You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #13: Context, or rather conclusions you assume to be true... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Latin America Donate to DU
gbscar Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Context, or rather conclusions you assume to be true...
Edited on Sat Mar-22-08 06:56 PM by gbscar
"The context is that Colombia is a client state of the US and for the past 40 years the US has been arming Colombia to the teeth to do exactly what it is doing make provocative moves at the request of the US."

Do you have any concrete proof that completely supports this exact description of the situation, without resorting to conspiracy theories or extremely selective interpretations of the circumstances?

Has Colombia been a "client state" for 40 years? How many provocative moves has it engaged in during those same 40 years? Has the U.S. really been "arming Colombia to the teeth" over those decades?

Not really, but I guess it's nice rhetoric and anti-imperialist so it must be true.

"No matter what happens, FARC must remain a major threat so that the US Congress will continue to fund Plan Colombia."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. I wonder if that ability can be transmitted to others.

"Any attempt by FARC to attempt a denouement in hostilities is rebuffed and sabotaged by the Colombians."

Oh, so they are the only ones who want a reduction of the hostilities but the government won't let them...which is why there was never any cease-fire or any significance and in fact they increased kidnappings in order to extort a prisoner exchange out of the government just a few years ago, when they were supposed to be talking about "peace".

"I dont care if the camp had FARC, Al Qaida, Sendero Luminoso, or Patty Hearsts old gang, the Symbionese Liberation Army init, the attack by Colombia violated the OAS charter (see below) and UN resolutions about aggressive measures against sovereign states."

It did violate the OAS charter and I suppose other international treaties or laws...but if you're going to bring UN resolutions into this, we would also have to consider those resolutions which talk about terrorism, for example, and other subjects. There is more than one legal case to be made here.

"his was an incredibly hostile act and was potentially dangerous for the citizens of Colombia. But, when you are the puppet of the US, you are often commanded to do things directly against the safety and well-being of your population."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. No proof needed, you already know all about those "commands" or how and when they actually apply.

"If you watched the video of the Rio meeting, Uribe was flitting around like a fly to shake hands with Chavez, Correa, and Ortega. He knows he came close to having his head handed to him on a platter."

Ignoring that this was all at the direct request of the host, I suppose.

"As for the attack in Ecuador, it was less about FARC and Colombia and far more about the US and Chavez and Correa."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. You are supposed to know the "real" motivations behind the attack and can see into the heads of those behind it.

"Going after Reyes was important, but much more important if it allowed the laptop issue. Chavez was wise to put troops on the border immediately."

Apparently many in Venezuela believed otherwise, and even in Ecuador's El Comercio many people responded to a poll saying they didn't exactly share his reaction. But I guess you're wiser.

"He knows that most of the US provocations against him have been executed through Colombia."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. Are you keeping a tally of said "provocations" or are you even in a position to say that they are in fact mandated by the U.S.? Not really.

"Some people have wondered why he re-established diplomatic relations with Colombia. During the hostilities, the Venezuelans were in a virtual intelligence blackout and needed to get their diplomats back to Bogota so they could start collecting intelligence again."

Let me're supposed to know why those people were removed and why they would be sent back there.

"So the next story you hear about Colombian provocation against these states (and others), dont bother wondering about Uribes motivations. He has none (except money)."

Let me know all about Uribe's motivations. What crystal balls you must have.

"All Uribe does is give the command to unleash his mercenaries in whatever direction the US asks. So when Colombia pulls some crap like they did on March 1, it is critical to analyze how the US is involved and what their motivations are"

Let me guess....see above.

I think that rather than analyzing, you are speculating and trying to assume way too much about the motivations of personalities and collectives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Latin America Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC