U.S. Involvement in Colombia

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Thank God the lefties are a minority!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia (Written by SiV)
Only in America, eh?

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia (Written by ColombianoX)
I think it's a good thing, Colombia needs all the help she can get. But I disagree with the comparisons to Vietnan. Colombia is a democracy with modern armed forces. To check out the colombian armed forces go to:

http://www.mindefensa.gov.co/galeria/galeria.html

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Hé what does Bush think....that he is god or what.




Let him stay in his own country and play god in the white house.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Hé what does Bush think....that he is god or what.




Let him stay in his own country and play god in the white house.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Thank (which ever diety floats your boat) that all the right wing Nazis are in America. It'll be easier to kill them all in one place

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 23, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia (Written by Greg)
This is just the beginning and it isn`t good

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia He's Baaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Who? I'm in the dark here!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia You've always been in the dark lefty.......

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia I'm not the lefty you idiot, I was asking who is "Baaaaaaack!!!!!!"

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia IT is almost stupid to send 150 soliders. Either you dedicate fully or not at all. We still have not learned for Somalia. Aas far as vietnam. the problem could be the same if we all Colombia to order strikes and if we depended on their intellegence as we did with the south vietnamese in Vietnam. IF we go we go in full force under the command of US general only. Also Colombia has to take a number. Iraq is first, South Korea is second and then maybe Colombia. (Maylasia and Afganistan are about finished and we have to continue to do them one by one.)

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia North Korea, you stupid American. Look in an atlas, you do have those things, right?

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 24, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Who are you to say what he meant, stupid!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Well I took an educated guess. If you stupid Nazi Americans actually knew about the world outside of your own insular doorstep, you would know that Sth Korea is a great political friend of the US. How dod I know? Because I live in Sth Korea you fucking moron. Now tell what asumption YOU would make based on the activities of the other countries listed in his post? BTW, in Sth Korea you can walk anywhere anytime in any part of the country and feel safe. I never lock my car or my door. We don't live in a violent society here. Hey maybe that's why he wants to invade Sth Korea. ENVY, it's such a terrible curse.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Play nicely, children!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia How DOD you know?

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Hey lefty you're lapsing into raving idiocy again!




Maybe that cold wilderness?

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia why is the guy an idiot? Sth Korea IS a democracy.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia Hey cunt, I don't give a fuck.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia (Written by Greg)
Thought this might be an interesting discussion but just another round of bashing. too bad

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia i posted this with the idea and hope we'd get some good arguments back and forth, but unfortunately, it seems like the level of intelligence from most people that post on this site is pretty limited.




too bad.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Feb 25, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia SHALLOW!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Mar 6, 2003, 21:00:

RE: U.S. Involvement in Colombia (Written by Dre)
Sending Troops will not solve the issue or even make it better. Name countries in which we deployed troops and actually made a difference for the better? The only one I could think of is Panama and that was justified because the dictator was involved in the drug trade. The situation in Bosnia has been going on for years and we still have troops there. Whoever said Afghanistan is just about finished, I would have to say needs to conduct more research (even though I agree with troops). A friend from work just came back due to an injury which he sustained from a rocket attack on military barracks. Which he said happens frequently. Do not believe everything you hear in the news. Remember this, in 10 years Afghanistan will have the same issues, even after all the invested military (which costs billions).

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

TioCharlie says on Jan 11, 2004, 00:31:

US tropps have helped out many Here's afew countries where US troops have made a Positive impact:
1. Grenada
2. Cypress
3. Germany
4. S Korea
5. France
6. Japan

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 06:01:

Positive/negative TioCharlie, define *positive* impact. Would you care to compile a list of all the places where the US. military presence have either made a negative impact or made no difference at all?
Cheers,
Desi

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 10:22:

Japan had a large empire which included Korea, now it could be wiped out by Korean nukes any day and has to live with Korea test firing ballistic missiles over it - now Japan's only defense is to beg the cowboy Americans not to piss Korea off, I am sure they are greatful to the US:)

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 10:40:

ANOTHER GUATAMALA OR VIETNAM? UN Truth Commission Report on Guatemala:

http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page36.html

The report found that while many acts of violence were perpetrated throughout the war, during the period from 1981 to 1983 these acts descended to the level of genocide directed against elements of the country's indigenous Mayan population. During that period, entire indigenous villages were burned and their inhabitants were slaughtered. The report condemned the "aggressive, racist and extremely cruel nature of violations that resulted in the massive extermination of defenseless Mayan communities."

"the United States government and U.S. private companies exercised pressure to maintain the country's unjust socio-economic structure. In addition, the United States Government, through its constituent structures, including the Central Intelligence Agency, lent direct and indirect support to some illegal state operations. "

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 11:41:

State Department in Colombia About this time last year I was coming back from a visit to the beautiful country, and when I was in the airport lounge waiting for my flight home, I spotted 2 guys that were obvioulsy from the USA. I, being English, went to go and talk to them and in the course of the conversation discovered that they both worked for the state department (my question was 'business or pleasure' and they replied business etc etc ) One of the guys was dressed like a total hippy/vietnam veteran style guy, the other was wearing smart/casual clothes. It made me wonder about the US involvement in Colombia...

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 13:31:

I provided the link, not just isolated quotes, to a United Nations report on US involvement in a Latin American country that went through something very simular to what Colombia is going through.

And Guatemala is a good example of why US involvement in LatAm should not be disregarded with the Democracy vs. Communism pretext. In 1953 the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala in response to attempts to nationlized their fruit industry - not to any communist threat. These actions have not stopped even though the Cold War has been over for a looong time.

-vladimiro

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 16:21:

How do you start a new forum topic here? Do you have to have to have an account?

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 20:16:

I don't know about Chavez in Bolivia, but Castro's on a roll becuase social issues are causing too much unstability to ignore. I read in the Economist that all though he is guilty of politcal repression, Castro has always dedicated much larger sums of money to education, health care, etc. than the rest of LatAm. The Economist used Castro as an example of what the rest of LatAm needs to do. I think his supporters in LatAm are mostly people like Lula, that agree with these policies but are against dictatorship at the same time.

Regards,
vladimiro montisinos.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 11, 2004, 20:31:

Cuba Sera Pronto Libre Regarding US support for democracy, there are many examples that indicate US uses democracy and human rights as a tool against its enemies, and fights against democracy when it is against US interests. Bush recently said, 'Cuba sera pronto libre', but he has a completely different attitude towards the US-backed dictatorships, and is currently fighting against the Iraqi campaign to have direct elections for their national assembly, preferring to indirectly select the candidates through cacuses because of concerns that an anti-American, or Iranian influenced democracy will come to power.

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lalo says on Feb 8, 2004, 21:07:

I just want to add that I'm impressed with some of the POV's in this thread. The amassed intellegence is staggering. I mean that in a positive way. Where does one come by the kind of information that allows this kind of dialogue? I'm bl;own away!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 9, 2004, 14:02:

Further reading I suggest to anyone who´s interested in reading in further detail about US foreign policy (particularly in Latin America) these few books:
Rogue State by William Blum
Anything on the subject by Noam Chomsky
Bitter Fruit (ac´t remember the author)

All of these are pretty accessible, Rogue State in particular, and very thought provoking.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CCHICKG says on Sep 16, 2004, 10:24:

President Bush I am glad that president Bush is going to try and help Colombia in any way that he can. Colombia should be happy to have President Bush on there side. I mean I dont think he should invade Colombia or anything but do something to help us.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Sep 28, 2004, 11:44:

King George Bush doesn`t give a dam about the Colombian people. His only interest is stability in the region so U.S. multinationals can safely rape it

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Oct 17, 2004, 14:36:

chemicals I am sure all those chemicals they are supplying/using are going to be really good for the local people and the ecology of the area. I am even more sure that Bush doesn't lose any sleep over it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.