more comfortable if I substituted the word "better" with "more knowledgeable"? That is probably a more accurate depiction of the situation anyway."

Alright, if that is necessary.

"No matter how you slice it, the VP stated what he felt. You or nobody else needs to demur his words as if he meant something else."

But that doesn't prevent me from criticizing what he said.

"In fact, to demonstrate how correct I am, if there was a need to clarify anything, he would have done so by now."

Not necessarily.

"He was asked. He stood by them. Your interpretaion of what he was saying has no value what so ever. "

It has as little or more of a value as yours or anyone else's here.

"Any further attempt to explain the rationale behind what the VP meant only reflects poorly on your ability to present your opinion on the matter."

His exact motivations are indeed a matter of speculation. Something which all of us here engage in with surprising regularity, I might add.

However, I can definitely continue to question his words and their relevance, regardless of whatever his own internal rationale is or isn't. That bit wasn't my main point.

"I kind of relish it because I know that when a person feels the need to attack my spelling instead of addressing the issue head on, that is a clear sign of a concession as to the validity and/or strength of my point of view."

I'm glad I'm not attacking your spelling, at least, then.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Mar 13, 2007, 12:54:

Juan...i'm reading along and I see opposing points of view. in one view the person states what his opinion is of the events that took place. the other person not taking into consideration what was being told to him begins to berate the view that opposes his. I see this. I want to explain that persons point of view because its obvious that it is not understood. I use an analogy to explain it. not getting to deep just a simple clarification. You have to look at the whole thing. thats the point of an analogy. its to the point. it allows you to stand back and see the simplicity of the issue, usually giving a person a better understanding. If you micromanage the topic then you can't see the big picture. It's not about basketball. However basketball is a form of war. No people don't die but it is conflict.It is you against me. him against her. New york against Los Angeles. Germany against Russia. It applies to the topic. look at the analogy not in it. take it for what it is. then you will understand. Chess is war and a much better way to explain war. The fact is that more people know basketball than chess. that's why I used it. If you take your time then you will see that it is relevant.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 13, 2007, 13:02:

Swinn88 Shoot me then, strictly figuratively speaking, but I don't think the war in Colombia and America's role in it can be entirely and comprehensively explained through any sport or game I know of.

Some aspects of it can, but not the entire thing as a whole.

Even chess isn't really a good frame of reference for something like this.

Yes, I understand that analogies can help to better present what you, me or anyone else thinks about something. But that's it.

They represent what we think of something, but not the subject itself.

And what happens, then, when people don't agree about the analogy?

There are many aspects which don't seem to fit any analogy we could think of.

0 funny, 0 helpful.