What is the score with Ingrid Bethancourt?

Portena says on Dec 1, 2007, 12:51:

Stockholm Syndrome is used to explain situations in which kidnap victims bond with their captors. Wikipedia offers an excellent, concise explanation of this syndrome.

I feel better! I can smile at it now, I feel better. Ohhhh, better! Gnarls Barkley

NataliaV says on Dec 1, 2007, 12:57:

Ingrid does not have a baby with a guerrilla. Clara Rosa her campaign manager is the one who had a baby by a guerrilla. No one knows if she has a relationship with one of her captors or she could have been raped. I think Ingrid is genuinely sad in the picture and that it was not setup. I too have heard the rumors surrounding Ingrid and personally do not believe them to be true.

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 12:59:

I haven't read alot about Betancourt, like some on this forum have, but on the surface, it seems a lil bit of a Fairy Tale, as well... Britabroad. A lil Joan-of-Arc-esque...Such a small, relatively frail french girl, with big ideals, running for president of LOCOMBIA???

hummmh. seems a lil fishy.

...and, then from another look, reminds me a bit of what happened to Patty Hearst.

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:00:

I think Definitely LACK OF GOOD JUDGEMENT.... going to meet her captors...
IF YOU'RE NOT SMARTER THAN THAT..... I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SMART ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT...

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:01:

Kinda like Hilliary saying: She didn't know Bill was messing around, ya know....lol

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:02:

But Natalie, how does anyone really know WHAT TO BELIEVE?
How would you know, that Ingrid does not/has not had a baby?

y, un mil gracias.

britabroad says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:15:

So what has happened to Clara Rosa, Ingrids campaign manager? I take it she´s still captive too?

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:21:

she should be, if it was her idea for Ingrid to 'meet her captors'.

well, you know what I mean.. take it with a lil salt y pepper

y, un mil gracias.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:24:

Ok, so let's set some things straight to start with.
She's not just some frail, French girl. She's Colombian, with a double nationality, French-Colombian. Her father was stationed in Paris on an international assignment and she went to La Sorbonne and married a French diplomat (the father of her two children). Her dad was an ex-minister in Colombia and her mother is an ex-beauty queen Yolanda Pulecio.

She divorced from her French husband and moved back to Colombia to fight the political corruption in her country with some success. She became senator with the highest voting account in the Colombian history and started a political party, The Green Oxygen party and she was intrumental in bringing ex-president Samper to justice on accounts of corruption (he had received campaign contribution monies from the Cali Cartel)

She was a presidential candidate when she was kidnapped; she foolishly ventured into guerrilla country claiming the access for all Colombian territory being for every Colombian citizen. She made ONE huge mistake and has paid for it with five years of her life, her health and perhaps her sanity.

I have nothing but enormous respect and admiration for this courageous woman and anybody who wants to get to know her better please read her book: "Until Death Does Us Apart, My Struggle To Reclaim Colombia"

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

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:25:

It's Clara Rojas, her campaign manager who has a baby with a guerrilla. It's been all over the Colombian media.

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

Buongone says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:28:

Watched a Plan Colombia DVD last night. She was in it. She did not look like presidential material. To tell you the truth, IMHO she looked like she belongs to the Farc.

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:29:

"Until Death Does Us Apart, My Struggle To Reclaim Colombia"
Okay. My next book, right after I finish Love/Time/Cholera.

y, un mil gracias.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 1, 2007, 13:41:

Buongone, it might be too late for her. Her spirit seems to be broken. Gods what a waste. Such a brilliant woman, such a strong personality, such an honest person. She would have mad a GREAT president for Colombia.

This woman was out in the streets of Bogotá during her campaign distributing free condoms ...no, the corrupt Colombian political establishment does not approve of her and stops at nothing trying to make her look bad, but she belongs to this new, Colombian political class, together with Atanasio Mockus and some others, with new ideas, new approaches, sometimes shocking but always innovative.

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

juancegomez says on Dec 1, 2007, 14:09:

I agree she's received way too much flak after her kidnapping, even though it was clearly the result of a very risky gamble on her part. The circumstances indicated as much and luck wasn't with her that day.

I do hope there is some way to get her (and the other hostages, evidently) out of this torture, despite the government's refusal to be flexible enough (without being blind), but something tells me she will be one of the last hostages to be released by the FARC. That's the other side of her international popularity: she's has too much value, more because of what she represents for others than because of what she is in FARC's eyes (EDIT: how they treat her says enough).

As for politics...who knows. I don't know if she would have been a successful presidential candidate without her kidnapping in the first place, despite her performance as a congresswoman, without either joining a strong coalition (sort of a proto-PDA, maybe?) or making her own party strong enough (unlikely), in such a polarized environment.

britabroad says on Dec 1, 2007, 14:36:

Seems a very complicated situation and background. The UK documentary I saw was basically pro Ingrid, but also showed her as a bit whiter than white, as if she saw herself as some kind of saviour for Colombia with all of the answers. Of course, this is the British media and who knows what bits were edited out. What annoyed me was that it showed all Colombians to be either ignorant and impoverished or members of either FARC or the ejercito. Black and white - when there´s so much more to the current situation than that. Was her political party left-wing or otherwise?

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

NataliaV says on Dec 1, 2007, 14:37:

Desi - I agree completely with you. I also enjoyed reading her book. I did buy a documentary about her and the campaign. I'll have to fish through my vhs tapes to find the name.

Rikito says on Dec 1, 2007, 15:18:

It is too bad for all of the hostages to be kept this way and with no hope. If you are going to negotiate with someone you have to have something to negotiate with. The Colombian government has whatever they want. FARC has only one thing...the hostages. If FARC lets the hostages go then the negotiation is over and so is FARC. The Colombian government will be all over FARC like white on rice. FARC will never let the hostages go..they cannot.

I know that "Expatriate", considers me a Bushie and full of BS becasue he knows all, but if you asked me I would offer to give FARC free and safe passage to Venezuela. Let them fight thier fight with the only true friend they have besides, "Expatriate", Let then lie in the mud with Hugo.

Always remember, if FARC let's the hostages go while they are in Colombia the party is over for them. Killing people is very easy to do for FARC regardless if who they are. In my book Ingrid is a living martyr. Was she wrong in going into troubled territory and against advise. Perhaps...we do not know what she knew at the time or what she was thinking. Whatever it was I do believe that her ulrimate motive was to have a positive impact on her only country...Colombia.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

Portena says on Dec 1, 2007, 15:22:

Keep in mind, britabroad, that if Ingrid does get released and she comes across as pro-FARC at that time, the FARC has had plenty of time to adjust her attitude and political outlook.

I feel better! I can smile at it now, I feel better. Ohhhh, better! Gnarls Barkley

Buongone says on Dec 1, 2007, 15:30:

Desi,
This woman was out in the streets of Bogotá during her campaign distributing free condoms. Now is that something that a presidential candidate should be doing? Come on ! You have someone else do that for you. You show up for a photo op, and go on with the real deal. Now, I don't know too much about her past. That was just my thought. Now, is what alot of PBH readers do/don't understand is the complixity of the overall mess that has griped Colombia since the Days of Violencia, (spelling might be right/wrong). The FARC, ELN. Paramilitaries, Politicians, Rich elite and such. This is a giant cookie to crumble. All parties have made some very serious mistakes. Now I don't condone Kidnapping! That's an awful experience for anyone too go through. IMHO I believe the process is so screwed up after so many years of trouble, that it will never be settled out, to a satisfactory result for all parties envolved. But I wish the country of Colombia the best. I still plan on living there. Just don't get involved politically. Or for that matter, even express your political views. We have all seen what happens, whether you are right/wrong. Curtains.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 1, 2007, 15:32:

No, her political party is just a bit off the center. Can't really qualify it as left-wing.

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

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 1, 2007, 16:42:

It's a bit of a Catch22, isn't it, that without getting kidnapped Ingrid would probably never amounted to anything more politically than a marginal also-ran presidential candidate. Now that she's been kidnapped, she's a global celeb and all of that, but at a terrible cost.

I hope that in the end she's released unharmed and becomes the Prime Minister of France. They certainly love her more than most of the Colombians I know.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 1, 2007, 16:49:

I've never understood the dislike many Colombians feel for her. It's not natural; it has to be fabricated by the media.
I believe she'll have a magnificient future as a politician in Colombia. If she survives. If she survives with he sanity intact.

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

Sam Salmon says on Dec 1, 2007, 16:52:

"I hope that in the end she's released unharmed and becomes the Prime Minister of France. They certainly love her more than most of the Colombians I know."

LOL!

Hollywood-you da Man!

' a la orden!'

Sam Salmon says on Dec 1, 2007, 17:08:

This latest from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7123142.stm

' a la orden!'

billyb says on Dec 1, 2007, 17:26:

"Buongone, it might be too late for her. Her spirit seems to be broken. Gods what a waste. Such a brilliant woman, such a strong personality, such an honest person. She would have mad a GREAT president for Colombia."

It is natural, the overwheliming majority of Colombians have only comtempt for her, it's only Europeans (particularly the french) that have this romantic image of her (sort of like they do for the FARC) and she would have been a disaster as president. Not that she would have been close to being elected, as she was only polling 4% when she was kidnapped (through her own fault), which might explain why she made such a foolish gamble to try create a media expectacle by going into rebel held territory. I hope ALL the hostages get released.

billyb says on Dec 1, 2007, 18:21:

"Such a brilliant woman, such a strong personality, such an honest person. She would have mad a GREAT president for Colombia."

You got all this from reading her book? What did you expect her to describe herself as? As a slow witted, weak kneed, dishonest dilitante? Too funny.

Lisa Zee says on Dec 1, 2007, 19:08:

YOU HAVE TO READ THE BOOK, and know her background to be able to give an opinion. INGRID IS BRILLIANT.
I agree with you Desi100%!!!. Desi, esta gente no tiene la menor idea de lo que dicen de ella, ni los Colombianos que dicen que se lo meresia.
No one, but no one, on this earth deserves to be kidnapped. I hope she get out alive and lives healthy and re unite with her children, and one day writes a book, I will be the first to read it. Ingrid is a fantastic writer.
How can anybody be so cruel, and say she is posing!!!???. Try being in her shoes or any one kidnapped!

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 1, 2007, 19:10:

"I've never understood the dislike many Colombians feel for her."

Look in the Colombian social dictionary under "No dar papaya". That explains it.

goin_south says on Dec 1, 2007, 22:59:

I hope she gets released and has some life after that.
That in itself is probably wishful thinking.
Remember patty hearst?
Didn't she just subside, back to having the life resembling just about any average american?

But, I agree with the other 'anti-' commentarios here.
Passing out condoms in the streets of Bogota?
Quien es... la payasa? (chavez or betancourt?)

"...was drawing 4 % in the polls for the presidency..."
Thanks, billy. Now, that is a little-known statistic.

But,... I will forever be bewildered by her going_out into the land of the Farc....
I still and will forever wonder....."WTF was she thinking???"

Still, as I said earlier today: that is like... if you aren't smarter than that...
then you aren't smart enough to be my president....

y, un mil gracias.

scotty says on Dec 1, 2007, 23:44:

sad situation with the captives

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

ellbee2 says on Dec 2, 2007, 06:40:

I would like to address all of the posters in this string who are making the veiled implication that Ms. Betancourt somehow "got what she deserved". I suspect you are the same people who hold the view that some rape victims "were asking for it" by dressing provocatively. You're all idiots! She (and all the captives) did nothing wrong. Think about it, she went to try and improve a bad situation with words and logic, and now has paid for her "mistake" with her life. How many of you Macho posters are willing to go outside of the suggested norms to stand up for what you believe and effect a positive change in your beloved Colombia? Your suggestion that she should have headed the warnings are bizarre. If more people in Colombia would stand up to the thugs that control your country, you might not be in the situation you are.

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 07:24:

No, it was her co-workers and it was not under the presidential campaign, but before, when she was campaigning for the Senate. She wrote about it in her book. Ingrid has listened to some bad advice and she does have enemies but it is total BS to say that "an overwhelming majority of Colombians despises her". I talked to a lot of people and that was not the impression I got. The Colombian political establishment prefers other type of women politicians, the more docile kind, always impeccably groomed, nails done, expensive accessories and belonging to old money families. Ingrid is/was a strong, oponionated, a little rash and totally fearless woman politician and most Colombians never knew what to make out of her. I have nothing but admiration for her.

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

Gator says on Dec 2, 2007, 08:41:

We have found that the majority of Colombian would not have voted for her and many consider what she tried to do as a last-ditch effort to boost a failing campaign.. Tia Desi, your statement, "The Colombian political establishment prefers other type of women politicians, the more docile kind, always impeccably groomed, nails done, expensive accessories and belonging to old money families."certainly does not fit Noemi Sanin (Posada ). She would have gotten our vote as president.

Her big mistake was she changed “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar“ into "I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore."

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 10:15:

Funny that you say that, Tio Gator. It was just her I was thinking when I wrote that statement! Noemí has always distinguished herself as being both smart and well-educated. She was also part of the Belisario Betancur government that failed to handle the Justice Palace Takeover getting all those people killed by letting the goons take over, she was the minister of communications and applied hard-handed censorship on radio and other media covering the tragedy.

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

john_stark says on Dec 2, 2007, 10:20:

I despise Ingrid Betancourt. I hope she rots in the jungle.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 10:24:

Isn't "despise" a little too strong a word, Utopia? Have you read her book? Do you know her personally? What has she done to you to deserve to be despised like that?

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

john_stark says on Dec 2, 2007, 10:28:

To me she is a shining example of exactly the kind of person who creates so much harm and havoc in this world. She has a typically European kind of arrogance. It's karmic that she is getting exactly what she deserves from the FARC.

john_stark says on Dec 2, 2007, 10:29:

I only associate with known paracos in Colombia so I think this leaves Ingrid off my party invite list.

billyb says on Dec 2, 2007, 10:36:

Lisa, usted es la que no tiene la menor idea, I don't have to read her book to know she is full of shit. I have met her personally and one my cousins grew up with her and her sister and knows them well. While I hope the best for her, you and Desi don't really know didley. Elbee, don't be a moron.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:03:

I would even venture to say that none of us knows very mych about her except what we've heard other people say, read about her, not even you Billy. Perhaps your cousin just has some personal issues with her...I only know that based on what she wrote in her book. her political career in Colombia, her statements and her actions I find NOTHING dishonourable about her and nothing that that would warrant the her to be called arrogant or despiccable.

Those are words that come out of other mouths, her political enemies, the paracos, the maffiosos, the corrupt politicians that have eveything to gain in tarnishing her reputation. I find it a kind of low that people that she would normally defend and be friendly with are kicking her down at her hour of her deepest misery. Shame on you!

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

Lisa Zee says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:11:

Thank you Desi.

billyb says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:14:

No, actually my cousin not only knows them well, but likes them very much, as do I, in a social setting, but as far as politics is concerned, she is a lightweight, and all you and Lisa know of her is what she wants people to know from her book, so please don't pretend to know more about her than you do.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:35:

I can't understand you, Billy. Just because Ingrid does not share your political views is reason enough to detest her? Even if she's a nice person?

No, I don't know her personally, but everything I've heard and read only confirms my high opinion on her.

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

billyb says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:42:

I don't detest her as a person, as I already said, I like her. But you said she was a brilliant politician and would make an excellent president, based only on reading a selfserving book, and I am saying that she would be a disaster as president. Liking her and wishing her well, whilst not admiring her politically are not mutually exclusive, I would have thought that you would be able to grasp that concept.

manINred says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:46:

".I only know that based on what she wrote in her book... " I don't know much about her, but isn't she prone to painting herself in a favourable light in her own book?

The same issue arose with Roy Keane in his book about ditching the Irish national team. I love Keane being an ex-united player, but honestly, can we take what he writes about himself without a grain of salt? Perhaps. I think he's brilliant despite being absolutely mad, but i'm biased.

I think one thing is clear, she does not deserve to be rotting away in the jungle in some FARC camp.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:50:

Ok, Billy, you've made your point. I thought you had said she was full of shit.
It was Utopia who claimed to despise her and wish she would rot in hell.

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

billyb says on Dec 2, 2007, 11:56:

It's all good Desi, if i despiced people for their politics, I would not have anything to do with my brothers :))

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 12:00:

I'm pretty much in the same situation with my gringo brothers...haha.

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

kalder says on Dec 2, 2007, 12:57:

I read Ingrid's book and found it uncomfortably gushing and sentimental. My wife thinks she was just plain stupid for wandering off into the jungle.

None of which warrants the contempt and insults she's eliciting from a lot of posters.

She might be la-di-da, misguided and 'French' (and I don't care if she is or not. Or see how it matters), but I can only feel the utmost pity for the poor woman.

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

lpdiver says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:05:

Desi...actually he didn't say that he hoped that he wished she would rot in hell. He said he wished she would rot in the jungle.

You see it's people misquoting one another here that causes most of our problems...o;

jejeje

t

"cook some rice!"

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:15:

elbee2.... if you speakin at me....
I didn't say that Ingrid got what she deserved.
She obviously,....MOSTLY... is a very bright person.
dont miscontrue, what I said.
As Desi pointed out yesterday, she made ONE BAD DECISION.
----
And, that one bad decision... confounds me.
And, if you thinking that MORE COLOMBIANS NEED TO STAND UP TO THERE CAPTORS in like fashion... yeah, right... more prisoners.
---
I'm not Anti_Ingrid..
Just that that one decision was..... ???

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:19:

"""....one my cousins grew up with her and her sister and knows them well...." (bb)

Awhhh... Billy, now we know: you have close ties to las Farc!
.. ;)

y, un mil gracias.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:23:

Kalder, that's fine, You don't need to be on the same page with her and yet you can feel a little empathy for her. It's these callous, cynical, condemning remarks about the poor woman who took a very high risk to prove a point she had made and lost her future, her family , her health and her liberty at the gamble.

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

lpdiver says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:26:

Stupid is as stupid does. Still doesn't make it acceptable though.

t

"cook some rice!"

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:28:

I'm certain... I will never know the circumstances surrounding her decision to bungle in the jungle with the farc... but to me (thank you kalder, I'm with your wife....not literally... don't go looking).... but, that thought that she would be able to survive that rendevous with LAS FARC,.. is about the same as Evil Knievel jumping 18 buses ... whatever... HE KNEW... he was going to pay a price.

If she's 'all that', as for the good she could have done for Colombia.... well, I think she made a lame decision.. and she could have been doing much more... outtadejungle.....right?

y, un mil gracias.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:36:

She wasn't going to a rendezvous with the Farc. She went to San Vicente de Caguan, a guerrilla-controlled town in Colombia to a meeting with her supporters there that had been set up before. She had been making a point that her obligation was to all Colombians, no matter how far away and isolated they lived; she asked president Uribe for a military escort and he refused. She mad a bad decision and went anyway, together with her campaign manager Clara Rojas. The ladies were intercepted on the road.

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

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:40:

ok

y, un mil gracias.

billyb says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:43:

"she asked president Uribe for a military escort and he refused."

As he well should have. That is a ridicuolus expectation. Sending a few soldiers into the heart of Farclandia, would have been condemning them to certain death and torture. Desi, do you think it right to sacrifice the lives of simple soldiers so your hero can score political points?

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:45:

I didn't say anything about it being or not being right. Only that she was nervous and concerned about going there.

I was basically just telling goin_south the details of her abduction that he obviously ignored.

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

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:47:

what was she listening to then?
not her heart

y, un mil gracias.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:49:

She asked President Pastrana, not Uribe.

;-)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:51:

I'm not sure, but I'm under the impression that she has been rather ill-adviced on several occations. Her second husband, I can't recall his name, is one of her most prominent advisors and I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the box. Perhaps I'm wrong; it was just something he did or said but I don't remember the details any longer. It's just that the impression of him being bad influence on her that has lingered.

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

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:53:

Yes, Tinto, my mistake. The talks with the Farc had just ended and Pastrana was the president.

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

slguy says on Dec 2, 2007, 13:57:

I know very little of the woman, so far be it from me to talk about her ideals or her courage.

One can make a case, it seems, that she's a special woman- who made one mistake.

But this mistake was huge- and not an easy one to make, like for example, "oops- I forgot to take the laundry in today". She willingly went to a place that was rife with danger for her. There's a reason why in battle, generals are not usually found involved in hand to hand combat on the front lines.

Regardless of her motivations for such an ill-advised venture, it shows either a stunning naivete, or incredibly bad judgement. With all due respect, in either case, I wouldn't want her running my business, much less my country.

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

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 15:08:

thank U

y, un mil gracias.

john_stark says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:03:

People like Betancourt think they can go anywhere and do anything with impunity. She would have made a terrible president because she is not a strong and ruthless leader, the only kind of leader that a place like Colombia can have.

Colombiche says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:17:

I am torn between feeling for Betancourt and just thinking she is a naive dunce.

I recall one particular speech she made to the FARC where she got teary eyed, at that particular moment she touched a tender nerve near my heart. She came across as having very genuine intentions and feeling her plight.

On the other hand, it annoys me to see the big mess she has caused by putting herself in harm's way, now we have France meddling with Colombia's affairs.

I hate to concurr with Jonh Stark, but at that particular point in history Colombia needed a heavy handed, no nonsense leader and Ingrid was not that leader. She would, however, make a good politician in France.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:34:

jus 2 refresh the memory... Ingrid was running for Prez the same year, against Uribe? 2002?
So, it's going on 5?... maybe 6 years of life in the jungle?

y, un mil gracias.

Colombiche says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:35:

This is very sad though. Ingrid looks to be in very rough shape. Bless her soul.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:39:

What would her age be now?
.................
How long..... could this go on?

y, un mil gracias.

Colombiche says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:41:

I think she turns 46 in a few days. Looks like she is in her 60's in that video. Pobre mujer.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

Lisa Zee says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:52:

Me parte el alma verla asi. Yo me moria en dos dias!

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 2, 2007, 18:55:

Her birthday is Christmas Day. Probably had to suffer through a childhood of "twofer" presents. Haha.

msaucey says on Dec 2, 2007, 19:52:

I keep looking at the video, and it seems like it is only Ingrid that is in such bad shape.... Is she being tortured or isolated more then the others... I think her spirit is dying, which is harder to revive than anything else...

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

Colombiche says on Dec 2, 2007, 19:56:

True enough. She might be neglecting herself completely due to hopelessness. It's easy to talk about Ingrid from the comfort of our homes, but who really knows what she is going through.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 2, 2007, 19:58:

It's really common for anyone held prisoner to go through terrible depression. There's no reason she would be any less prone to it. Not to mention all the parasites, and awful diseases like malaria and dengue you can get out there in the jungles.

manINred says on Dec 2, 2007, 20:03:

5 years... think about it, that's such a huge amount of time.

Sra. Betancour is proof that you cannot substitute idealism for pragmatism and common sense in Colombia.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 2, 2007, 21:30:

Sorry for jumping in a little late in the discussion. Just wanted to clarify one flawed assumption from those who think Ingrid was somewhat naive or misguided or that she made an error when she went to San Vicente.

Disclaimer: I'm no supporter of Ingrid. I feel very sorry for the woman, but her politics were not aligned with mine.

Pastrana had said, in the bullshit style that Uribe turned into an art form, that after closing the dialogues in San Vicente, his priority was the safety of the population. Ingrid had a thing about calling bullshit on stuff like that, and she did. In the press conference that she called prior to her trip, she pointed out that the local population were at risk. The government said there was no such risk for the local population, but that it wouldn't provide security to Ingrid.

Pause here. Aside from the blatant contradiction, providing security to every Colombian is not a choice of the government, it is its Constitutional duty. Ingrid emphasize that when presenting here case, in a perfectly well thought way, to the public. Everyone, INCLUDING HER, knew very well what she was up to, because everyone, including Pastrana, knew that the government then, as now, was full of shit. It may have been that she had a vocation for martyrdom, but she definitely wasn't stupid.

What probably caught her by surprise, though, is that instead of showing a bit of solidarity, many Colombians displayed contempt toward her. Colombians should be ashamed that the French make stronger efforts to get her back than our own government. But instead, you have people whining about how the French don't care about ALL the kidnapped. What a bunch of horsecrap!! Since when are the French obliged to care for OUR problems? Like the Americans care for their own 3 guys, the French care for their own too, and us Colombians probably care more about our navel. We should be ashamed.

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

Sam Salmon says on Dec 2, 2007, 22:24:

"Pastrana had said.....that after closing the dialogues in San Vicente, his priority was the safety of the population. Ingrid had a thing about calling bullshit on stuff like that, and she did. In the press conference that she called prior to her trip, she pointed out that the local population were at risk. The government said there was no such risk for the local population, but that it wouldn't provide security to Ingrid."

The bullshit is all yours Sr.

The simple fact is that as long as there was no large Govt security presence then the safety of most citizens wasn't threatened-and even if it was the Govt was unable to do SFA about it because in practical terms they were so weak and disorganised.

It's typical Colombian short sightedness (I'm being polite here) that got her into trouble and is manifest in the sheer pendejada you've posted.

"Colombians should be ashamed that the French make stronger efforts to get her back than our own government. But instead, you have people whining about how the French don't care about ALL the kidnapped. What a bunch of horsecrap!! Since when are the French obliged to care for OUR problems? Like the Americans care for their own 3 guys, the French care for their own too, and us Colombians probably care more about our navel. We should be ashamed"

This is some of the dumbest reasoning I've ever seen you put up here-you're either being intentionally disingenuous or you have completely lost touch with reality.

' a la orden!'

manINred says on Dec 2, 2007, 22:26:

But what did she plan to achieve by wandering off into the jungle? All she did was provide the FARC with a very powerful political hostage. I'm sure she was politically savvy, however you have to wonder whether she made an err in judgement, and perhaps turned out to be naive on this occasion, as she wandered off to San Vicente. Unless her plan was to get caught by the rebels in order for the civil war in Colombia to receive even more international attention than it was already getting.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 2, 2007, 22:34:

No Sam. "In practical terms" the government wasn't weak and disorganized, and if it was Pastrana wasn't admitting it. The real fear was that a bunch of paracos were waiting for orders to go into what used to be the DMZ and do their own justice to those who showed support to FARC in the area and the government wasn't going to do shit about it. If you recall, what many people thought was that the paracos would get Ingrid, not FARC. In any case, as I said, and point at me exactly where I am wrong: "providing security to every Colombian is not a choice of the government, it is its Constitutional duty."

So much for the bullshit and the pendejada. And how is asking to stop expecting others to care about our problems "the dumbest reasoning"? What exactly do you suggest?

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

Sam Salmon says on Dec 2, 2007, 22:52:

"The real fear was that a bunch of paracos were waiting for orders to go into what used to be the DMZ and do their own justice to those who showed support to FARC in the area and the government wasn't going to do shit about it."

Typical bogey man conspiracy bullshit-it never ends-which is why people suck so hard/long on that teat.

Grow Up!

"point at me exactly where I am wrong: "providing security to every Colombian is not a choice of the government, it is its Constitutional duty.""

If there aren't enough soldiers and the political will/physical means to organise them into an effective defence force then what's written in the Constitution is worth less than the paper it's written on.

This is called the Real World.

All the tragedy that Colombians have lived through and you still don't get it.

' a la orden!'

Sr Tertius says on Dec 2, 2007, 23:29:

"Typical bogey man conspiracy bullshit"

Oh, please! Like getting indignant is convincing at all. Amnesty International had warned about the situation

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/eslAMR230232002?open&of=esl-2m3

And if you don't believe them, then you can check the archives of any news agency at the time.

http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2002/03/06/hoy/mundo/47328...

Pastrana took the warning seriously, at least in discourse, and when it was mentioned regarding Ingrid's security it was taken as a threat. Now, I'd like to see why you think why several news agencies, HROs, a president, Ingrid, and the journalists at her press conference, why all of them conspire to make us believe that the paracos were waiting to go into San Vicente.

"This is called the Real World."

I don't know about your idea of the "Real World," but in mine, there is a thing called The Law. And you should abide by it. And if you don't you are a criminal. It's pretty simple and straightforward.

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

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 23:35:

"....Aside from the blatant contradiction, providing security to every Colombian is not a choice of the government, it is its Constitutional duty...."

hummmmh. Now, that's a nice idealistic bull-shit tertiary way of lookin at the world. Yeah, like every or any government can do that, right? What a bunch of dogma b.s.... Let's face it, Sr Tertius... you're jus anti-government...blatantly.

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 23:38:

It's not even the realistic duty of a government to 'PROTECT THE PEOPLE'; they can't.
They can barely clean up, after the mess... if they get there an hour or two later.

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 2, 2007, 23:39:

liberal bs idealism, ST

y, un mil gracias.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 2, 2007, 23:45:

Well, GS, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally like to keep my government and the people that work for me on their toes. I don't suppose you expect any services from your government, do you? It must really piss you off to pay taxes.

"Yeah, like every or any government can do that, right?"
Like MY government should ATTEMPT to do that. Most civilized countries do, in fact. Just look at the French with Ingrid.

But, alas, whining to foreign governments must be the non-idealistic non-BS way of looking at the world.

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

goin_south says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:00:

'your government'? jejja.. the people that work for you?? jaja..
"....attempt...".
what is your 'claimed' government, ST?
I take it, that would be Colombia... even though you are here in the EEUU, exploiting the Great American Economic Opportunity.. while you don't care to live under the current conditions in Colombia?

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:01:

all 'idealism'... dream on.
dream on.

y, un mil gracias.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:05:

I put MY government in the generic form. But I see that you chose to be a dick and go personal. It's becoming your style. Is it so hard to discuss "liberal bs idealism" that you need to be an asshole to do it?

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

goin_south says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:08:

now, you're hurlin insults at me, to distract from the silliness of your discourse.

from now on, I'll refer to you as: LC (lil chavez) jejj

y, un mil gracias.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:16:

Don't be sneaky GS. I've being a gentleman all along. You chose to be an asshole and I called it, that's it. If you think my "discourse" is silly, point out at the silliness not at me; I'll be happy to discuss it all you want. And if you think it helps your case to call me names, fine by me. You can call me "meanie" if it suits you.

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

goin_south says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:19:

I think I did: "from the silliness of your discourse."
You meanie, you!

y, un mil gracias.

goin_south says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:23:

y, un mil gracias.

travelingirl says on Dec 3, 2007, 00:24:

Hilarious. I hadn't heard this song in a while.

Around her hair she wore a yellow ribbon...

john_stark says on Dec 3, 2007, 05:57:

"I don't suppose you expect any services from your government, do you?"

No, I don't.

"It must really piss you off to pay taxes."

Yeah, it does.

slguy says on Dec 3, 2007, 06:06:

Let's see.

If a soccer mom gets curious, and chooses to go into a drug-infested slum at 1:00AM on Saturday night, it's the goverment's duty to provide a police escort.

If some idiot chooses to go over Niagara Falls in a fokin' barrel, the government should have a net waiting for the fool at the bottom.

And when a woman politician chooses to go into FARC country knowing that she is a prime kidnapping target for the FARC, her delusional, or maybe naive decision, and it's terrible aftermath, really only amount to an abdication by the government of their duty to her.

Have I about got it right, SrT?

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

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 3, 2007, 07:44:

Let's keep this discussion civil.

slguy says on Dec 3, 2007, 08:00:

"Let's keep this discussion civil."

Was that for me, Tinto?

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

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 3, 2007, 08:04:

No. It's for the people above that are using personal insults or baiting/looking for a fight.

slguy says on Dec 3, 2007, 08:36:

OK- just checking. jajajajajajajaj

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

ellbee2 says on Dec 3, 2007, 09:02:

I was about to re-enter this discussion, but I choose not to lower myself to participate in this childish name calling. Too bad, because you both (Sr T & Goin South) were making some legitimate points, but you just couldn't keep it on an adult level.

My two cents... Colombia has a population of approx 42 million, yet only 700,000 pay income taxes! The USA has "donated" 5 BILLION $$$ since 2000 to Colombia. I and all Americans have given a higher percentage of my hard earned dollars than the average Colombian inputs. So how can you honestly comment on what a Colombian can expect in return from thier tax dollars. To paraphrase JFK, the Colombia mantra seems to be "Ask not what your Country can do for you, ask what the American Government can do for you".

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

juancegomez says on Dec 3, 2007, 09:26:

Avoiding most of the other issues being discussed at the moment...

ellbee2: "My two cents... Colombia has a population of approx 42 million, yet only 700,000 pay income taxes!"

I'm not going to look up the figures right now, but it's true that direct tax evasion is very high, obviously including income taxes.

However, different kinds of taxes and duties, such as VAT and others, end up affecting far more people. I think you should take that into consideration before making generalizations about taxes in Colombia.

"The USA has "donated" 5 BILLION $$$ since 2000 to Colombia."

Leaving other issues aside...considering how that aid breaks down and how much of it never even leaves the U.S. in the first place (at least half of 2006 aid, IIRC, went to contractors), a lot of it is really no "donation".

Not to mention that, in terms of Colombia's own budget, making any comparison is a bit ridiculous (the defense budget for 2007 alone surpasses that six-seven year figure, and that's only some 10% of the total budget...kind of provides a different perspective, doesn't it?).

"I and all Americans have given a higher percentage of my hard earned dollars than the average Colombian inputs."

Questionable, at least based on the information you're providing and considering what I've mentioned.

"So how can you honestly comment on what a Colombian can expect in return from thier tax dollars. To paraphrase JFK, the Colombia mantra seems to be "Ask not what your Country can do for you, ask what the American Government can do for you"."

Some people here may well share that last sentiment, but I think you should re-evaluate your own ideas as well.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 3, 2007, 09:32:

Sometimes I feel like a Colombian tax payer. All those $31 USD airport departure taxes and $5 tourism taxes add up. As does the extra $26 to visit San Andres.

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 3, 2007, 09:36:

Sr. T. in all due respect, Ingrid's choice to "call bullshit" on the inability of the Colombian govt to provide security for all the citizens of Colombia seems rather dumb.

Let's just imagine, for example, that to prove the point that the Bush administrations effort to "secure" Iraq and "spread democracy" there has failed and is bullshit, one or all of the Dem candidates hop on a plane, fly to Iraq and go for a walk around Sadr City. Predictably, they will all be taken captive and,eventually, have their heads chopped off on TV. Great, they proved their point! So what?

I believe Ingrid would not have gone to that area unless she believed she was somehow immune to being taken captive by the FARC. Whether that was due to some kind of "understanding" with the FARC that wasn't respected, or whether she simply thought they shared her idealism, we'll never know.

Whatever it was, it's silly to blame Pastrana for her problems.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 3, 2007, 10:05:

I believe Wikipedia tries to be balanced but sometime the partisans hijack an article. I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is an accurate portrayal but here it is...

==============

The Kidnapping

Several Colombian political figures continued to attempt to visit the demilitarized zone even as the talks ended.[citation needed] Most candidates for political office that intended to do so backed off when authorities warned them of the danger. Ingrid Betancourt, as another one of these candidates, insisted to be taken to the former DMZ by a military aircraft. President Pastrana and other officials turned down this petition arguing that neither they, nor the Colombian Army, could guarantee her safety during the turmoil that would follow the retaking of the DMZ. Additionally, Betancourt was running for president in the 2002 elections; aiding her in such a request meant that the government was rendering its resources to Betancourt's private political interests. Agreeing to Betancourt's request would also mean that the government was either backing a candidate for the presidential elections or that it then had to assist every single candidate in their demands of using official and military resources for their private interests.

When denied transport aboard this military helicopter that was heading to the zone, she decided to head into the DMZ via ground transport, together with Clara Rojas, her campaign manager who was later named running-mate for the 2002 election, and a handful of political aides. On February 23, 2002, she was stopped at the last military checkpoint before going into the former DMZ. Military officers insisted to her and to her party not to continue in their effort to reach San Vicente del Caguan, the village used for the peace talks. San Vicente's mayor was the only Oxygeno elected official in the whole country by that day. Intense fighting was taking place inside the DMZ and the security situation was rapidly deteriorating. Betancourt dismissed their warning and she continued her journey, being kidnapped by FARC, who have held her ever since. Ingrid still appeared in the ballot for the presidential elections, as her husband promised to continue her campaign. In the end, she achieved less than 1% of the votes.

===================

britabroad says on Dec 3, 2007, 16:13:

Thanks everyone for the lively, interesting, varied and informative discussions.The subject certainly rouses strong viewpoints. There´s also a very obvious feminist issue here.
It would seem that many Colombians feel that Ingrid did what she did to score a political point, which unfortunately for her, her colleagues, and their families, backfired badly.
However, and whatever Ingrids motives were, kidnapping is a henous and torturous crime.
Thanks everyone who contributed.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

Sr Tertius says on Dec 3, 2007, 17:42:

Slguy: I am not saying that the government should protect people from their own stupidity, so the Niagara Falls example doesn't apply--and by stupidity I mean going out of your way to harm yourself. I don't think that was Ingrid's case: She had a commitment to go to San Vicente, and she deemed it her moral duty to be there. Would I have done that? SHIT NO! My whole and only point here is that she did what she did not out of ignorance: She knew very well what she was getting into. To score political points? Mmmhh... maybe. Those were some expensive points though. Given her record, I am more willing to believe that she did it out of principle. She played it on the edge all the time, and clearly articulated the risks of talking to narcos, unveiling corruption within the government and so on. Sometimes she even seemed to have some sort of martyrdom complex of sorts, but one thing was certain: The woman wasn't stupid. She could've easily got killed for disclosing the connexions between members of government and the Cali cartel; would anybody have said "such naive woman, what did she expect, that she can make those accusations and remain alive?" What Sam and GS suggest is that yes, any whistleblower is an idiot, because he should not expect protection from the government. I disagree.

The soccer mom example is interesting though. Let's say she knowingly goes to a bad neighborhood and gets mugged (don't need to get too dramatic). Are you suggesting that if she goes to inform the police about it, or if anyone complains about the high level of criminality in the area, it is a perfectly justifiable response to say "what were you doing there at that time? you were looking for trouble!" I don't think so. Look, I'm not saying that the government has to be perfect, but their duties have to be clear, and one of them is to keep a minimum level of safety across their territory. If it is fine for people to get kidnapped because they went into (or live in) the wrong neighborhood, then there is no problem to solve, as if the fact that the neighborhood is dangerous is an inherent, natural part of its existence. If you think that that is true, well then, we have a drastic difference in assumptions. I think a more practical approach is to assume that there is a problem, assume responsibility, and try to fix it. The way the DMZ was dismantled was horribly wrong--reports of forced displacements, targeted assassinations, and terrorism abound--and Ingrid is proof of that.

Mr. H: I hope I made it clear why I think the Pastrana administration was responsible not only for the safety of Ingrid but of the inhabitants of the former DMZ. Had she been kidnapped despite the efforts of the government, I'd be more lenient, but no such efforts were made. (I know some people like to point the finger at FARC, but that assumes that they are a political organization that can take responsibility for things. I don't give them that much credit: As any other kidnappers, they're just criminals that should be dealt with through the penal system. The kind of responsibility of the government is political; they have it precisely because they are the legitimate bearers of arms, and that legitimacy is based on the fact that they protect the population... I'm going on a limb here).

Anyway, your example reminds me of people that did something very similar to what you mention. There were some people that volunteered to serve as "human shields" for civilian infraestructure like water plants and hospitals in Iraq during the invasion. Attacks to civilian infraestructure of that sort are crimes of war and they thought to call attention, even with their own lives, to crimes of war that could be committed during the invasion of Iraq and which could've easily gone unnoticed. Certainly, there are other ways of doing the same kind of denouncement without putting their own lives at risk, but I suppose they felt strongly about it and thought their life was worth the purpose. I would never call that kind of action stupid, no matter how much I may disagree with it. It may be extreme, even fanatic, but certainly not stupid or naive. I think there is a strong analogy between Ingrid's actions and the actions of "human shields." It seems to me that she intended to serve as a human shield for the people of the DMZ. If anything, what she may have miscalculated was that the public could give a fuck about those living in the DMZ.

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

Sr Tertius says on Dec 3, 2007, 17:48:

"Additionally, Betancourt was running for president in the 2002 elections; aiding her in such a request meant that the government was rendering its resources to Betancourt's private political interests."

Sorry Tinto, but that's false. Various governments, Uribe included, have provided security and transportation to candidates campaigning in "zonas rojas." One such case that comes to mind was when Navarro Wolff of PDA was offered transportation by Uribe, personally (he even said "my helicopters," but I don't think he meant literally his own, but military helicopters), so that he would be able to campaign in the south.

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

slguy says on Dec 3, 2007, 18:15:

" I am not saying that the government should protect people from their own stupidity"

Of course you are.

If she made a commitment to go to a place that the entire government told her was too dangerous, then went after repeated warnings, even being warned again at the last checkpoint- the government did their job just fine, in my view. She just chose to ignore everyone, including, apparently, her own misgivings. The reasons for making such a commitment aren't really material, are they? She was told repeatedly NOT to go. She went anyway. My Niagara Falls analogy is EXACTLY appropriate.

"Are you suggesting that if she goes to inform the police about it, or if anyone complains about the high level of criminality in the area, it is a perfectly justifiable response to say "what were you doing there at that time? you were looking for trouble!"

You know perfectly well that I said nothing of the sort. I said that the soccer mom has no reasonable expectation of a police escort to PUT herself in harm's way. Two entirely different scanarios, and you are too bright not to understand the difference.

Governments, thank God, don't have the capacity to protect each and every citizen from their own stupidity. Nor do they have an obligation to try, although most do, anyway. How would you have felt if a family member was a member of a helicopter crew who lost their lives in ambush, taking that woman on some Joan of Arc mission, that was very clearly ill-advised, even before she made the commitment to go? Would her reasons for going have mattered to you, if your son died in such a scenario? Of course not. You would still be pissed that he died because some politician threw her weight around enough to get a government escort into FARC territory.

No matter her motivations, the poor woman is paying the price now for her own stupidity.

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

Sr Tertius says on Dec 3, 2007, 18:59:

Slguy: You've made your point clear, and I hope it is transparent where we disagree. My question about the soccer mom was rhetorical and poorly articulated, I apologize for that, but you got the idea. I don't expect that my government will hire an escort for me, but if there is crime in my neighborhood, it is clearly their job to do something about it--they, and noone else, have the means and legitimacy to fight crime. I hope we agree on that last statement.

I think our disagreement is on the justification of her actions. I think that, despite all the warnings, her actions were justified, because Pastrana knew about the consequences of lifting the DMZ the way it was done and showed very little concern for the local population that the military was supposed to protect. And lied about it too. Saying "don't go in there" didn't serve any purpose for the people of San Vicente. So, to answer your last question, yes, I would be very pissed if my son died in the scenario you describe, but I wouldn't blame it on Ingrid: As I see it, they would've been both doing their job. I'd be more angry at FARC, and also at the government that didn't do anything to prevent such predictable situation.

I don't mean to persuade you of my position, I just want to clarify it.

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

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 3, 2007, 22:24:

Sr. Tertius, I don't think Ingrid was going there to protect the people of that area. She was in the middle of a freakin' political campaign. It was all about trying to gain votes. Whether it was idealistic or not doesn't even really matter.

Let me put it another way, my government, the US Government, flat out warns people not to go to Colombia. If I ignore that warning, which I do, I do so at my own peril. When I travel in dangerous regions, as I am known to do, if a local authority warns me not to go somewhere because it's dangerous, it's not really a reasonable response to start harping on their "duty". They've warned me, and I can listen or ignore at my own risk.

And, finally, just imagine the outcry if Pastrana had given her the military transportation Ingrid wanted and THEN she got kidnapped and a bunch of soldiers killed. Now, THEN, I'd say the government would have been really at fault.

slguy says on Dec 3, 2007, 22:28:

"As I see it, they would've been both doing their job. I'd be more angry at FARC, and also at the government that didn't do anything to prevent such predictable situation."

But- they (the goverment) did exactly what they should have done, Refused to put anyone else in harm's way, and repeatedly told Ingrid not to go, either. I just can't see how you lay this in the lap of the government.

From my perspective, flawed and ignorant as it may be, there was no real upside to her little escapade, and LOTS of downside. By that I mean - suppose she hadn't been captured or killed. Setting aside the "I kept to my commitment" blather, since irrational commitiments are not necessarily viewed as dishonorable to ignore in the face of life and limb risks - what was the upside? Nobility? Honor? i imagine most people that might have seen her return unscathed would be muttering "that stupid lucky broad got home ok? WTF?". Decisions regarding risk to life are and should be evaluated on a risk vs. reward basis. Maybe I just don't understand the potential reward in the equation...

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

goin_south says on Dec 3, 2007, 23:25:

si, si, si..... babble, babble, babble....
tertiary socialistic (an insult to socialism) Idealistic.... BABBBBLE.

y, un mil gracias.

webmanco says on Dec 4, 2007, 11:36:

But, I'm going to start making some assumptions here.... Which means I might actually end up making an ass out of myself ..........Thu 04 17, 2008 11:34 am

billyb says on Dec 4, 2007, 11:59:

Or how about if Pastrana had sent a squad of soldiers to escort her to El Caguan and they would have been ambushed (as they most assuredly would have)and let's say you would have had 5 soldiers dead and another 15 (additional) being held hostage and tortured for the 5 years, but the remaining few got her out alive, would that have satisifed you that the governament had done its duty?

Lisa Zee says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:03:

LET US CONCENTRATE IN THE "NOW". I am glad this is out there. The past will not solve the problem NOW!.

slguy says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:24:

anyone who ignores past mistakes are bound to repeat them.

there's always something to be learned from history- whether we like the lessons or not, no?

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

billyb says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:27:

We're not solving anything on here anyways, just talkin'.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:30:

I agree with LZ: The focus should be on NOW... but, before that...

Mr H, slguy, billy: Your tacit assumption that I don't agree with is that the security situation in the DMZ was something like an accident, like a river that flooded, that just happened, and the government, ever so willing to lend a helping hand, warned people that it was too dangerous to go there. That is a false assumption. The government, along with FARC, was complicit in creating a dangerous situation for the people living in the DMZ. The government was told by various organizations not to leave the DMZ and bring in the armed forces the way the chose to do it, that there were other options, but they chose to ignore the warnings. I'm looking for some of the goverment communiques of that time on the internet, but I can't find them, so I guess you'll have to take my word for this (or not): Pastrana said something like "don't worry, it is going to be pretty safe for the people in the area" and then Ingrid said that she wanted to go there and campaign, like any candidate, and Pastrana said "well actually... y'know what, it is not really safe." If I was her I would've stopped right there. She called Pastrana's bullshit clear in the open, but she thought that wasn't enough. So, I insist that the choices made by the government--along with the actions by FARC and some paracos in the area, obviously--were responsible not only for Ingrid's fate but also for the fate of many locals who had to leave or that were killed. And I insist that she didn't go there out of sheer idiocy, but extreme, maybe fanatical, conviction.

Now, the NOW. Good point. What do we do now? What's the plan? Apparently the semiretard of the Peace Comissioner is going to France, I'm not sure to accomplish what. And I read in El Tiempo that Uribe has been explaining his "formulas" to bring back those kidnapped to the presidents of several countries. Why doesn't he explain his formulas to his own constituency? Maybe he has and if so, please, could someone tell me what is the plan? The only thing I hear from him are the "inamovibles" and how FARC is not willing to accept them. Okay, fine, so given that situation, what is the goddamn plan?!

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

goin_south says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:38:

He told me, but......He asked me not to advertise it PBH

y, un mil gracias.

billyb says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:40:

"She called Pastrana's bullshit clear in the open, but she thought that wasn't enough"

So she has no responsability for her actions, aren't we masters of our own destiny, do we put our fate in other people's hands? It is everybody else's fault? Regardless of what Pastrana (and I agree, he was full of shit) said when turning over part of the country to the enemy, even a slow 10 year old knew that the area wasn't safe to go into, yet she did anyways, so the ultimate responsability for her situation is hers and the FARC's and nobody else's.

slguy says on Dec 4, 2007, 15:40:

I'd like to hear your plan, SrT. How does this decades-old problem get resolved?

I'll once again admit to my shortcomings regards the history, so I am incapable of proposing a realistic solution. But, it's my understanding that FARC has morphed from a leftist, anti-government guerilla movement into basically a for-profit mafi-type enterprise. Specifically, extortion, kidnapping and control of the regional drug production/laboratories.

I'm not sure that political solutions are applicable, if my assumptions are correct. But I'd love to learn more.

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

la campiña says on Dec 4, 2007, 16:24:

I read her autobiography a few years back and a stimulating read it was especialy when it cuts short because of the obvious, an amazing foto with her and the just about to kidnap you farc.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 4, 2007, 16:38:

"So she has no responsability for her actions, aren't we masters of our own destiny, do we put our fate in other people's hands?"

Obviously not: There are levels of responsibility. The criminal responsibility is all FARC's. The political responsibility is mostly of the Pastrana government. The personal responsability, that's hers. She took a well-thought risk and she lost: Now she is facing the consequences. Pastrana took a risk and also lost; actually he didn't lose anything (unless being ambassador to the US is some kind of loss), the people in San Vicente were the ones who truly lost. And FARC, well, hopefully the day will come when they will meet fair justice (but I'm not too optimistic: Their leadership will probably die of old age).

Slguy: Short answer: I don't know. I know that a purely military solution hasn't worked for decades; it in fact has made things worse. So the solution has to be somewhat different. Exactly what? I'm open to ideas. I've heard a bunch of original ideas, and some seem more viable than others, but no goverment (and certainly not Uribe) is willing to try them. The thing is, I think that the central government is part of the problem, so this may only be solved by intense pressure from public opinion or local governments. I haven't seen much of that lately, though.

I think we shouldn't be too ambitious with this problem. Because it's not going to be solved any time soon, we should at least make it more bearable. I'd be willing, for instance, to swallow a recognition of belligerant status to FARC if they are commited to fight within international humanitarian law (and the government too!: http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl) That means no more kidnapping of civilians, the possibility of swapping prisoners of war, no more attacks on civilian infrastructure, no more recruiting minors, no torture, etc.

Like everyone else, I know that FARC are not particularly the sisters of mercy but, for some reason, these guys really crave international repute and particularly the status of a belligerant party in an internal conflict. If that is given to them (no territory, nothing) contingent on not breaking IHL, and the government also abides by IHL, I think it is a win-win situation. At least it's worth a try.

Finally, regarding the plan to save those kidnapped, I really truly have absolutely no clue about how to save them. Again I'm very open to ideas. If the government says that they are going to try military operations, well then, try them: At the end they end up dead or saved. If the government says that they are going to negotiate, then do so. As I've said many times, I don't care what plan is implemented as long as there is A plan and they implement it. And I (like the rest of the public) don't even need to know the details of the plan, just give us a general idea, some benchmarks, some goals and dates to accomplish them, and leave the details to the generals or the negotiating team. But, honestly, does anyone believe tha