Discussions
War in Latin-America?
Posted by Manictastic • 3/03/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: america, chavez, colombia, ecuador, farc, latin, venezuela, war
Some of you might have heard about the killing of the number two of the FARC (a rebellious group in Colombia). If you even read more you might have noticed that the killing of this figure happened on Ecuadorian territory. If you read the newspapers carefully today you might even have noticed how Colombia is now linking the president of Ecuador to the FARC.
Troops have been deployed near the border by both Ecuador and Venezuela (which supports Ecuador) and both nations have withdrawn their ambassador from Colombia and expelled the Colombian ambassador from their respective countries.
Chavez is talking war rhetoric (as he always does) against "puppet Colombia" and against the "imperialistic" USA.
Do you think there is a war looming between Colombia and the Venezuela-Ecuador?
User Comments
-
I just hope we stay out of it this time.-
I think you guys are already in this one and if this one really does escalate, start saving up gasoline because you might run out.
-
you are right. The USA will back up Colombia.
-
-
I have no clue what you're talking about, Mani. Sources?
-
Looking at the balance of power in the region I think any war will be limited to border skirmishes, I doubt that either side has what it takes to mount a successful invasion,but we could see some low level fighting erupt in the next few days, and I'd expect this could last several months, a skirmish here, a skirmish there, before all sides finally decide to pull back and let the dust settle. The US has some assets on the ground in Colombia but I doubt they would be openly involved -
Chavez talks a good game. -
A good article by Time why war is probably not going to happen. www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1719158,00.html
-
Squirmishes will happen for sure - but as for the rest, I just don't know. I'll have to scout around for some juicy tidbits about it...
That said I am concerned about US relations with Chavez - the Exxon lawsuit and freezing of assets is potentially inflammatory. If that, plus these other things are going on....there is a recipe there for war. -
It actually looks like war is about to happen. Chavez has deployed the military to the Columbia border. The Columbian army is US backed.
-
The Columbians are seeking an indictment against Chavez for sponsoring terrorism and providing funding to Farc which they allege was going to be used to obtain uranium to make a dirty bomb. It doesn't look this mess is going away this week.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7277313.stm -
as i blogged yesterday, i find it interesting that colombian troops were reportedly able to go into ecuador in the first place. does ecuador's president not have control of his borders?
-
Geesh, as if any country has solid control over its borders. Even the big ol' US of A doesn't control its borders and it has the biggest military in the world.
Besides, Ecuador is a small not very rich nation. The part in which the fellow was murdered was probably jungle since that's preferred territory for the FARC and that's extremely hard to control, just ask your Nam veterans.
-
-
Well,
The Ecuadorian President is here in my country right now (Peru) and he is quite angry. I think war will not happen unless Colombia does it again. That Chavez is a pin in the ass though-
Oh, can you tell us a bit more about the position Peru has taken towards this incident. Is Peru closer to Colombia or to Ecuador/Venezuela?
-
Well,
Our president spoke and stated that our country believes in fighting against terrorist but not by invading other countries therefore our position is that you cannot do good things by doing wrong actions. Peru had a way years ago with Ecuador however things are much better. Peru stands against all invasion to any sovereign country -
peru is just trying to be neutral and diplomatic but instead of playing it safe with "no nation should be invaded" stuff, he should come down very clearly on the point, "if you harbor terrorists, expect that you might get invaded when their victims go to kill them."
Otherwise, when the bigger war starts, the coddlers and enablers only have themselves to blame. -
So if the United States harbored terrorists (maybe not even knowing it like it seem this event was) then should any country (CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN) come in and attack on American soil? UMM,
-
The difference is that some people can be depended on.
-
I'm so used to this horrible logic:
The United States is constantly rooting out and targeting such terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was one such person and so weren't the cult at Waco but we have a bit of a contradiction on the left in our country who tries to coddle these people or to outlaw wiretapping foreign suspected terrorists calling in to the country.
But, yes, if the US harbored terrorists INTENTIONALLY then it would be a case for war and your example just sucks because Ecuador is not harboring FARC by accident. That was just one of the big weakenesses in your argument - speculating that Ecuador did not know FARC was in its jungle.
And why wouldn't Ecuador say, "Hey, we don't like you coming over our border but THANK YOU FOR KILLING THESE TERRORISTS."
Forgive me, brother, but you seem to lack intellectual integrity so just go on hating the US as it pleases you and we'll keep on killing terrorists and backing those who do. -
So if the United States harbored terrorists (maybe not even knowing it like it seem this event was) then should any country (CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN) come in and attack on American soil? UMM,
This is the best come back I've heard yet...I may have to steal it. Right now people believe that we are harboring many terrorists, right here, right now.
Maybe that's why Bush overturned the Posse Comitatus Act.
Oh, and Samfreedom- supposedly our government is fully aware of the groups we allow to stay her,e who are on the terrorist list - just the same as the terrorist groups in Pakistan - whom we've not gone after or forced the Pakistani government to go after, but I digress.... -
Actually Sam, those speculations are coming from the neo-cons, not the liberals
So maybe you should check the folks your side with before spouting off.... -
@anok
Small minds will settle for amusing each other and themselves in the absence of anything useful to say... here's to your ongoing success in that area. Congratulations... -
You asked me to tell you what groups are supposedly involved, being watched, and what actions were being taken - so I did...if that makes me small minded, what does it make you? Hmmm?
-
Samfreedom, could you stop attacking the person and their intelligence. Your points would be much more valid if presented without personal attacks. Thank you in advance.
-
-
Awesome. This should be a great opportunity to take the Venezuelan oil from a brutal dictator and return it to the Venezuelan people.
Tiny minds believe 2-second sound bytes and will fall for ANYONE who hates George Bush, Jr.
So, if the reader happens to be one such tiny mind, then feast on something written by someone intelligent with significant experience and analytical ability:
tinyurl.com/3bur3d-
You're assuming that the oil will be returned to the Venezuelan people, when in fact Exxon Mobile, right now is vying for control (via lawsuit). It won't go back to them, it will go to our big oil.
-
lol please, did you just say you read TinyUrl and that it is propagandist bull?
That's enough evidence right there for any non-lunatic to know that I'm right on the money (again).
This conversation is over...
tinyurl.com/3bur3d
(Try clicking on it... they've had a change of heart recently, lol) -
Oh thank God, you are over buddy not the conversation. You might look out for self help groups. Just an advice you know.
-
I read tinyurl a long time ago, at the request of hardcore neo-cons. I haven't gone back since...
Um, yes, it's bull. It's right up there with little green footballs, in my opinion.
Oh, does it surprise you that I read the opposing opinion's blogs? -
Same for Anok, less playing the man, more the argument.
-
-
I think sam needs to take his pills. To many problems buddy? No one is insulting why you coming in with that attitude. Control yourself kid because administrators might ban you. I hold my point. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A COUNTRY TO INVADE ANOTHER and my example was a great one. SOme poeple say the USA has terrorists and that the government knows it. So should they just attack in American soil? Please some answers but with someone mature. Ahh, also, my example about the US has nothing to do with my love for the USA. I have double nationality, grew up in the States and miss it so much, but hey, immature people what can I say
-
I second that, samfreedom is way out of line
-
Yeah, I should stop poking the trolls, lest I lose the ability to talk politics here on BC!
Sorry Nine, Goodknife, Siteproplus...I'll behave (next time! Maybe, if you bribe me with chocolates!) -
I removed some posts here not because of the substantive content but because they contained personal attacks. It is possible to engage in healthy dialog without name calling. Please stick to your arguments and refrain from calling other member's names. -
Wow, were there that many complaints, Sitepro? Sorry, didn't mean to stir up so much trouble!
-
-
What am I missing in brief? anybody?
-
Um...heehehe you've missed that I needed some fun because obviously my flirting thread wasn't doing it for me
-
oh gosh Anok, is that why you were baiting him so much? God I was just wishing he'd shut up
-
No, thats not why I was baiting...You see, this is what happens when I go over to my mother's house. I get argumentative. I should know better than to interact with her
Well, that and I do bristle at hearing certain bits of rhetoric time and time again - I can only resist for so long before I start biting people LOL!
-
-
So who will win? I say columbia because they have our weapons and our U.S. Ranger platoon advisors.
-
Honestly, there won't be any "winners", least of all the civilians there. What'll happen is they will fight, the US will step in, we take financial control, set up a puppet government, get control of the lands we originally wanted and change nothing else. Or we pull a nice little trick out of our hat like we did with Panama.
Ergo, the poor will still be devastatingly so, oppression will still be oppressive, democracy will be a sham, and the rich will get increasingly richer. -
lol!!!!
-
-
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said Tuesday that he will seek Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's denunciation in international court for financing a terrorist group.
Camilo Ospina, Colombia's ambassador to the United Nations, will go before the International Criminal Court to accuse Chavez of "supporting and financing genocides,"
The Colombian leader alleged Monday that correspondence taken from computers seized in last weekend's military raid into Ecuador showed Chavez had given $300 million to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/04/colombia.venezuela/index.html
Now this will spice things up-
yeah, chavez is looking like he's being manipulated into a corner. He better watch out, he's playing with the big boys now. Some people look like they've had enough of his antics
-
So what would happen if an international courts finds chavez guilty?
-
Good question. If it were a normal person than probably he would accept the penalty however, It is CHAVEZ, a complete an utter communist so anything could happen
-
I don't suppose it would get to that since the evidence wouldn't exactly by flying into court, but if by some chance it did I imagine the only way to deal with him would be to remove him somehow. Personally I don't think a protracted war is going to happen, I'd think it will be more like a civil war starting in Venezuela
-
Since the US has constantly voted against an international criminal court, I wonder how that would play out with regards to Chavez being tried in an international court...with regards to US actions or interventions?
In any case it'll probably just wind up as a UN sanction. -
I do not believe there is a real need to topple Chavez, he will normally be gone in a few years since he will never receive full dictatorship by his people, how hard he even tries. Remember when he lost his referendum. A new one is coming up and I doubt he will win that one.
-
-
Oh and Bush already got his nose in this issue (from cnn)
BUSH:
"I told the president that America fully supports Colombia's democracy and that we fully oppose any acts of aggression that could destabilize the region," Bush told reporters at the White House.
He added that the United States "continues to stand with Colombia as it confronts violence and terrorism and fights drug traffickers." -
from Manictastic
Geesh, as if any country has solid control over its borders. Even the big ol' US of A doesn't control its borders and it has the biggest military in the world.
Besides, Ecuador is a small not very rich nation. The part in which the fellow was murdered was probably jungle since that's preferred territory for the FARC and that's extremely hard to control, just ask your Nam veterans.
if that's the case, rafael correa (ecuador's president) doesn't exactly have firm ground to stand on arguing that his country was invaded, etc. from all accounts, colombia did not invade ecuador, take ecuador military or civilians hostage, destroy property. chavez and correa don't like having a u.s. backed ally in the region, so here's another excuse to take issue with it. and who is doing the saber rattling here? chavez and correa. we don't see colombia rushing troops to the border. i agree that we don't control all of our borders here in the u.s. if the canadians or mexicans reportedly crossed a mile over into u.s. territory to pursue terrorists who were firing at them and posed a threat, i have no doubt we'd be upset. we'd also have to accept some responsibility for not having our border properly patrolled. maybe chavez can loan his buddy correa a few dollars so he can tighten his border with colombia.-
No firm ground to stand on? I think international law is pretty clear about violating another country's soverignty. It's just not allowed without permission by the Security Council. Of course, these days the Security Council has no real value anymore since every one is bypassing their authority, just look at the Kosovo Independence and to lesser extent the war with Iraq.
If the Canadians ever walked a mile into US territory without the US knowing it, I'm pretty sure the US would already have invaded Canada, same goes for Mexico.
Every country in the world harbours "terrorists" whether knowingly or not. The European countries all have dozens of jihadis on their soil, but I do not see the US coming in and bombing them because, oh yea, it would create serious tensions between the two allies. The thing with Colombia and Ecuador/ Venezuela is that these two nations aren't really befriended and that Ecuador and Venezuela actually like the FARC and label them not as terrorists, thus letting them walk around freely. Colombia knows this and yet decided to undertake this serious offence. The Security Council won't condemn the attack because the US is going to veto.
The Ecuadorian president has the right to talk of war and legally could actually declare one, but he won't because he'd lose. I've read in El Pais that Correa said that if a Ecuadorian citizen would have been killed in the attack, both countries would already be at war. Now he's just looking for official sorry and an international condemnation, both these things he will probably not get.
-
-
A war between 2 sovereign nations in this hemisphere is unthinkable. All we can do is pray that it doesn't come to pass. Talk about a gasoline-saturated fuse, this is it. -
i think the earlier post was accurate...we may see some skirmishes, but not a full out war. there is too much at stake for all the parties involved to go the entire way.
-
war in Latin america' I don't belive ... red www.lapatriagrande.net el blog desde caracas
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
