NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7274038.stm

could get even messier but the United states probably wont intervene.

Chavez would be foolish to invade a neighbor. I don't think this is a plan to cross into Columbia rather a defensive move. I see this as not becoming a big deal.

Chavez would be foolish to invade a neighbor. I don't think this is a plan to cross into Columbia rather a defensive move. I see this as not becoming a big deal.

I do agree but at the sametime, ten battalions is a hell of a defensive manuever.

Venezuala will get bombed if Chavez tries anything with Uribe's government, to be quite honest.

its all penis waving

Columbia supplies the gas for Brazil and Argentina, its untouchable

With all those troops along the border all it takes is one incident of violence against them or by them to start further skirmishes between Venezuela and Colombia, then a small war.
I guess you gotta do something with all that drug money.

This is basically Chávez having made a deal with FARC, if you ask me. He gets a few freed hostages who in a case of Stockholm Syndrome heap him with praise on state television, FARC gets potential backup or safe zones to retreat to if the government launches an offensive once the hostages are free.

its all penis waving

Columbia supplies the gas for Brazil and Argentina, its untouchable

Which has to do with Ecuador and Venezuela how?

Which has to do with Ecuador and Venezuela how?
Because Brazil and Argentina are major powers in the region and would make anyone seriously think twice about attacking a nation that might bring them into the war against the attacker...

Obviously.

Which has to do with Ecuador and Venezuela how?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is sending thousands of troops and tanks to the border with Colombia

you might want to take a Geography class ;)

Because Brazil and Argentina and major powers in the region and would make anyone seriously think twice about attacking a nation that might bring them into the war against the attacker...

well the two have been having rap battles over who get priority on Columbian gas (which is currently Brazil because it buys more)

When I read the title of this thread I thought someone on vacation drank the water. :p

you might want to take a Geography class ;)

You might want to take a class on Contextual Reading. I was asking what Columbia supplying gas to Argentina and Brazil had anything to do with supposedly stopping Ecuador and Venezuela in their tracks.

:rolleyes:

well the two have been having rap battles over who get priority on Columbian gas (which is currently Brazil because it buys more)
"Yo soldiers so lame, they can't take the Falklands"
"Yo, yo cars so lame, you can run them off sugar"

Right?

When I read the title of this thread I thought someone on vacation drank the water. :p

LOL

I laughed! I cried! I grew body hair! I laughed some more!


Btw, on a more serious note...did anyone ever notice before that Brazil borders EVERY SINGLE country in South America except for Chile and Ecuador?

http://www.greece-map.net/south-america/south-america-map.gif

You might want to take a class on Contextual Reading. I was asking what Columbia supplying gas to Argentina and Brazil had anything to do with supposedly stopping Ecuador and Venezuela in their tracks.

because Chavez is mobilizing troops at Columbia's border...the place with all the gas...

it would have the same affect of Iranians massing troops (if that was Geographically possible) at the Saudi border for the US

"Yo soldiers so lame, they can't take the Falklands"
"Yo, yo cars so lame, you can run them off sugar"

Right?

but with nuclear power plants being built

because Chavez is mobilizing troops at Columbia's border...the place with all the gas...

it would have the same affect of Iranians massing troops (if that was Geographically possible) at the Saudi border for the US
I already explained it to him..he's choosing to ignore my answer.

Btw, on a more serious note...did anyone ever notice before that Brazil borders EVERY SINGLE country in South America except for Chile and Ecuador?

you should be more weirded out that Brazil borders France :p

could get even messier but the United states probably wont intervene.

God, I hope not. No matter what happens, someone will be pissed though.

"You should have gotten involved!"
"You should have minded your own business!"

Me, I'd rather hear the former than the latter.

God, I hope not. No matter what happens, someone will be pissed though.

"You should have gotten involved!"
"You should have minded your own business!"

Me, I'd rather hear the former than the latter.
Given the current situation in the world right now..I would too.
you should be more weirded out that Brazil borders France :p
Bah I knew that already..

Btw, on a more serious note...did anyone ever notice before that Brazil borders EVERY SINGLE country in South America except for Chile and Ecuador?



Possibly related to the fact that Brazil is fucking huge?

This combined with the increase in military spending that each country is doing will probably lead to SAW I.

you should be more weirded out that Brazil borders France :p

LOL!!! I know I am.

Unless someone attacks BRAZIL ITSELF, Brazil cannot, due to our constitution, declare war so freely, THANK GOD!

what about Brazilian gas?;)

Because Brazil and Argentina are major powers in the region and would make anyone seriously think twice about attacking a nation that might bring them into the war against the attacker...

Obviously.

Unless someone attacks BRAZIL ITSELF, Brazil cannot, due to our constitution, declare war so freely, THANK GOD!

what about Brazilian gas?;)

It's not our territory.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550589

more discussion on the Latin American arms race there

-promotes own thread- :p


Btw, this is getting more fun each moment. All of this crap going on, right before I go to Venezuela this summer. Woohoo, maybe I see dead bodies or something. I'll take pictures of me poking one. :)

Nothing to settle a little domestic discontent by hyping a non-existent foreign threat, eh there Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bush?

Yeeeeah.

Methinks Chavez is finally losing the last remnants of his marbles.

I'd suggest the US do something, but we're a little overstretched at the moment. The best we could do is use our air force/navy to provide air support.

Brazil, you're the regional superpower. Would you mind handling this one for us?

Unless someone attacks BRAZIL ITSELF, Brazil cannot, due to our constitution, declare war so freely, THANK GOD!

Really? Upon reading this, I decided to look up Brazil's constitution. I haven't read the whole thing (does anyone aside from the US have a short Constitution?), but it states that the National Congress has the power to authorize the President to declare war. Could you source the part where it limits the power of the Congress to declare war?

I can't wait for the leftist Western Chavez apologists to start giving the reasons why the U.S. is behind all of this.

A realist solution is to have Chavez killed, but we are not strong enough for that kind of policy.

Then again, that's the solution to dealing with all of these nations we have problems with.

Nothing to settle a little domestic discontent by hyping a non-existent foreign threat, eh there Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bush?

Indeed. Classic politician's tactic.

Chavez would be foolish to invade a neighbor. I don't think this is a plan to cross into Columbia rather a defensive move. I see this as not becoming a big deal.

Oh I don't know. I think Chavez may need something to get him in the headlines again, and Columbia is a very pro-US government that Chavez would love to do away with. I'm not going to say for sure that they would do it (it probably depends upon how many other neighboring countries side with them) but the motive is definitely there. I'm giving it a 25% chance, with the major players who will "push the button" including Brazil and Argentina, who I know have sided with Mr. Chavez in the past. Still though, for the United States to get involved more then defensively in this would be foolish. Assuming this happens (again 25% chance at best), it would be far smarter for us to let Mr. Chavez have his little show and THEN state our reasons for going against him, but not until a few newsworthy atrocities have happened. It's a tough decision and a sad one, but the world is far too poisoned against the United States for the US to stop this one - we'll just have to let them see the consequences of their own anger first.

Indeed. Classic politician's tactic.

Damn shame it always backfires in the long term, don't you think ;)

Damn shame it always backfires in the long term, don't you think ;)

Well, we'll see. Chávez's rhetoric generally matches or exceeds Bush's in its brashness, but as a politician I read him as somewhat cleverer. He knows, unlike Bush, exactly how far to take things. Maybe it's the residual effects of the failed coup.

Hey Andaras, whos the imperialistic ass now?


Chavez is a peice of work. South America has been through so much (usually the fault of the US) the last thing they need is a major war (which is would be one if Argentina and Brazil threw in with Colombia).


All though, I wouldnt mind Chavez getting his ass kicked. It would sure take him down a peg.

Well, we'll see. Chávez's rhetoric generally matches or exceeds Bush's in its brashness, but as a politician I read him as somewhat cleverer. He knows, unlike Bush, exactly how far to take things. Maybe it's the residual effects of the failed coup.

I think that both the 1992 and 2002 Coup D'etat's taught him an awful lot about bombast and politics, I'm certain of that. He's seen how people can overplay their hand, and until recently, I didn't think that he'd make that mistake again. But pressuring Colombia to the point of war is excessively risky.

I'd suggest the US do something, but we're a little overstretched at the moment. The best we could do is use our air force/navy to provide air support.

Brazil, you're the regional superpower. Would you mind handling this one for us?



Really? Upon reading this, I decided to look up Brazil's constitution. I haven't read the whole thing (does anyone aside from the US have a short Constitution?), but it states that the National Congress has the power to authorize the President to declare war. Could you source the part where it limits the power of the Congress to declare war?

Article 84, 19th incise: [the National Congress has the power to] authorize the President to declare war IN CASE OF FOREIGN AGGRESSION.

It's not our place to interfere in other states.

That can be entirely ambiguous. I mean...if Brazil is being threatened through the use of force on another nation (meaning not directly involved but the apple cart is being threatened) then theoreticly, this can fall under that category.

It would, and I would imagine their president or whatever they call him could say Brazil is being threatened by forgein aggression by someone attacking an economic ally and resource provider.

Would be a good excuse to bomb Venezuela.

Article 84, 19th incise: [the National Congress has the power to] authorize the President to declare war IN CASE OF FOREIGN AGGRESSION.

It's not our place to interfere in other states.

That can be entirely ambiguous. I mean...if Brazil is being threatened through the use of force on another nation (meaning not directly involved but the apple cart is being threatened) then theoreticly, this can fall under that category.

That can be entirely ambiguous. I mean...if Brazil is being threatened through the use of force on another nation (meaning not directly involved but the apple cart is being threatened) then theoreticly, this can fall under that category.

Aggression is aggression. Besides our Constitution also states as principles the defense of peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. And should they even THINK about pulling that stunt, I'd personally try to prevent the war through our supreme court.

Would be a good excuse to bomb Venezuela.

Great idea:rolleyes:

Shouldn't Ecuador be apologizing for harboring terrorists?

Shouldn't Ecuador be apologizing for harboring terrorists?


Well, we dont know if theyre actually "harboring" them. I mean, they had bases there, but that doesnt Ecuador approves of their bases being there.

Possible but I do not know. That would be a hard sell to make. Could it be done? Yes but at what cost to the administration if it backfires?

I WOULD make it into fame should that happen though. :D

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa also ordered troops to the Colombian border, saying "Ecuadorean territory has been outraged and bombed by an air attack and the later incursion of (Colombian) troops."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_colombia

Ecuador did the samething and also according to the article, Colombia is going to apologize for the incursion.

Well, we dont know if theyre actually "harboring" them. I mean, they had bases there, but that doesnt Ecuador approves of their bases being there.

You really think that Ecuador doesn't know about FARC using it's territory as bases of operation to kill people in Colombia?

Ecuador should be bombing them, not Colombia, who I'm sure agree 100%.

It would, and I would imagine their president or whatever they call him could say Brazil is being threatened by forgein aggression by someone attacking an economic ally and resource provider.

Possible but I do not know. That would be a hard sell to make. Could it be done? Yes but at what cost to the administration if it backfires?

It'll be soley up to how it wants to be interpreted.

True. However, until the matter was settled, an order NOT to join the war would likely be issued, thus preventing it for some time. Given how slow our courts are, maybe enough time for it to be over, and surely enough time for the media and the people to have their attention drawn to it and support me.

Aggression is aggression.

Agression comes in many forms.

Besides our Constitution also states as principles the defense of peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

And what if that fails?

And should they even THINK about pulling that stunt, I'd personally try to prevent the war through our supreme court.

It'll be soley up to how it wants to be interpreted.

Could be but then...a valued partner could very well go down in flames while the courts are deciding that and that could mean something even bigger.

Anyways...this is all hypothetical anyways but it is fun to speculate on such things.

Should Brazil ever enter a war unprovoked, we would lose something MUCH more valuable than any partner: Our soul.

Plus, I'll admit I'd LOVE to take part in such an epic fight. ;)

True. However, until the matter was settled, an order NOT to join the war would likely be issued, thus preventing it for some time. Given how slow our courts are, maybe enough time for it to be over, and surely enough time for the media and the people to have their attention drawn to it and support me.

Could be but then...a valued partner could very well go down in flames while the courts are deciding that and that could mean something even bigger.

Anyways...this is all hypothetical anyways but it is fun to speculate on such things.

Would be a good excuse to bomb Iran.
Fixed, for accuracy with US foreign policy. :p

Fixed, for accuracy with US foreign policy. :p

/thread.

/thread.

woohoo! I finally got a /thread. I am complete :)

I have to admit, I find Chavez' reasoning here a bit odd. Ecuador has every reason to be annoyed at Colombia, and has taken reasonable steps to show it's annoyance. How is this Venezuela's problem?

I have to admit, I find Chavez' reasoning here a bit odd. Ecuador has every reason to be annoyed at Colombia, and has taken reasonable steps to show it's annoyance. How is this Venezuela's problem?

Alliance systems?

Alliance systems?

Except that I don't know of any military treaties between the two. I'll have to look that up though - I'm not 100% on that part of the world.

I have to admit, I find Chavez' reasoning here a bit odd. Ecuador has every reason to be annoyed at Colombia, and has taken reasonable steps to show it's annoyance. How is this Venezuela's problem?

I'm not familiar with the historic political background among Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador (it's probably involved somehow), but Chávez and Uribe have had conflicts before, in general and over FARC... and Ecuador has a leftist government to which Chávez is sympathetic.

But the real motive is domestic and political, as Andaluciae noted. That's why I doubt any of this will go beyond rhetoric. Only the US can afford to go to war for domestic political reasons.

Props to Colombia for liquidating FARC terrorists. :mp5:

If Ecuador chooses to harbor terrorists, it can suffer the consequences of its decision.

As for Baby Hugo, it's past time to educate this oafish thug on his true place in the world, because he obviously suffers from delusions of grandeur.

I can't wait for the leftist Western Chavez apologists to start giving the reasons why the U.S. is behind all of this.

A realist solution is to have Chavez killed, but we are not strong enough for that kind of policy.

Then again, that's the solution to dealing with all of these nations we have problems with.

Are you like a Freeper macro or something!?

Someone: Hugo Chavez!
Generated reply: Kill him!!!!!11

Article 84, 19th incise: [the National Congress has the power to] authorize the President to declare war IN CASE OF FOREIGN AGGRESSION.

It's not our place to interfere in other states.

Personally, I say that depends on the reason for the interference. The various nations of the world cannot simply ignore the problems of other nations anymore; we're far too interconnected for us to really be able to afford that. This is especially true when it comes to regional conflicts, as you can expect Brazil to be affected by a possible war here one way or the other.

On that same token, we shouldn't go gallivanting around like morons interfering for the sake of interfering. Sensible intervention is the key, and I am of the opinion that Brazilian intervention here would be sensible.

EDIT: Keep in mind, also, that intervention does not necessarily have to take a military form.

My sympathies lay with Colombia this time around. If there's any problem with Colombia's operation, it's Ecuador who should whine louder, not Venezuela. Also, I believe that Ecuador's Correa was informed of the operation and approved of it, and then said later that he was 'misled' (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/82970/Chavez-threatens-war-if-Colombian-troops-get-into-Venezuelan-turf). So, I think Correa also has a fault on this as he allowed the operation to operate on Ecuadorean soil without gathering information first... after all it's his territory, and he is in the position to know or verify if Colombia is telling the truth.

If the evidence is indeed true, it is damning to see that as Chavez and his allies are waving the flag of US imperialism and aggression, they themselves become the aggressors and assist in the destabilization of a neighboring country. AFAIK, Venezuela also has an internal problem with autonomists (and the governor) in the state of Zulia (bordering Colombia) so perhaps it may be an excuse to deploy more troops at the border?

meh, Colombia is hardly a 'country', it's a haven for drugs, rich oligarchs and US financial and military interests, Venezuela, FARC and Ecuador should out it out of it's misery.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550589

more discussion on the Latin American arms race there

-promotes own thread- :p


Btw, this is getting more fun each moment. All of this crap going on, right before I go to Venezuela this summer. Woohoo, maybe I see dead bodies or something. I'll take pictures of me poking one. :)

I wish nothing happens here for the time being, meanwhile you are here, or you don't get said chance of poking, or I am not around when you do it. Given the fact that if I see you taking said picture, I would take every chance I can get of removing and mutilating some protuberances off your body. And that would turn me into a criminal, a thing I do not want to become.

Shouldn't Ecuador be apologizing for harboring terrorists?

That is still to be proven. Colombian intelligence is saying they have evidence, but they still haven't published it. Until they do, every statement around this matter is just a suspicion.

I have to admit, I find Chavez' reasoning here a bit odd. Ecuador has every reason to be annoyed at Colombia, and has taken reasonable steps to show it's annoyance. How is this Venezuela's problem?

I fail to see that, too. But Chávez is an ally to the FARC, if you mess with them, you are messing with Chávez, I guess.

Alliance systems?

Every mutual military defense treaty for Venezuela involves both Colombia and Ecuador. The troubling "alliance system" here is the alliance between the venezuelan goverment and FARC, although that is hardly official.

meh, Colombia is hardly a 'country', it's a haven for drugs, rich oligarchs and US financial and military interests, Venezuela, FARC and Ecuador should out it out of it's misery.

Random marxist rant macro, I guess. Colombia is an independent country with several millions of inhabitants. FARC is an organization of less than 200,000 members. And the FARC is the main harvester and distributer of drugs in Colombia, (no, this is not US backed and financed propaganda).

You are the one who need to be cut out of your misery. If you are so deep about marxism, I advise you stop living in your australian comfortable house in the First World, move to Cuba, or even better, go to the colombian jungle and fight for your beliefs properly. That way perhaps we can get lucky and someone put you out of your misery. More likely, you can die of some tropical disease in a few weeks given your spoiled physical condition, and we are spared of your hypocrisy forever.

I do agree but at the sametime, ten battalions is a hell of a defensive manuever.

Ten battalions isn't an invasion threat. Maybe a provocation, or just some show.

I fail to see that, too. But Chávez is an ally to the FARC, if you mess with them, you are messing with Chávez, I guess.


I don't think so. More likely, Chavez is trying to show to the whole Latin America that he is the only one who's able to have a dialogue and peace talks with the FARC (see the attempts at the release of Ingrid Betancourt), and that any attempt for peace in Colombia must pass through venezuelan diplomacy.

I don't think so. More likely, Chavez is trying to show to the whole Latin America that he is the only one who's able to have a dialogue and peace talks with the FARC (see the attempts at the release of Ingrid Betancourt), and that any attempt for peace in Colombia must pass through venezuelan diplomacy.

If he wants to be a mediator, he needs to establish and maintain contact with two parties, not only one, that is what "dialogue" means, "di", going for "two". Both parties meaning, the goverment of Bogotá and the leaders of the FARC. Right now, he is in contact with only the leadership of the FARC, cutting all links to the Uribe administration. He is, then, not a mediator or a negotiator in the current conflict, he is an ally to the FARC.

Plus, he has publicy stated that he is siding with the FARC lately.

Plus, mobilizing troops to the border, chastising verbally one of the parties in the conflict, and threatening to take direct and massed military action, hardly qualifies as " any attempt for peace in Colombia", or an effort "through venezuelan diplomacy". It is more like military pressure than diplomacy, don't you think?

I don't think so. More likely, Chavez is trying to show to the whole Latin America that he is the only one who's able to have a dialogue and peace talks with the FARC (see the attempts at the release of Ingrid Betancourt), and that any attempt for peace in Colombia must pass through venezuelan diplomacy.
He's using them for his own usual ends ("Look at me, I'm a statesman!"), and unfortunately they know that he's their only chance of staying alive for any more time. The Colombian government has been a very good one in recent years, making real progress in providing people with security, getting rid of the drugs and corruption and bringing members of far-right death squads to justice. FARC is losing appeal and fast, Chávez and his fanclub seem to be the only future for Latin American leftist movements until PDVSA trips up.

Unless you count Lula of course, but he's not wearing enough red.

Props to Colombia for liquidating FARC terrorists. :mp5:

If Ecuador chooses to harbor terrorists, it can suffer the consequences of its decision.

As for Baby Hugo, it's past time to educate this oafish thug on his true place in the world, because he obviously suffers from delusions of grandeur.

You can replace "Baby Hugo" with George W Bush or New Mitanni and that statement is still accurate.

meh, Colombia is hardly a 'country', it's a haven for drugs, rich oligarchs and US financial and military interests, Venezuela, FARC and Ecuador should out it out of it's misery.

So, let me get this straight...


When a western country like the US attacks a sovereign nation to "put it out of its misery" (Afghanistan for example), than its "teh ebil w3sternz imperilizm", but when the facist masked as a socialist revolutionary Hugo Chavez does the same thing, its acceptable/


You never cease to amusse me.

If war breaks out what do you think will happen to Columbia.

Are you like a Freeper macro or something!?

Someone: Hugo Chavez!
Generated reply: Kill him!!!!!11



He basically took Andaras's marxist rant generator and rewrote the programing to make it a far right extremist anti-brown folk nationalist rant generator.

lol@ title change.
that is all, carry on your daily rants and ravings.

Personally, I say that depends on the reason for the interference. The various nations of the world cannot simply ignore the problems of other nations anymore; we're far too interconnected for us to really be able to afford that. This is especially true when it comes to regional conflicts, as you can expect Brazil to be affected by a possible war here one way or the other.

On that same token, we shouldn't go gallivanting around like morons interfering for the sake of interfering. Sensible intervention is the key, and I am of the opinion that Brazilian intervention here would be sensible.

EDIT: Keep in mind, also, that intervention does not necessarily have to take a military form.

Again: Brazil CAN intervene, but is forbidden to do so militarily, thank God. And should they EVER try to pull this crap I'd use the Supreme Court to prevent it.

From Mr. Chavez's statements, it would appear that these are ten tank battalions, not just ten infantry battalions. Placing 15,000 bonus troops on an already militarized border is bad enough, but using mechanized, mobile offensive forces is even worse.

how many tanks make up 10 battalions?
i'm guessing 100.

Ten battalions isn't an invasion threat. Maybe a provocation, or just some show.

From Mr. Chavez's statements, it would appear that these are ten tank battalions, not just ten infantry battalions. Placing 15,000 bonus troops on an already militarized border is bad enough, but using mechanized, mobile offensive forces is even worse.

how many tanks make up 10 battalions?
i'm guessing 100.

I think its more.


But either way, 100 tanks storming across your border is an excellent first strike.

I think its more.


But either way, 100 tanks storming across your border is an excellent first strike.

Especially if it's the AMX-30 an extremely maneuverable and self-supporting tank, which ranks roughly on the same keel as the T-72. Also, if you happen to be Colombia who doesn't operate a tank force. It operates a heavier armored car, the Brazilian EE-9 Cascavel and the EE-11 Urutu, which is comparable to the Russian BTR-70. They are equipped for counterinsurgency efforts, not interstate combat.

All the same, the Colombian infantry is highly trained, and likely would serve a superb defensive force if provided with proper anti-tank weaponry, such as the American Javelin or the French ERYX. Discipline in infantry is what is called for when confronting advancing armor, and the Colombian military has that in spades, thanks to a rigorous training program.

how many tanks make up 10 battalions?
i'm guessing 100.

Depends on whose army it is.

Colombia army wouldn't last long imho against Venezuela, not enough tanks (I fact I don't think they have any, just these jeep things with an 88mm gun), against Venezuelan French armor it won't be nice. In the air more even probably.

Any war would get very messy very quickly. Jungle warfare is never pretty. And frankly, tanks might not be a good idea. Colombia may be on to something by sticking to infantry.

Anyway, should a war starts, it would be a race for the capitals, and to stop the opponent's race for your cities.
I don't really like it when people start getting too concrete about these things. I rather hope you and your friends will be out on the street soon trying to get Hugo to calm it down a tad. I know I keep preaching the end of Bolivarianism, but I'm not that keen to see the end of it. I really wish people don't have to die about something this stupid.

Do you know that Venezuela supplies a large amount of Colombia's power?

Not just oil. Power. Electricity. There is this huge dam complex called the Caroni...

It is in the list of "BIG TARGETS" to destroy in both Colombia and Venezuela's war plans in case of mutual conflict.

If something starts, prepare to see a big air and land battle to try to bomb that, protect that, saboutage that, or take the control of that.

In air combat, Venezuela could have an edge due to new planes. Regarding armor, well, go and imagine the big fleet of helicopters Colombia has. It would destroy big armoured columns easily.

Anyway, should a war starts, it would be a race for the capitals, and to stop the opponent's race for your cities. No need for a prostacted jungle warfare. If both Colombia and Venezuela saboutage bridges and roads, it would be a different story altogether.

I do agree but at the sametime, ten battalions is a hell of a defensive manuever.

That's more a demonstration of strength than anything else, a way to say clearly "hey, you crossed the line once, don't dare to do it again".

Do you know that Venezuela supplies a large amount of Colombia's power?

Not just oil. Power. Electricity. There is this huge dam complex called the Caroni...

It is in the list of "BIG TARGETS" to destroy in both Colombia and Venezuela's war plans in case of mutual conflict.

If something starts, prepare to see a big air and land battle to try to bomb that, protect that, saboutage that, or take the control of that.

In air combat, Venezuela could have an edge due to new planes. Regarding armor, well, go and imagine the big fleet of helicopters Colombia has. It would destroy big armoured columns easily.

Anyway, should a war starts, it would be a race for the capitals, and to stop the opponent's race for your cities. No need for a prostacted jungle warfare. If both Colombia and Venezuela saboutage bridges and roads, it would be a different story altogether.

Lol, it supplies alot of nations power, including 25% of US domestic consumption, which is why the US would have to seem like it absolutely had nothing to do with helping Colombia because Chavez wouldn't need much of an excuse to pull the plug and give it too China instead. Also Argentina and most other Latin American countries will have to support Venezuela and Ecuador because Venezuela supplies them with oil, Argentina had their IMF debt paid by Venezuela and wouldn't even get through the winter without Venezuelan oil.

This is basically Chávez having made a deal with FARC, if you ask me.

Such lies are spread since Chávez was elected, and were never, never proved.

He gets a few freed hostages who in a case of Stockholm Syndrome heap him with praise on state television,

If you listen to the freed hostages, they are not nice with the FARC at all - they definitely don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. But they say what all human right organizations say too: the only solution to violence in Colombia is political, through discussions and national reconciliation, not through military action.

FARC gets potential backup or safe zones to retreat to if the government launches an offensive once the hostages are free.

The unofficial "agreement" between Chávez and the FARC, the same than with Correa and that with presidents of those two countries from before Chávez and Correa: since there is no way for them to control the >1000km long borders of jungle, the FARC are tolerated to enter Ecuador or Venezuela, but not to establish permanent bases nor to use weapons there. That's the only way to prevent the intra-Colombian civil war (because it is a civil war, lasting since 1946 and the murder of a candidate hated by the oligarchy 2 weeks before the election) to spread into Venezuela and Ecuador, and to shield local populations from the war.

Yeeeeah.

Methinks Chavez is finally losing the last remnants of his marbles.

Uribe is, by bombing Ecuador. That's an act of war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7274038.stm

could get even messier but the United states probably wont intervene.

This is the type of thing the US should get involved in, if Chavez and Ecuador actually send their troops marching into Colombia to help FARC.

Cause then you would have two countries illegally attacking a US ally from which the US gets most of its coffee.

I can't wait for the leftist Western Chavez apologists to start giving the reasons why the U.S. is behind all of this.

Well, http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/nota/25040/alto-mando-de-eeuu-estuvo-en-bogota-dos-dias-antes-operacion-contra-reyes/ and the fact that the location of Reyes was given by USA to Colombia...

Colombia is, sadly, acting as a military outpost of USA in the region.

Unless someone attacks BRAZIL ITSELF, Brazil cannot, due to our constitution, declare war so freely, THANK GOD!

What would Brazil do if the FARC was on its territory and using Brazilian territory to fire missiles at Colombia? Would Brazil allow that?

I don't really like it when people start getting too concrete about these things. I rather hope you and your friends will be out on the street soon trying to get Hugo to calm it down a tad. I know I keep preaching the end of Bolivarianism, but I'm not that keen to see the end of it. I really wish people don't have to die about something this stupid.

Plans about war between Colombia and Venezuela have been in existance since the XIX century. It isn't a new scenario. People just added new warfare innovations to the plans as they appeared. At least from the venezuelan side, I saw a bunch of confidential papers regarding an hypothetical war situation with Colombia back in 1999.

We didn't have all that russian equipment back then, so I guess some details have changed now.

Oh, well, we will try. The problem is that this goverment, since several horrible mistakes of some portions of the opposition, doesn't hear to those opposed to it, but just their own sycophants. And no smart opposition leader is going to summon civilian population to protest in the street in such a tense situation, unless you want them to go through the risk of getting shot for being fifth columnists and traitors. And if someone gets that idea, I will step on their toes to make them change their mind. Right now, it is better to wait and see what happens. Protests are not a smart idea. Even if you are reckless, there is no need to risk so many people.

I guess he is going to calm down all by himself. It is not like the Colombians are provoking anyone further, in any case.

However, one of the best virtues and worse flaws of Hugo Chávez is that he is completely unpredictable.

Actually it's Colombia who has broken the agreement, Reyes was the diplomatic contact for Venezuela and France is organizing the hostage transfers from FARC, their was a truce during negotiations with Reyes and Chavez was mediating the transfer. This was until Uribe (probably under pressure from Washington) assassinated Reyes with US-paid equipment, and thereby destroyed the hostage agreements and all the work over the last months and year to get them released. Attacking the kidnapper during a hostage crisis is usually the way not to get anyone back, but Uribe in his ideologically-driven militarist attitude will take any opportunity he can get, even under a hostage truce, to killed FARC members. This is not surprising from the guy who continues to bankroll right-wing death squads in Colombia who butcher peasants, dress them up as rebels, and then claim confirmed kills to the government, not to mention the systemic corruption and links to corporate interests in the US.

It should be remember that despite the slurs and distortions of this situation, that it was Colombia who fragrantly abused the territorial integrity of Ecuador, and continues to make wild unproven assertions to stir up possible conflict.

Nothing to settle a little domestic discontent by hyping a non-existent foreign threat, eh there Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bush?

Domestic discontent in Venezuela ? Chávez popularity is still above 60%. His failed referendum was mostly due to people from suburbs not voting on a "technical" subject.

Uribe is, by bombing Ecuador. That's an act of war.

actually Ecuador committed the act of war by allowing FARC to use its territory to fire rockets at Colombian forces who were in Colombia and then supporting the FARC openly now that Colombia has eliminated the leader of the FARC terrorist organization.

Actually it's Colombia who has broken the agreement, Reyes was the diplomatic contact for Venezuela and France is organizing the hostage transfers from FARC, their was a truce during negotiations with Reyes and Chavez was mediating the transfer. This was until Uribe (probably under pressure from Washington) assassinated Reyes with US-paid equipment, and thereby destroyed the hostage agreements and all the work over the last months and year to get them released. Attacking the kidnapper during a hostage crisis is usually the way not to get anyone back, but Uribe in his ideologically-driven militarist attitude will take any opportunity he can get, even under a hostage truce, to killed FARC members. This is not surprising from the guy who continues to bankroll right-wing death squads in Colombia who butcher peasants, dress them up as rebels, and then claim confirmed kills to the government, not to mention the systemic corruption and links to corporate interests in the US.

It should be remember that despite the slurs and distortions of this situation, that it was Colombia who fragrantly abused the territorial integrity of Ecuador, and continues to make wild unproven assertions to stir up possible conflict.

Actually, it is international precedent that if you allow a terrorist group, in this case FARC, to use your territory to launch attacks on a neighbor, that neighbor has the right to send troops and helicopters into your country to kill said terrorists. Witness the Turkish incursion into Iraq, Israeli incursion into Lebanon/Gaza, US incursion into Mexico in pursuit of Poncho Villa, the French incursion into North Africa, and a couple of other incidents from the 20th century. Hence it was Ecuador who violated international laws. Colombia was defending itself legitimately and if this went to the International Court, I'm sure that Colombia would be vindicated.

Of course it is possible that Chavez is only using to send troops to the break away border province and intimidate the people there by threatening to use the military to kill them.

However it should be worth noting that: in the 1930's Hitler placed tank battalions on the border with Poland and France. It was said he would not attack. The next day everyone was involved in World War II against Germany.
In 1979, Russia lined up tanks along its border with Afghanistan. It was said there would be no invasion, because it just a cold war tactic to scare the Afghans. In 1980 to around 1989 or 1990, the Soviet Union illegally occupied Afghanistan and was going around killing muslims.
In August 1980, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, massed troops and tanks along his border with Iran. A month later, we had the Iran Iraq war.
In 1990, ten years later, Saddam massed his tanks along the border with Kuwait. 2 weeks later, the Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had Gulf War 1.
The historical precedent is that if you mass tanks and other offensive equipment along your border with a neighbor, you will invade that neighbor.



I was under the impression that Brazil was allied with Venezuela against Colombia. Venezuela and Ecuador do have an alliance vis a vis Chavez and Correa. Colombia, being surrounded by hostile governments doesn't stand a chance on its own. It would need US/Mexican military support. But the US would not want to get involved in jungle war, due to failure in Vietnam jungle war. Americans don't like jungles. Plus the M1 doesn't do too well in jungle environment due to its weight.
The other problem with war being that it would seriously and irreparably damage the SA environment and render many unique animals and plants extinct. You blow up the trees and the plants and you speed up global warming. So if there was a war, you would likely have world wide condemnation of the aggressor and possibly a move to send a global international peaceforce to impose a peace settlement. Afterall, South America supplies a large amount of the world's oxygen and when you start blowing up people's oxygen supply they are not going to be very happy with you.
Of course that could be avoided if only ground troops were used.

Argentina is allying itself with Venezuela on this. apparently they believe that countries have the right to host terrorist attacks on other states.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/04/content_7712939.htm

Such lies are spread since Chávez was elected, and were never, never proved.
The real question is why he (and Ecuador for that matter) isn't congratulating Colombia on the operation. Ultimately FARC is a terrorist organisation that has led a protracted war against civilians and civilian government institutions. As I said before, these days with the end of right-wing death squads and a Colombian government that is actually improving things on the ground in remote areas, it also has ceased to have any valid grievances or popular support. All it does is cause instability and the waste of resources that could be used on rather more worthwhile causes.

Due to its loss of widespread popular support, the chances of it being reduced to meaninglessness through military force have also improved. 20 years ago there really was no good point to launching offensives against them while today there is a real chance that such offensives can end their existence - if other governments take part. What I would like Ecuador and Venezuela to do is acknowledge that FARC has no positive role to play and does not merit further existence any more than a Colombian drug cartel, and then act accordingly. Their troops should be at the border, not to threaten each other but to help wipe FARC off the face of the planet.

That's the sort of regional cooperation that would make Chávez an actual statesman, that would create lasting and meaningful goodwill beyond just selling oil for cheap and that would make these jungle areas a lot more safe and stable, thus allowing the central governments to improve living conditions there.

Instead Hugo is playing FARC's best buddy, asking the EU to take it off the terror list and waving guns around because of a military operation against them. Ultimately it's not important whether Chávez helps FARC directly (I hear the Venezuelan military changed its weapons to take 7.62x.39 bullets rather than the previously used 7.62x.51 - just as reports appeared that FARC was short of ammunition of the former type...) or not. What matters is that he's not hurting them either and that the two have been in fairly regular contact for a while now. So it stands to reason that the two parties made some sort of agreement - Chávez tries to support the cause of FARC on the world stage as they go through a difficult time, and he gets to present himself as El Presidente as he skillfully frees the hostages. Colombia wasn't quite acting according to plan and El Presidente is now pissed off.

Argentina is allying itself with Venezuela on this. apparently they believe that countries have the right to host terrorist attacks on other states.
No, the Kirchners are just good friends with Chávez. Firstly it looks good to their own electorate to be seen with him, secondly (and more importantly) Venezuela is providing Argentina (which still has a less-than-ideal reputation in financial markets) with loans and cheap oil.

"in defense of the sovereignty of the fatherland"

Wow. Deja Vu. That line from the Venezuelan defense official was apparently lifted out of one of Hitler's speeches from 1937.

Apparently Chavez is helping the Farc's quest for nuclear weapons.

And Brazil seems to be siding with Chavez. Colombia has no right to defend itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/americas/04venez.html?em&ex=1204779600&en=f5e40c6c9ff2b475&ei=5087%0A

On a side note, Chavez was never asked to mediate between Colombia and FARC. He tried to impose himself and Colombia told him to take a hike so now he's pissed because someone took a slap at his pride.

Argentina is allying itself with Venezuela on this. apparently they believe that countries have the right to host terrorist attacks on other states.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/04/content_7712939.htm
I'm sorry, but a news source from a country that censors news sources isn't all that reliable...

No, the Kirchners are just good friends with Chávez. Firstly it looks good to their own electorate to be seen with him, secondly (and more importantly) Venezuela is providing Argentina (which still has a less-than-ideal reputation in financial markets) with loans and cheap oil.
Unfortunate because Argentina has enough resources to be almost totally self reliant, like Brazil, if only they were able to manage their countries immense resources better than they have been.

Lol, it supplies alot of nations power, including 25% of US domestic consumption, which is why the US would have to seem like it absolutely had nothing to do with helping Colombia because Chavez wouldn't need much of an excuse to pull the plug and give it too China instead. Also Argentina and most other Latin American countries will have to support Venezuela and Ecuador because Venezuela supplies them with oil, Argentina had their IMF debt paid by Venezuela and wouldn't even get through the winter without Venezuelan oil.

When I said power, I meant electricity. Not raw oil.

Argentina and Brazil won't get involved past the diplomatic support through the negotiations. Regarding the debt, it doesn't matter.

Such lies are spread since Chávez was elected, and were never, never proved.

He already recognized this fact. The extent of said "dealings" and "accords" are still subject to debate.

If you listen to the freed hostages, they are not nice with the FARC at all - they definitely don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. But they say what all human right organizations say too: the only solution to violence in Colombia is political, through discussions and national reconciliation, not through military action.

In this I agree completely. (Both with you and with the freed hostages). However, I think that so far it has been fault of the two sides. FARC had several chances of going legal with previous colombian administrations and they decided to not do so, for unknown reasons, although several sources claim it is due to the loss of the big drug trade they have been dealing with, and divisions between the main leaders.

In my opinion, they lost their political objectives long time ago, and they just don't know how they could go legal and form a political party in fair elections now. The Uribe administration, however, has failed several times to give the conditions for a proper negotiation table, as several presidents before him did.

The unofficial "agreement" between Chávez and the FARC, the same than with Correa and that with presidents of those two countries from before Chávez and Correa: since there is no way for them to control the >1000km long borders of jungle, the FARC are tolerated to enter Ecuador or Venezuela, but not to establish permanent bases nor to use weapons there. That's the only way to prevent the intra-Colombian civil war (because it is a civil war, lasting since 1946 and the murder of a candidate hated by the oligarchy 2 weeks before the election) to spread into Venezuela and Ecuador, and to shield local populations from the war.

There is an "agreement", then. There has been problems with guerrilla fighters from FARC in the frontier before Chávez, they even killed several venezuelan soldiers, several times. The guerrilla wasn't tolerated, at least not nominally, until Chávez came to power.

Uribe is, by bombing Ecuador. That's an act of war.

Uribe went far off his mark with what he did. However, he got permision from Correa to make an incursion. He just didn't specified the details of the raid, which in my opinion was a major blow, and the main reason why I do support the complains of Ecuador over this matter. If you have permission, it isn't an act of war per se. However, the misinformation about the magnitude of the attack is perfect ground for a major international incident.

This is not surprising from the guy who continues to bankroll right-wing death squads in Colombia who butcher peasants, dress them up as rebels, and then claim confirmed kills to the government

Now you are pulling this out from the end of your back. Back this claim by a credible source.

It should be remember that despite the slurs and distortions of this situation, that it was Colombia who fragrantly abused the territorial integrity of Ecuador, and continues to make wild unproven assertions to stir up possible conflict.

Indeed. Ecuador deserves an official apology from Colombia, and to rest sure that this kind of thing is not going to happen again.

Domestic discontent in Venezuela ? Chávez popularity is still above 60%. His failed referendum was mostly due to people from suburbs not voting on a "technical" subject.

Domestic discontent is indeed an issue for the current goverment. Even Chávez said it to Ortega during one of his TV shows, regarding the possible outcome of the regional elections this year. Scarcity of food products and pretty bad measures taken by Chavist governors and majors are affecting his popularity too, because he has been too fixed in the Colombian situation.

Opposition mostly abstained in the referendum because they didn't trust in the electoral judge. Goverment supporters also abstained because they didn't like most of the changes proposed, that according to Chávez himself, form the core of his project.

actually Ecuador committed the act of war by allowing FARC to use its territory to fire rockets at Colombian forces who were in Colombia and then supporting the FARC openly now that Colombia has eliminated the leader of the FARC terrorist organization.

Now you are pulling this out from the end of your back. Back this claim by a credible source.

Actually, it is international precedent that if you allow a terrorist group, in this case FARC, to use your territory to launch attacks on a neighbor, that neighbor has the right to send troops and helicopters into your country to kill said terrorists. Witness the Turkish incursion into Iraq, Israeli incursion into Lebanon/Gaza, US incursion into Mexico in pursuit of Poncho Villa, the French incursion into North Africa, and a couple of other incidents from the 20th century. Hence it was Ecuador who violated international laws. Colombia was defending itself legitimately and if this went to the International Court, I'm sure that Colombia would be vindicated.

There is no evidence yet of FARC attacks, (specially rocket attacks), coming from Ecuador's territory.

I was under the impression that Brazil was allied with Venezuela against Colombia. Venezuela and Ecuador do have an alliance vis a vis Chavez and Correa. Colombia, being surrounded by hostile governments doesn't stand a chance on its own. It would need US/Mexican military support. But the US would not want to get involved in jungle war, due to failure in Vietnam jungle war. Americans don't like jungles. Plus the M1 doesn't do too well in jungle environment due to its weight.

Brazil isn't allied with anyone. Or to be more precise, it is allied with all the parties in conflict. There is no preference for Rio to support either Caracas, Bogotá or Quito.

I think Colombia can handle pretty well without US or Mexico support. Having the US involved will just make things worse. We don't really like you around here.

The other problem with war being that it would seriously and irreparably damage the SA environment and render many unique animals and plants extinct. You blow up the trees and the plants and you speed up global warming. So if there was a war, you would likely have world wide condemnation of the aggressor and possibly a move to send a global international peaceforce to impose a peace settlement. Afterall, South America supplies a large amount of the world's oxygen and when you start blowing up people's oxygen supply they are not going to be very happy with you.
Of course that could be avoided if only ground troops were used.

We give oxygen for free, the same oxygen you waste in your industrial processes. Shouldn't you be paying us some money and resources in exchange for our oxygen, then?

Argentina is allying itself with Venezuela on this. apparently they believe that countries have the right to host terrorist attacks on other states.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/04/content_7712939.htm

The current Argentina's ruler, Cristina Fernández, is a good friend of Chávez. They are, however, siding more to Ecuador than to Venezuela over this issue.

"in defense of the sovereignty of the fatherland"

And Brazil seems to be siding with Chavez. Colombia has no right to defend itself.

Regarding Brazil, see above about Argentina. The same applies to Brazil.

On a side note, Chavez was never asked to mediate between Colombia and FARC. He tried to impose himself and Colombia told him to take a hike so now he's pissed because someone took a slap at his pride.

Here you failed. In the beginning of everything, he was asked to. Uribe just chose to remove him as a mediator after a specific incident regarding a colombian general. But when the mediation started, Uribe asked him to cooperate.

When I said power, I meant electricity. Not raw oil.

Argentina and Brazil won't get involved past the diplomatic support through the negotiations. Regarding the debt, it doesn't matter.



He already recognized this fact. The extent of said "dealings" and "accords" are still subject to debate.



In this I agree completely. (Both with you and with the freed hostages). However, I think that so far it has been fault of the two sides. FARC had several chances of going legal with previous colombian administrations and they decided to not do so, for unknown reasons, although several sources claim it is due to the loss of the big drug trade they have been dealing with, and divisions between the main leaders.

In my opinion, they lost their political objectives long time ago, and they just don't know how they could go legal and form a political party in fair elections now. The Uribe administration, however, has failed several times to give the conditions for a proper negotiation table, as several presidents before him did.



There is an "agreement", then. There has been problems with guerrilla fighters from FARC in the frontier before Chávez, they even killed several venezuelan soldiers, several times. The guerrilla wasn't tolerated, at least not nominally, until Chávez came to power.



Uribe went far off his mark with what he did. However, he got permision from Correa to make an incursion. He just didn't specified the details of the raid, which in my opinion was a major blow, and the main reason why I do support the complains of Ecuador over this matter. If you have permission, it isn't an act of war per se. However, the misinformation about the magnitude of the attack is perfect ground for a major international incident.



Now you are pulling this out from the end of your back. Back this claim by a credible source.



Indeed. Ecuador deserves an official apology from Colombia, and to rest sure that this kind of thing is not going to happen again.



Domestic discontent is indeed an issue for the current goverment. Even Chávez said it to Ortega during one of his TV shows, regarding the possible outcome of the regional elections this year. Scarcity of food products and pretty bad measures taken by Chavist governors and majors are affecting his popularity too, because he has been too fixed in the Colombian situation.

Opposition mostly abstained in the referendum because they didn't trust in the electoral judge. Goverment supporters also abstained because they didn't like most of the changes proposed, that according to Chávez himself, form the core of his project.



Now you are pulling this out from the end of your back. Back this claim by a credible source.



There is no evidence yet of FARC attacks, (specially rocket attacks), coming from Ecuador's territory.



Brazil isn't allied with anyone. Or to be more precise, it is allied with all the parties in conflict. There is no preference for Rio to support either Caracas, Bogotá or Quito.

I think Colombia can handle pretty well without US or Mexico support. Having the US involved will just make things worse. We don't really like you around here.



We give oxygen for free, the same oxygen you waste in your industrial processes. Shouldn't you be paying us some money and resources in exchange for our oxygen, then?

Unfort. oxygen isn't something you can charge for. We'd still have it, but in less amounts and there would be a lot less ice and much warmer days with bigger hurricanes around the globe. You wouldn't be just hurting the US, you would be hurting the whole world. Particularly the islands of the Pacific whose nations would disappear because of increased global warming.

As for S Americans liking US people, I understand that it depends on the country. In some Latin American nations we are popular, in others we are unpopular because of Reagan's support of evil actions taken on the part of certain dictators. Such support taking the form of not just intell, but the illegal and direct use of US Spec. Ops to help said Dictators kill people who were innocent of any crimes and who didn't pose national security threats. Just because Reagan was scared to death that the people killed wanted to turn South America into a base for the Soviet Union. Just remember, it was Reagan who did that South America, not the American people. Also, remember the US Congress held hearings on some of the matters and practically castigated Reagan for it. He ignored everything else just so he could destroy the Soviets which he single handedly succeeded at.
Of course, with the US now apologizing to Hawaiians and Native Americans it won't be long before it apologizes to blacks and to South America and make amends. These things take time. Give it may be 50 to 80 years.
Then again, blacks are still waiting for an apology.

Hey Andaras, whos the imperialistic ass now?

Hrm, USA and its puppet Colombia who invaded Ecuadorian sovereignity ? Chávez only defended the sovereignity of Ecuador. What's wrong with that ?

He ignored everything else just so he could destroy the Soviets which he single handedly succeeded at.
Popular myth, but unfortunately not true. Soviet defense spending as a proportion of GDP or government budget didn't actually increase during Reagan's term, IIRC.

Don't get me wrong, the liberalisation movement he and Thatcher dragged into the light brought the world unprecedented awesome, but the Soviets committed suicide regardless of whether Reagan or Carter was in charge.

Shouldn't Ecuador be apologizing for harboring terrorists?

So, if Cuba launch a missile strike against USA to kill Luis Posada Carriles, it should be USA who should excuse ? USA is wrong to harbor this terrorist, but Cuba would be committing a crime if they killed him inside USA.

The same goes here... except that Ecuador was not harboring them, and that those "terrorists" were in fact those responsible of negotiations for a humanitarian exchange !

You really think that Ecuador doesn't know about FARC using it's territory as bases of operation to kill people in Colombia?

See my other post about the unofficial deal between Ecuador, Venezuela and the FARC, that runs since long before Chávez and Correa came to power. And this was not a permanent "base of operation to kill people", but merely a temporary encampment used to negotiate the liberation of hostages !

Then, you should remember that FARC "terrorist" status is quite disputed. I strongly dislike their methods, but they are more an army inside a civil war than "terrorists". The paramilitaries (who are helped by part of the regular army and many member of Uribe's party) in Colombia are much more terrorists than the FARC, for example... and still, they are allowed to negotiate. But the FARC no ?

But pressuring Colombia to the point of war is excessively risky.

May I remind you that it's Colombia who started invading Ecuadorian land ? That IS an act of war. And you should also remember that it's not the first problem with Colombia. Colombia continuous fumigation on Ecuadorian border, which spreads into Ecuador and poison Ecuadorian crops and people made the situation between the two countries very tense.

You should also remember that paramilitary from Colombia were captured in Caracas a few years ago, attempting to plot the murder of Chávez. If you consider that in the light of all the links between Colombia's army and conservative party (Uribe's party) with those paramilitaries, you can understand that Chávez is quite upset about Colombia.

I have to admit, I find Chavez' reasoning here a bit odd. Ecuador has every reason to be annoyed at Colombia, and has taken reasonable steps to show it's annoyance. How is this Venezuela's problem?

Venezuela has a very large border with Colombia, with a lot of it being in a FARC-controlled zone. So Venezuela feels very concerned because the same thing could have happened in Venezuela area.

Then, Ecuador and Venezuela are allies. It's normal for allies to support each other in time of problem. Don't you think European countries would stick together if something like that happened to one of them ? Well, they should at least, if "European Union" is anything real.

What would Brazil do if the FARC was on its territory and using Brazilian territory to fire missiles at Colombia? Would Brazil allow that?

Define "allow". Because you seem to be making claims that Ecuador allows it without knowing whether or not they TRY to stop it. Should Colombia be stupid enough to invade Brazil over this, they'd lose all the possibility of having Brazil watching their backs against Ecuador and Venezuela.

Hrm, USA and its puppet Colombia who invaded Ecuadorian sovereignity ? Chávez only defended the sovereignity of Ecuador. What's wrong with that ?

Unwanted actions in international incidents do not improve the situation, usually. Chávez actions have managed to worsen the situation. That is what is wrong with that.

Calling Colombia a US puppet is as wrong as calling Chávez a Fidel's puppet, by the way. More radical left wing rhetoric?

I think most people should be trying to calm things down and help Ecuador and Colombia to reach an agrrement to solve the dispute, return to a friendly or at least a neutral state, and prevent similar incidents to happen again. I fail to see how Chávez is trying to achieve said objectives.

If there's any problem with Colombia's operation, it's Ecuador who should whine louder, not Venezuela.

And it was Ecuador who did. Venezuela only followed, because they support Ecuador in this issue.

Also, I believe that Ecuador's Correa was informed of the operation and approved of it and then said later that he was 'misled'

That's not true. Uribe even lied to Correa, telling first that it was during a fight that Colombia's crossed the border, while in fact the FARC soldiers were killed during their sleep and found in underwear. The one which was "misled" is Uribe, according to Correa (who, for diplomatic reason, consider that Uribe's lie may have been a sincere mistake).

If the evidence is indeed true, it is damning to see that as Chavez and his allies are waving the flag of US imperialism and aggression

This is undoubtly an aggression against Ecuador. And the flag of US is very present - informations came from USA, a major ranking US officer (Admiral Joseph Nimmich) was present in Colombia just two days before. And USA military support to Uribe and his war strategy is very clear.

they themselves become the aggressors and assist in the destabilization of a neighboring country.

How so ?

AFAIK, Venezuela also has an internal problem with autonomists (and the governor) in the state of Zulia (bordering Colombia) so perhaps it may be an excuse to deploy more troops at the border?

In the latest presidential election (december 2006), Chávez won the majority of votes even in state of Zulia. So that's hardly the problem here. The attempt by Colombian paramilitaries to murder Chávez a few years ago could be much more the reason for which Chávez is very fast to react to Colombia messing up with other countries.

I fail to see that, too. But Chávez is an ally to the FARC, if you mess with them, you are messing with Chávez, I guess.

Chávez is not an ally of the FARC, contrary to what anti-chavez propaganda says since 10 years. He's trying to find a political solution, and to convince the FARC to release hostages. He has some sympathy for the FARC and they were born, but that doesn't mean he's an ally of them, or that he helped them in any way.

Random marxist rant macro, I guess. Colombia is an independent country with several millions of inhabitants. FARC is an organization of less than 200,000 members. And the FARC is the main harvester and distributer of drugs in Colombia, (no, this is not US backed and financed propaganda).

No, that's just not true. The drug cartels and the right-wing paramilitary are much more into the drug market than the FARC (who are in it too, but not the main players). Also remember the ties between Uribe and Escobar...

And the amount of coca fields in Colombia is only increasing thank to the "war on drugs" conducted by Uribe and USA (driving small peasants into bankruptcy and forcing them to convert to the only profitable trade: cocaine).

I don't think so. More likely, Chavez is trying to show to the whole Latin America that he is the only one who's able to have a dialogue and peace talks with the FARC (see the attempts at the release of Ingrid Betancourt), and that any attempt for peace in Colombia must pass through venezuelan diplomacy.

Chávez welcomed any attempt by other countries to negotiate with the FARC. Hell, he even welcomed Sarkozy, who is as much a political foe of Chávez as you can find in France !

If he wants to be a mediator, he needs to establish and maintain contact with two parties, not only one, that is what "dialogue" means, "di", going for "two". Both parties meaning, the goverment of Bogotá and the leaders of the FARC. Right now, he is in contact with only the leadership of the FARC, cutting all links to the Uribe administration.

If you look at history, it's Uribe who cutted all links with Chávez because... Chávez was about to succeed ! And he did succeed, since 7 hostages were liberated. That was just not acceptable for Uribe, who need the image of "FARC = terrorists, war is the only option" to continue his war policies.

Plus, he has publicy stated that he is siding with the FARC lately.

Oh, really ?

Plus, mobilizing troops to the border, chastising verbally one of the parties in the conflict, and threatening to take direct and massed military action, hardly qualifies as " any attempt for peace in Colombia", or an effort "through venezuelan diplomacy". It is more like military pressure than diplomacy, don't you think?

Defending national sovereignty (and the one of his allies) is one of the primary roles of a President. That's something you just cannot accept to jeopardize.

May I remind you that it's Colombia who started invading Ecuadorian land ? That IS an act of war.


I shall restate: Colombia was acting well within the bounds of international law to defend itself. If a group leading an armed insurgency is harboring in another country, either through inaction or support, then the country under attack has every right and responsibility to defend itself.


And you should also remember that it's not the first problem with Colombia. Colombia continuous fumigation on Ecuadorian border, which spreads into Ecuador and poison Ecuadorian crops and people made the situation between the two countries very tense.

Too fucking bad, when you're fighting a jungle counterinsurgency you have to use defoliants. The FARC is a drug cartel that cloaks its business in ideology, utilizes terror and intimidation, murder and kidnapping and widespread use of slave labor. The sooner that Bogotá liquidates them the better.

You should also remember that paramilitary from Colombia were captured in Caracas a few years ago, attempting to plot the murder of Chávez. If you consider that in the light of all the links between Colombia's army and conservative party (Uribe's party) with those paramilitaries, you can understand that Chávez is quite upset about Colombia.

That's a lot of steps you have to make. Especially knowing how many, and how disparate the right-wing paramilitaries are in Colombia.

The Colombian government has been a very good one in recent years, making real progress in providing people with security

Since 2002 and Uribe was in power, despite the official "demobilization" of the paramilitaries, 600 people were murdered each year by the right-wing paramilitaries. Many of them are unionists, left-wing leaders or even journalists. After Irak, Colombia is the country in the world the most dangerous for journalists. One third of unionists murdered yearly are in Colombia. And the ties between Uribe's government (and Colombia's army) with the paramilitaries are numerous and well documented.

getting rid of the drugs and corruption

The cocaine produced in Colombia *increased* during Uribe's presidency. His insane "war on drugs" is driving peasant into poverty, and forcing them to produce the only profitable good left to them: cocaine. Fumigation are not very precise, you know...

and bringing members of far-right death squads to justice.

No, he offered them amnesty in exchange of "demobilization"... which was just a smoke screen, since as I said above, they continue to murder daily.

actually Ecuador committed the act of war by allowing FARC to use its territory to fire rockets at Colombian forces who were in Colombia and then supporting the FARC openly now that Colombia has eliminated the leader of the FARC terrorist organization.

That's just pure FUD. The FARC didn't fire any rocket from Ecuadorian land. They were murdered during their sleep in underwear !

And it was not the leader of the FARC but the ... one in charge of negotiations to release hostages !

See my other post about the unofficial deal between Ecuador, Venezuela and the FARC, that runs since long before Chávez and Correa came to power. And this was not a permanent "base of operation to kill people", but merely a temporary encampment used to negotiate the liberation of hostages !

Hostages which they never should have taken in the first place.

Then, you should remember that FARC "terrorist" status is quite disputed. I strongly dislike their methods, but they are more an army inside a civil war than "terrorists". The paramilitaries (who are helped by part of the regular army and many member of Uribe's party) in Colombia are much more terrorists than the FARC, for example... and still, they are allowed to negotiate. But the FARC no ?

The FARC decidedly uses terrorist tactics, especially intimidation killings and kidnappings, there is no doubt that they are a terrorist organization. Just because they pretend to be anti-government leftists, does not mean that they're a legitimate revolutionary organization.

they just don't know how they could go legal and form a political party in fair elections now.

With the paramilitaries murdering left-wing campaigners, unionists and even journalists, "fair elections" in Colombia is actually just a dream.

There is an "agreement", then. There has been problems with guerrilla fighters from FARC in the frontier before Chávez, they even killed several venezuelan soldiers, several times. The guerrilla wasn't tolerated, at least not nominally, until Chávez came to power.

This is an unofficial agreement, which is more or less respected by both side, but that did exist from before Chávez.


However, he got permision from Correa to make an incursion.

That's not what Correa said. Uribe even tried to lie to Correa first, saying it was during a fight that they crossed the border - while the FARC soldiers were murdered during their sleep.

The real question is why he (and Ecuador for that matter) isn't congratulating Colombia on the operation. Ultimately FARC is a terrorist organisation that has led a protracted war against civilians and civilian government institutions.

Opinion of the FARC is quite complex. Chávez, since he was elected, said that he refused to side with either the FARC or the Colombian government (who both are doing horrible things), and that he only wanted to help finding a peaceful solution.

How could they congratulate Colombia of killing the one... in charge of negotiations ?!

How could they congratulate Colombia of invading Ecuador ?

This is totally unacceptable - even if you don't support the FARC.

As I said before, these days with the
end of right-wing death squads

Their end is a complete myth. They continue to murder, about 600 persons each year, since their supposed "end". And this figure doesn't come from Chávez, but is accepted widely, even by the Ingrid Betancourt defense association, who is definitely not an ally of the FARC.

Due to its loss of widespread popular support, the chances of it being reduced to meaninglessness through military force have also improved.

According to statistics I saw, for 20 members of the FARC who are killed, 18 new people join them. So it can last for very long.

What I would like Ecuador and Venezuela to do is acknowledge that FARC has no positive role to play and does not merit further existence any more than a Colombian drug cartel, and then act accordingly.

FARC are pointing at real problems inside Colombia, problems that were never solved since the murder of the anti-oligarchy candidate of the 1948 election. That their methods are not acceptable don't mean they have absolutely no real reasons to exist. And Uribe's method, including the support to the paramilitaries, are no better. The only solution is to negotiate peace. That's what Chávez is saying. And that's what Uribe wants to prevent by murdering the one... in charge of the negotiation.

Instead Hugo is playing FARC's best buddy, asking the EU to take it off the terror list and waving guns around because of a military operation against them.

Chávez, whatever you like him or not, his a very smart guy. His move was forcing both side to show their true color: Colombia has to recognized that FARC are fighting a civil war, and FARC has to behave as a real army, respecting the Geneva convention, and therefore liberating the hostages. That was the idea of Chávez. Not a support to the FARC, but an international recognition of FARC being an army in exchange of the FARC respecting Geneva convention.

What matters is that he's not hurting them either and that the two have been in fairly regular contact for a while now.

Such contacts existed with Venezuela way before Chávez. FARC controls 1/3 of Colombia, and a huge portion of the Colombia-Venezuela border. It would be insane from Venezuela to refuse to negotiate with them, especially when they can find agreements like "ok you can come in if you need, but never use weapons in our land, and don't build permanent bases". That's a way to prevent the spreading of the conflict, and the only sane attitude.

Apparently Chavez is helping the Farc's quest for nuclear weapons.

Whaoo, I don't know what you smoke, but does it come from the FARC or the AUC ?

Unwanted actions in international incidents do not improve the situation, usually. Chávez actions have managed to worsen the situation. That is what is wrong with that.

If he made Uribe understood that he crossed a line, and that he shouldn't act like that ever again, then he would have improved a lot the situation on the long term.

Calling Colombia a US puppet is as wrong as calling Chávez a Fidel's puppet, by the way. More radical left wing rhetoric?

I'm not aware of military bases of Cuba in Venezuela, nor of military support from Cuba to Venezuela, nor of close cooperation with Cuban intelligence on the FARC issue.

I think most people should be trying to calm things down and help Ecuador and Colombia to reach an agrrement to solve the dispute, return to a friendly or at least a neutral state, and prevent similar incidents to happen again. I fail to see how Chávez is trying to achieve said objectives.

Preventing similar incidents to happen again is exactly what Chávez is trying to do, making Uribe understand how unacceptable his actions were.

Hostages which they never should have taken in the first place.

And the civil war in Colombia should never have started because the murder of the anti-oligarchy candidate in 1948 should never happened. We can go far like that, it wouldn't help an inch to solve the current situation.



The FARC decidedly uses terrorist tactics, especially intimidation killings and kidnappings, there is no doubt that they are a terrorist organization.

Fine, so the Resistance against nazi was a "terrorist organization". Because they did use "terrorist tactics", they killed and kidnapped. I'm not saying FARC are as worthy as the Resistance was, the Resistance are heroes for me while I've an overall low opinion of the FARC. But such oversimplification of situation is just insane.

Just because they pretend to be anti-government leftists, does not mean that they're a legitimate revolutionary organization.

Well, they started as one. Nowadays, they are quite far from it, but they were mostly driven there by 60 years of very harsh situations. Anyway, the question is how to solve the situation, liberate the hostages and reach peace. And that can definitely not be done by killing the one who was in charge of negotiations...

Chávez is not an ally of the FARC, contrary to what anti-chavez propaganda says since 10 years. He's trying to find a political solution, and to convince the FARC to release hostages. He has some sympathy for the FARC and they were born, but that doesn't mean he's an ally of them, or that he helped them in any way.

Saying that they are a legitimate army looking for the freedom of the colombian people is a good start to be allied with them. I accept the extent to said alliance is blurry at best, but it is there nevertheless. The colombian said they have evidence now of the funds Chávez gave to the FARC, but until said evidence is published, nothing can be proved on the matter.

No, that's just not true. The drug cartels and the right-wing paramilitary are much more into the drug market than the FARC (who are in it too, but not the main players). Also remember the ties between Uribe and Escobar...

Escobar died years ago. The paramilitary are rather dismantled, or diminished greatly their drug assets after the death of Castaño and the trials against them. However, the drug supply is as strong as before.

I have been to the frontier, and I have heard the stories from the people living there. The FARC deal with drugs, they supply it, they have labs and crops in the jungle. The cartels of Cali and Medellín even have started to battle the guerrilla because they are leading the market traditionally theirs now.

And the amount of coca fields in Colombia is only increasing thank to the "war on drugs" conducted by Uribe and USA (driving small peasants into bankruptcy and forcing them to convert to the only profitable trade: cocaine).

And the support and protection provided by the FARC. The US bad policy influences this, but the FARC is also profitting from it.

If you look at history, it's Uribe who cutted all links with Chávez because... Chávez was about to succeed ! And he did succeed, since 7 hostages were liberated. That was just not acceptable for Uribe, who need the image of "FARC = terrorists, war is the only option" to continue his war policies.

I thought his first intention was to provide and facilitate dialogue. Chávez has enjoyed sucess, but nevertheless, he hasn't helped to start a dialogue between the two parties in conflict. I can't see how your statement contradicts or counter argument mine.

Oh, really ?

Oh really. He stated that it was a legitimate army in pursuit of great goals, instead of the Colombian goverment, that was filled with liars, opressors and mafia. That is siding with the FARC, sorry.

Defending national sovereignty (and the one of his allies) is one of the primary roles of a President. That's something you just cannot accept to jeopardize.

Going by the book, Colombia is as big as an ally and for the same reasons as Ecuador. Why is military action in the form of tank mobilization needed? Did colombian shock troops stormed Quito? Mediation, perhaps, force threats, no.

With the paramilitaries murdering left-wing campaigners, unionists and even journalists, "fair elections" in Colombia is actually just a dream.

With the guerrilla kidnapping and murdering legislators, JOURNALISTS, campaigners, presidential candidates and possible peasant snitches, I can't see how the equation is not balanced. Fair elections have been done in Colombia for years, I can't see how you are challenging that fact.[/QUOTE]

This is an unofficial agreement, which is more or less respected by both side, but that did exist from before Chávez.

So, something you do suppose about this. Something you heard about from someone. Something you read somewhere.

That's not what Correa said. Uribe even tried to lie to Correa first, saying it was during a fight that they crossed the border - while the FARC soldiers were murdered during their sleep.

I agree that Uribe lied to Correa, but Correa gave permission to colombian forces to enter his territory, according to himself. The scale and the conditions of the incursion was what the lie was about, and what pissed Correa off. and with good reason.

I shall restate: Colombia was acting well within the bounds of international law to defend itself. If a group leading an armed insurgency is harboring in another country, either through inaction or support, then the country under attack has every right and responsibility to defend itself.

So, if Cuba does an airstrike in USA to kill Luis Posada Carriles they would be within the bounds of international law ? Definitely not.

International law define very strictly how extradition is possible. If a criminal moves to Ecuador from Colombia, the Colombian government has to emit a very precise demand of extradition, with proof of the crimes, and Ecuadorian justice has to validate those proofs. That's what international law said. You are NEVER allowed to strike in the land of another country, nor even to cross his border with any member of your own army.

Too fucking bad, when you're fighting a jungle counterinsurgency you have to use defoliants.

And if Ecuadorian die in the process, too bad for them ?

The FARC is a drug cartel that cloaks its business in ideology, utilizes terror and intimidation, murder and kidnapping and widespread use of slave labor. The sooner that Bogotá liquidates them the better.

They'll not "liquidate" them. They didn't in 60 years, and they are not any close of doing it. The only solution is to negotiate peace. Exactly what Uribe prevented by killing the one if charge of negotiations.

If he made Uribe understood that he crossed a line, and that he shouldn't act like that ever again, then he would have improved a lot the situation on the long term.

I think he just showed Uribe that he could start a war if he want it, so now over militarization of the border, that has been just closed, is in order.

I don't think he improved nothing, he just made a two parties problem a three parties problem. ould he had taken the attitude of Argentina or Brazil, well, it could be ok, but he is just looking for trouble.

I'm not aware of military bases of Cuba in Venezuela, nor of military support from Cuba to Venezuela, nor of close cooperation with Cuban intelligence on the FARC issue.

Oh wrong. we have Cuban military and security advisors in the Ministry of Defense, regarding all matters, including war scenarios with Colombia and with the US. This is rather well known.

Preventing similar incidents to happen again is exactly what Chávez is trying to do, making Uribe understand how unacceptable his actions were.

Oh no, that is what Lula and Fernández are doing. Chávez is just making things worse by including formal military into the mix.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15662/trouble_in_the_andes.html?breadcrumb=%2F

"Despite virulent rhetoric from all sides, most analysts concur that a regional war is unlikely. For one, Venezuela’s military capabilities pale in comparison to Colombia’s, thanks to years of counternarcotics support from the United States. Stratfor, an intelligence analysis website, says it is “skeptical” of Venezuela’s ability to sustain forces outside its borders"

"The technology Colombia used to target the FARC in Ecuador was funded by Plan Colombia, a $5 billion package meant to counter drug trafficking. Some critics say the aid has gone to fight the FARC instead."

"It is very positive that the Bush administration has chosen not to throw gasoline on the fire by aggressively taking Colombia’s side"

"A 2006 CFR special report urged the United States to open dialogue with Venezuela on issues "

On a side note, Nicaragua cut relations with Colombia after pressure from Venezuela.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15671/

One of Venezuela's own Chief Economists says that Chavez is closely linked with FARC. Looks like Chavez fired him.

And the civil war in Colombia should never have started because the murder of the anti-oligarchy candidate in 1948 should never happened. We can go far like that, it wouldn't help an inch to solve the current situation.

Irrelevant. The hostages have been taken recently and hostage taking continues, and the violence carried out by the FARC is continuing. A political grievance of sixty years ago is irrelevant to current actions.





Fine, so the Resistance against nazi was a "terrorist organization". Because they did use "terrorist tactics", they killed and kidnapped. I'm not saying FARC are as worthy as the Resistance was, the Resistance are heroes for me while I've an overall low opinion of the FARC. But such oversimplification of situation is just insane.

Significant difference being, the Nazi regimes across Europe were installed from abroad, were not democratically elected by any stretch of the imagination, and were installed with the use of violence.

Well, they started as one. Nowadays, they are quite far from it, but they were mostly driven there by 60 years of very harsh situations. Anyway, the question is how to solve the situation, liberate the hostages and reach peace. And that can definitely not be done by killing the one who was in charge of negotiations...

He was in charge of negotiations because he was the guy who ordered the taking of the hostages.

So, if Cuba does an airstrike in USA to kill Luis Posada Carriles they would be within the bounds of international law ? Definitely not.

Is Carriles still directing or participating in a violent insurrection against Cuba? Is he involved in organizing and planning for attacks against the Cuban people?

International law define very strictly how extradition is possible. If a criminal moves to Ecuador from Colombia, the Colombian government has to emit a very precise demand of extradition, with proof of the crimes, and Ecuadorian justice has to validate those proofs. That's what international law said. You are NEVER allowed to strike in the land of another country, nor even to cross his border with any member of your own army.

If the individual is not actively participating in violent action against the country, then the situation is significantly different. Even as he was negotiating, he was instructing operations inside Colombia...that makes for the sort of extraordinary situation that justifies cross-border actions. Precedent for this sort of action includes the American Punitive Expedition of 1916-17.

Further, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, states have the right and responsibility for self-defense, something that this action is clearly covered by, knowing the actions of Reyes.

Not only that, but Correa gave Colombian forces permission to act on Ecuadoran territory, Uribe didn't accurately describe the level of, and the reason for, action, but he had permission.



And if Ecuadorian die in the process, too bad for them ?

Pretty much, yeah. The FARC has taken the lives of far more Colombians than Colombian defoliants have of Ecuadorans.


They'll not "liquidate" them. They didn't in 60 years, and they are not any close of doing it. The only solution is to negotiate peace. Exactly what Uribe prevented by killing the one if charge of negotiations.

The only solution is to obliterate the FARC military to demonstrate its weakness, and encourage defections with incentives for members. Groups like FARC will only use negotiations as a cloak for rest and rearmament, and they must be dealt with properly, and Uribe is showing that he is capable of doing so.

LOL

I laughed! I cried! I grew body hair! I laughed some more!


Btw, on a more serious note...did anyone ever notice before that Brazil borders EVERY SINGLE country in South America except for Chile and Ecuador?

http://www.greece-map.net/south-america/south-america-map.gif

Brazil should push their weight around a little and force Venezuela to shut up so Colombia and Ecuador can resolve this diplomatically and peacefully.


I think Chavez is trying to provoke people into attacking Colombia and he should be censored.

I'd suggest the US do something, but we're a little overstretched at the moment. The best we could do is use our air force/navy to provide air support.

Brazil, you're the regional superpower. Would you mind handling this one for us?



Really? Upon reading this, I decided to look up Brazil's constitution. I haven't read the whole thing (does anyone aside from the US have a short Constitution?), but it states that the National Congress has the power to authorize the President to declare war. Could you source the part where it limits the power of the Congress to declare war?

Brazil def. needs to be more proactive in world affairs. It's too big to keep to itself. The Brazilians should assert themselves. They have the capacity to influence the events and shape the history of their whole continent.

So, if Cuba launch a missile strike against USA to kill Luis Posada Carriles, it should be USA who should excuse ? USA is wrong to harbor this terrorist, but Cuba would be committing a crime if they killed him inside USA.

The same goes here... except that Ecuador was not harboring them, and that those "terrorists" were in fact those responsible of negotiations for a humanitarian exchange !

I thought the US already extradited him.

It was only a matter of time before Chavez picked a fight with the only really US supported country in the region.

Brazil def. needs to be more proactive in world affairs. It's too big to keep to itself. The Brazilians should assert themselves. They have the capacity to influence the events and shape the history of their whole continent.
And they're playing a big part in this right now by trying to drive Ecuador and Venezuela apart.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808604
Although George Bush gave public support to Mr Uribe, other governments in the region, led by Brazil, tried to drive a wedge between Mr Correa and Mr Chávez. There were signs that this might work. On March 5th Ecuador agreed to an OAS resolution criticising but not formally condemning Colombia. The OAS also agreed to investigate the bombing. Once the region's diplomats have patched things up between these two countries they face another, more intractable problem: Mr Chávez, still with oil money but politically on the defensive, may have thrown in his lot with an outlaw army of drug-traffickers.

This is not surprising from the guy who continues to bankroll right-wing death squads in Colombia who butcher peasants, dress them up as rebels, and then claim confirmed kills to the government, not to mention the systemic corruption and links to corporate interests in the US.

Fairly old, but still relevant...

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6664&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1

This is undoubtly an aggression against Ecuador. And the flag of US is very present - informations came from USA, a major ranking US officer (Admiral Joseph Nimmich) was present in Colombia just two days before. And USA military support to Uribe and his war strategy is very clear.

US/Colombia relations are well known, but now you're equating that to US aggression against Ecuador??

That's like jumping from Step A to Step Q.

Do you have any evidence as to why the U.S. would have reason to initiate aggression against Ecuador, or just baseless assertions?

So, if Cuba does an airstrike in USA to kill Luis Posada Carriles they would be within the bounds of international law ? Definitely not.

Is Carriles currently a fuctional asset of a terrorist organization currently operating in Cuban territory?

No? Then a parrallel cannot be drawn, because they are two completely different situations.

Brazil def. needs to be more proactive in world affairs. It's too big to keep to itself. The Brazilians should assert themselves. They have the capacity to influence the events and shape the history of their whole continent.

I agree 100%...in fact, Brazil ought to be #1 on the U.S. list of nations we need to be working more closely with. Brazil and the U.S. together could move the whole Western Hemisphere in a unified direction.

Fairly old, but still relevant...

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6664&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1



US/Colombia relations are well known, but now you're equating that to US aggression against Ecuador??

That's like jumping from Step A to Step Q.

Do you have any evidence as to why the U.S. would have reason to initiate aggression against Ecuador, or just baseless assertions?



Is Carriles currently a fuctional asset of a terrorist organization currently operating in Cuban territory?

No? Then a parrallel cannot be drawn, because they are two completely different situations.



I agree 100%...in fact, Brazil ought to be #1 on the U.S. list of nations we need to be working more closely with. Brazil and the U.S. together could move the whole Western Hemisphere in a unified direction.

It should be along with Mexico and El Salvador and Argentina but some of those people down there don't like the US because of Reagan. Bush and Clinton both could have fixed that. Clinton worked on trade issue but ignored the political problems created by the Reagan's Cold War policies and Bush just totally ignored South America for most of his two terms.

can anyone name one thing Bush has done in Latin America?

can anyone name one thing Bush has done in Latin America?
He's done lots of things. Most of them haven't worked though and pretty much none of them were the sort of overtly pompous things that would make a spot on the news next to Britney's escapades.

But still, here's a start (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/2008/99368.htm).

I do agree but at the sametime, ten battalions is a hell of a defensive manuever.

Well the thing being is Colombia's military is twice the size of Venuzuala's or Equador's Military combined so 10 battalions from Venezuala isn't scaring them it might just piss them off enough to kick their ass.

The OAS is working to prevent war and Chavez changed his mind about blocking trade with Colombia after the Venezuelan economy took a nosedive as soon he closed the border to trade. So Colombia and Venezuela are trading again.