Right and Simple

Sr Tertius says on Dec 30, 2006, 19:50:

Well said I like this part in particular:

"I have never been able to get a politician to define "instability," much less show any interference in other countries by the Venezuelan government [thank you].

Colombia, now in its fourth decade of civil war, was unstable long before Hugo Chavez even graduated to long pants. We [the US] are most likely a contributor to Colombia's instability, because we are pouring money, arms and military advisers into the country. Venezuela has done nothing in Colombia [thank you, again]."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Dec 31, 2006, 01:22:

chavez communist, scumbag, tyrant, aggresive, controlling, building up forces, mentally unstable...tune in the news every day...he is going to do something...that can effect colombia or USA or the whole western hemisphere. he's a little castro wanna be. and should be considered dangerous.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 31, 2006, 09:22:

It's mostly quite nice overall, but i do differ in places... Curiously enough, one of them is precisely the part that Sr Tertius finds rather appealing.

But, for the record, I'll clearly state that I complete agree with several of the other points that I'm not going to really address here (such as the proven futility of the drug war and the rest of the needless demonization of Mr. Chavez).

"Colombia, now in its fourth decade of civil war, was unstable long before Hugo Chavez even graduated to long pants."

1. That Chavez is hardly to blame for any of that is self-evident. The real question would be whether Chavez has or hasn't actively contributed to any instability since his rise to power, even if the answer still seems to be "no, not really, as far as is currently known".

2. But the issue of Colombia's stability/instability per se is a whole different ballgame. If anything, it could be argued that Colombia's remarkably stable for a country "in its fourth decade of civil war" (a "civil war" which curiously has been and is far less threatening to the country's stability and national integrity than the one currently brewing up in Iraq, I might add...). It's become a stable instability, if you want to put it that way.

"We are most likely a contributor to Colombia's instability, because we are pouring money, arms and military advisers into the country. Venezuela has done nothing in Colombia."

Yes and no, if you ask me. The whole framework of Prohibition and U.S. policies / pressures in that direction is definitely a contributor to Colombia's instability, but not all U.S. aid to Colombia, even if it's far too militarized, can be equally classified as such. Part of the U.S. aid can arguably be considered to be positive, even in the military sphere, even if the policies and premises that support it are still flawed.

And "Venezuela's not doing anything in Colombia" isn't such a nice thing either. Lack of help and solidarity, even if it's not a crime and definitely not an active promotion of instability, still isn't something to be applauded, by any means. If your neighbor's house is burning, you may not be to blame for the fire, but you do share at least the blame for lack of help and solidarity if you don't "do anything".

"I will tell you flat out that if I were a Colombian police officer, watching the way the courts deal with drug violators in the U.S., I'd be damned if I'd get myself killed trying to protect some American movie star or politician from his own vices."

I think that the average police officer isn't really thinking of doing that in order to "protect" people in another country from themselves either, so that's really not the point, even if the drug war is obviously futile and misconceived.

"Just remember that when it comes to drugs, the corruption is here in America, not in Colombia."

It's actually in both, and elsewhere too, strictly speaking.

0 funny, 0 helpful.