NationStates Jolt Archive

South American tensions soar over Colombian violation of Ecuador sovereignty

Mar 3, BOGOTA (AFP) - South America faced a regional crisis Monday, as Ecuador and Venezuela ordered troops to their borders with Colombia in retaliation for a cross-border strike that killed a guerrilla leader.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/wl_afp/venezuelacolombiaecuadorrebels_080303194227

If I was in charge, I would not mass the troops.. Instead I would have immediately launched missiles to the closest Colombian army outpost. The same quantity of Colombian missiles used on Ecuador.

Columbia ftw

Brazil condemns Colombia's raid
Mar 4, 2008 11:27 AM

Brazil's foreign minister condemned a Colombian military strike on rebels inside Ecuador and called on Bogota to offer an explicit apology.

"The territorial violation is very serious and needs to be condemned," Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said in Brasilia. "Brazil condemns any territorial violation."

Amorim also said the Colombian government should offer an "explicit" apology to contain the growing crisis prompted by the weekend raid, in which Colombian forces struck at a FARC rebel camp inside Ecuador.

He called for the Organization of American States (OAS) regional body to set up a committee to investigate the circumstances of the attack, which included air strikes and ground combat. Senior FARC leader Raul Reyes was killed.

The incident has flared into the most dangerous dispute in Latin America for years.

Venezuela and Ecuador sent troops to their borders with Colombia on Sunday and downgraded diplomatic ties.

"A more explicit apology to Ecuador for the territorial violation would help contain the crisis," said Amorim, whose country is a regional diplomatic power and shares a border with both Colombia and Venezuela. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1615210

thumbs up Brazil.

So now you are ok with being aggressive Ocean?

this will do no good for the price of cocaine per barrel :(

This is good, the South American community must confront US-paid aggression against legitimate revolutionary organizations like FARC, and against Colombian/US imperialism.

So now you are ok with being aggressive Ocean?You didnt get the memo?

"aggressive" is my middle name ;) :p :D

This is good, the South American community must confront US-paid aggression against legitimate revolutionary organizations like FARC, and against Colombian/US imperialism.

I'm still waiting for the U.S. government to send a message by ordering a battle fleet into the area and sending up air patrols.

legitimate revolutionary organizations like FARC,

Really.

Drug runners are legitimate 'revolutionaries' now?

I'm still waiting for the U.S. government to send a message by ordering a battle fleet into the area and sending up air patrols.
And I am still waiting for the sun to come out so you'll get turned to stone.

I'm still waiting for the U.S. government to send a message by ordering a battle fleet into the area and sending up air patrols.That is my wish. I want one more before he leaves.. Common senhor Presidente el Bushio, you can do it. si se puede!

GO Bush GO -- Go bush GO -- :D

Drug runners are legitimate 'revolutionaries' now?

no silly you have to kidnap innocent civilians as well :p

And I am still waiting for the sun to come out so you'll get turned to stone.

gargoyles live under bridges now?

Venezuela and Ecuador should get to arming and supplying FARC asap, let them use their territory to carry out raids against Colombia and then block retaliation by massing forces along the entry points to counter-attack FARC. Either way Colombia is a frog in a well these days in South America.

no silly you have to kidnap innocent civilians as well :p

Tactics are tactics.

Really.

Drug runners are legitimate 'revolutionaries' now?In Colombia the Right wing Paramilitares started using Coca as source of financing..

Way better armed and fed right wing Guerrillas started to kick the Leftists guerrillas asses.. all over the place. Until the Leftist guerrillas decided to level the field and grow their own Coca.

The right wing coca money was specially useful to buy information from poor peasants. If your enemy know where you are, and you dont know where they are.. then chances are you will -often- see your blood on the floor.

BTW Cocaine money was most likely used -by Ronnie Raygun- to finance the Terrorists known as the Contras. (someones terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter)

In Colombia the Right wing Paramilitares started using Coca as source of financing..

Way better armed and fed right wing Guerrillas started to kick the Leftists guerrillas asses.. all over the place. Until the Leftist guerrillas decided to level the field and grow their own Coca.

The right wing coca money was specially useful to buy information from poor peasants.

And did I say the right-wing paramilitaries were any more legitimate than the left-wing paramilitaries? No. Neither are.

I'd daresay that the Ecuadorians are the one's who've been violating Colombian sovereignty, by harboring an organization that has been actively carrying out violent acts to overthrow the Colombian government. Colombia acted appropriately to guarantee its own self defense, by moving against the FARC.

I might add, Occean, that there have already been three treads on this general topic.

I'd daresay that the Ecuadorians are the one's who've been violating Colombian sovereignty, by harboring an organization that has been actively carrying out violent acts to overthrow the Colombian government. Colombia acted appropriately to guarantee its own self defense, by moving against the FARC.

So, now "having people in your territory that may well be unwanted" = "harboring" them?

I

BTW Cocaine money was most likely used -by Ronnie Raygun- to finance the Terrorists known as the Contras. (someones terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter)

Em, having the CIA sell arms to the Iranians funded the Contra much more than any possible drug links. The money was 'cleaner' that way.

The delicious irony is that the Iranians bought weapons made by the Israelis through the third party being the United States.

So now you are ok with being aggressive Ocean?

Only when its terrorists attacking the evil western imperialists.

Really.

Drug runners are legitimate 'revolutionaries' now?

Only if they have read the communist manifesto and claim to have policies in line with Andaras's way of thinking.

Im irritated with Brazil. I was hoping theyd step in and verbally bitch slap Chavez down a few pegs.

Em, having the CIA sell arms to the Iranians funded the Contra much more than any possible drug links. The money was 'cleaner' that way.

The delicious irony is that the Iranians bought weapons made by the Israelis through the third party being the United States.

The administration also perceived another benefit from this, in the form of it provided the Iranians with which to kill Soviet-client Iraqis. From the viewpoint of the administration, this was a win-win-win situation.

And did I say the right-wing paramilitaries were any more legitimate than the left-wing paramilitaries? No. Neither are.The right wing guerrillas are legitimate for some Colombian people, the Left wing guerrillas are legitimate for some other Colombian people.

The Iraq insurgents are legitimate for some people, The Talibans are legitimate for some other people... IRA, SriLanka, Armenia, Kurds, Zapatistas, Kosovo, Nepal, India, Chechenia, Sudan, etc etc ...

Most of these men know they are probably going to be killed for their cause, They know they wont get the honors or monetary compensation we usually get in our US military.

I am not inclined to pass judgment on their legitimacy.

Only when its terrorists attacking the evil western imperialists.



Only if they have read the communist manifesto and claim to have policies in line with Andaras's way of thinking.

Im irritated with Brazil. I was hoping theyd step in and verbally bitch slap Chavez down a few pegs.

Again: What, in the deepest, darkest pits of hell, does Brazil have to do with this?

The right wing guerrillas are legitimate for some Colombian people, the Left wing guerrillas are legitimate for some other Colombian people.

The Iraq insurgents are legitimate for some people, The Talibans are legitimate for some other people... IRA, SriLanka, Armenia, Kurds, Zapatistas, Kosovo, Nepal, India, Chechenia, Sudan, etc etc ...

Most of these men know they are probably going to be killed for their cause, They know they wont get the honors or monetary compensation we usually get in our military.

I am not inclined to pass judgment on their legitimacy.

I am.

They are all illegitimate.

The Iraq insurgents are legitimate for some people, ... legitimate for some other people... IRA, SriLanka, Armenia, Kurds, Zapatistas, Kosovo, Nepal, India, Chechenia, Sudan, etc etc ...

How many of these groups use drug trafficking as their major and nearly sole, source of income?

Kinda dilutes the 'cause' of fighting for the 'oppressed' when you help flood their streets with cheap cocaine and heroin. Or don't you see that?

Em, having the CIA sell arms to the Iranians funded the Contra much more than any possible drug links. The money was 'cleaner' that way.

The delicious irony is that the Iranians bought weapons made by the Israelis through the third party being the United States.follow the money.

I am.

They are all illegitimate.

This incredibly reactionary claim is usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."
2) naive belief in bourgeoisie human rights.
Both have no place in reality. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, FARC must endlessly seek the liberation of their country, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

So, now "having people in your territory that may well be unwanted" = "harboring" them?

They didn't evict them, and they knew that the FARC was involved in a violent insurgency in Colombia, has kidnapped thousands of civilians and enslaved them, and murdered far more.

How many of these groups use drug trafficking as their major and nearly sole, source of income? some of them use oil money, some use drug money, some use weapons trade, Diamonds, forced taxation..

Just like any gov really..

Yes, because they don't share your vile ideology.

Look who's talking Mr. "Stalin didn't murder millions, and even if he did, they deserved it".

Look at how FARC operates, that should show you just how legitimate they are.

Tactics are tactics.

too bad FARC has none apart from hiding in the bushes being thugs with no intention of toppling government

In Colombia the Right wing Paramilitares started using Coca as source of financing..

oh that makes it alright then

I am not inclined to pass judgment on their legitimacy.

Yes, because they don't share your vile ideology.

I was thinking the whole thuggish means of business the "movement" employs would show just how legitimately the group represents the people

I am.

They are all illegitimate.

Yes, because they don't share your vile ideology.

They didn't evict them...There is a large number of people wanted by the US "justice" living in Mexico and Canada. Shall we use our missiles on them?

and of course there are many Latin American/Asian mass murderers (like the Marcoses, Somosas, Pinochets, Shas, etc) that we keep safe and allow them to use the stolen million$$ inside US sovereignty.

These would deserve a foreign missile on their head too.

This incredibly reactionary claim is usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."

wrong the wisdom comes from Saxon experience with Blood feuds and the pointless killing it creates

2) naive belief in bourgeoisie human rights.
Both have no place in reality. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, FARC must endlessly seek the liberation of their country, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

yes because whats the point in becoming the exact same monster? I also have little contact with this bourgeoisie imperialist machine oddly

should I feel oppressed or something?

Just like any gov really..

only without being a legitimate force in the community supported by said community...

Don't forget Luis Posada Carriles, Alpha 66 and most of the population of Florida OD.

oh that makes it alright thenlike I said: I am not inclined to pass judgment.

only without being a legitimate force in the community supported by said community...I dont support Bush, I never Supported the Iraq invasion.. but trust me, if I dont pay them the Tax money they are going to throw me in Jail.. on a cell with Bubba. ;)

There is a large number of people wanted by the US "justice" living in Mexico and Canada. Shall we use our missiles on them?

and of course there are many Latin American/Asian mass murderers (like the Marcoses, Somosas, Pinochets, Shas, etc) that we keep safe and vwey confortable inside US sovereignty.

First off, there's a very significant difference, both legally and morally between being a wanted criminal, and engaging in active insurrection against a government. Further, FARC was using this position to provide active command and control for their forces in country.

What are you talking about? Pinochet and Somoza never sought exile in the US, the Shah was in the US for treatment for a short time, and the Marcoses were investigated by the US government for embezzlement while Ferdinand was alive.



These would deserve a foreign missile on their head too.

Your attempts at equivocating are made of phail.

There is a large number of people wanted by the US "justice" living in Mexico and Canada. Shall we use our missiles on them?

so you don't agree with the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

They didn't evict them, and they knew that the FARC was involved in a violent insurgency in Colombia, has kidnapped thousands of civilians and enslaved them, and murdered far more.

So now Equator should deal with Colombia's problems? What makes you think they even knew where to look for the rebels?

So now Equator should deal with Colombia's problems? What makes you think they even knew where to look for the rebels?

The Colombians clearly did, and yes, they should deal with Colombia's problems, especially if Colombia's problems have run away from Colombia because they're getting this asses whooped.

like I said: I am not inclined to pass judgment.

Moral equivocation is moral weakness. Don't just waffle, make a decision.

I dont support Bush, I never Supported the Iraq invasion.. but trust me, if I dont pay them the Tax money they are going to throw me in Jail.. on a cell with Bubba. ;)

Iraq has nothing to do with this.

Finally, a left versus right battle is just what we need right now.

So now you are ok with being aggressive Ocean?

How are Venezuela and Ecuador being aggressive?
Their military is defending THEIR border, they haven't attacked Colombia

on Sunday told commanders to move 10 battalions -- around 6,000 men -- and tanks and warplanes to the border with Colombia in case another raid happened on Venezuelan soil.

Chavez and Venezuela are probably overreacting, but Ecuador had it's sovereignty violated and has a right to be pissed off.

like I said: I am not inclined to pass judgment.

odd that, why not?

I dont support Bush, I never Supported the Iraq invasion.. but trust me, if I dont pay them the Tax money they are going to throw me in Jail.. on a cell with Bubba. ;)

however you do support the democratic right to vote and things like roads and hospitals no?

I mean if the majority population (that voted anyway) didn't vote Bush you wouldn't have this trouble

so you don't agree with the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan?Depends on 2 things:

Was the Taliban the legitmate gov of the afghan people?
Did the US gov provide proof about Osama?

(the same quality of proof we would require from the Taliban gov to send them someone they accuse of a huge crime, the same proof we would require to deliver them the likes of Pinochet, Marcos, Chas, Papadoc Duvalier, etc)

odd that, why not?thou shall read the thread, its only 4 pages. (hint: read post 23)

How are Venezuela and Ecuador being aggressive?
Their military is defending THEIR border, they haven't attacked Colombia


By deploying a large, mechanized offensive formation to the Colombian border.

The Colombians clearly did, and yes, they should deal with Colombia's problems, especially if Colombia's problems have run away from Colombia because they're getting this asses whooped.

And a signed permission from the Ecuadorean President would be so hard to obtain because...?

By deploying a large, mechanized offensive formation to the Colombian border.

You mean after Colombia invaded THEIRS?

Let me get this straight: Colombia isn't being aggressive when it sends troops INTO THEIR TERRITORY, but Equator and Venezuela are when they send troops to within their borders?

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Depends on 2 things:

Was the Taliban the legitmate gov of the afghan people?
Did the US gov provide proof about Osama?

(the same quality of proof we would require from the Taliban gov to send them someone then accuse of a huge crime)

1) no because it was never elected or had a popular support or did anything for the Afghan people beyond pop into the village every so often to shoot someone

2) dear God your not about to give me a conspiracy theory are you?

1) no because it was never elected or had a popular support or did anything for the Afghan people beyond pop into the village every so often to shoot someone

2) dear God your not about to give me a conspiracy theory are you?

If that's your definition then many governments all over the world are illegitimate, do you want to take them down too?

By deploying a large, mechanized offensive formation to the Colombian border.
How is it innately offensive? You can use tanks in static defense you know, and who says they don't plan to double-back using such maneuverability if the Colombians tried to attack across their border?

Apparently a sovereign nation in your book isn't allowed to use armor to protect their border from foreign aggressors.

How is it innately offensive? You can use tanks in static defense you know, and who says they don't plan to double-back using such maneuverability if the Colombians tried to attack across their border?

Apparently a sovereign nation in your book isn't allowed to use armor to protect their border from foreign aggressors.

Well History is against you for people placing large armored formations on their borders and not being aggressive, but Such a tactic as you describe can work, but it needs to be pulled off flawlessly, with perfect cordination and communication between units. If they formation would get broken up and seperated it would mean a slaughter for the Venezuelan forces.

Geez, if this escalates even more please let them duke this out on their own and let it be a South American affair.

You mean after Colombia invaded THEIRS?

Let me get this straight: Colombia isn't being aggressive when it sends troops INTO THEIR TERRITORY, but Equator and Venezuela are when they send troops to within their borders?

What in the hell is wrong with you?

First off, the FARC, a violent antigovernment terrorist group was utilizing Ecuador's territory to launch operations against the Colombian people and their government. That sure as hell sounds like a violation of Colombian sovereignty to me. International law shows that if such a condition exists, either because a government is unable to confront the group, or because they are harboring them, the targeted state is well within its rights to cross the border.

Further, Colombia did not invade Venezuelan territory, but Venezuela is deploying a large, offensive force on their border.

Hmmm. What does that say to you?

How is it innately offensive? You can use tanks in static defense you know, and who says they don't plan to double-back using such maneuverability if the Colombians tried to attack across their border?

Apparently a sovereign nation in your book isn't allowed to use armor to protect their border from foreign aggressors.

A basic historical judgment, looking at how armor has been used between states in the past.

First off, the FARC, a violent antigovernment terrorist group was utilizing Ecuador's territory to launch operations against the Colombian people and their government. That sure as hell sounds like a violation of Colombian sovereignty to me. International law shows that if such a condition exists, either because a government is unable to confront the group, or because they are harboring them, the targeted state is well within its rights to cross the border.

Further, Colombia did not invade Venezuelan territory, but Venezuela is deploying a large, offensive force on their border.

Hmmm. What does that say to you?
It says that Colombia probably wants to attack Venezuela.

Secondly, terrorist = buzzword.

And a signed permission from the Ecuadorean President would be so hard to obtain because...?

Actionable intelligence, when dealing with the FARC, mandates immediate action.

It says that Colombia probably wants to attack Venezuela.

Secondly, terrorist = buzzword.



Really? When did Colombia ever attack or give the impression it wanted to attack Venezuela? Its Venezuela that is deploying a huge force unprovoked on Colombia's border.


You just are so blinded by ideology that you cant see that Chavez is just like every other pseudo socialist. Deep down he is a power hungry, imperialistic tyrant.

Well we don't know how the Veenzuelan forces are arrayed on the border, for all we know they may want to form a line using infantry and then put the armor in reserve or on the flanks, for a pre-determined plan for a counter-attack if Colombian forces cross the border.

Interesting, given that Colombia has stated that they are not going to deploy troops to the borders.

Further, the deployment is of armored battalions only...not a coinciding increase in infantry presence.

It says that Colombia probably wants to attack Venezuela.

Even though Colombia is not deploying forces to the border, nor does Colombia have a military geared for an interstate offensive? I can't say the same for Venezuela on either count.

Secondly, terrorist = buzzword.

When some people use it, it is. When I use it, I'm serious about its use, because of the definitional value it provides in an academic conception. The FARC utilizes terrorist tactics, including intimidation assassinations, threats, kidnappings and bombings. They are terrorists.

A basic historical judgment, looking at how armor has been used between states in the past.
Well we don't know how the Veenzuelan forces are arrayed on the border, for all we know they may want to form a line using infantry and then put the armor in reserve or on the flanks, for a pre-determined plan for a counter-attack if Colombian forces cross the border.

It's flagrant disregard for borders is a good indication.

Well, it was being attacked, and it retalieated. Besides, they went into Ecuador, not Venezuela.



Got any proof for this outrageous claim?... Didn't think so..

All Chavez is doing is protecting his common border so that Colombian forces do not penetrate it like they did in Ecuador.


Shutting down any non-govnerment run media entity is very much being a tyrant. Staging a coup is an indication of being power hungry. Massing 10 mechanized battalions on your neighbors boarders unprovoked is also an indication as being power hungry and militaristic.

If Chavez is supposed to be a moderator, hes not supposed to blatantly take sides like he did, you know, unprovoked military aggression and all that.

Again, you are so blinded by ideology is frankly very disgusting.

Also, people are forgetting that the Colombian Army has a notorious reputation for killing dozens of civilians, dressing their bodies in camouflage and presenting them as guerrillas killed in combat, as well as many atrocities in the more remote areas.

Even though Colombia is not deploying forces to the border, nor does Colombia have a military geared for an interstate offensive? I can't say the same for Venezuela on either count.



When some people use it, it is. When I use it, I'm serious about its use, because of the definitional value it provides in an academic conception. The FARC utilizes terrorist tactics, including intimidation assassinations, threats, kidnappings and bombings. They are terrorists.
Sure, but as I said I think of Terror as a legitimate tool against the state.

Really? When did Colombia ever attack or give the impression it wanted to attack Venezuela? Its Venezuela that is deploying a huge force unprovoked on Colombia's border.
It's flagrant disregard for borders is a good indication.


You just are so blinded by ideology that you cant see that Chavez is just like every other pseudo socialist. Deep down he is a power hungry, imperialistic tyrant.

Got any proof for this outrageous claim?... Didn't think so..

All Chavez is doing is protecting his common border so that Colombian forces do not penetrate it like they did in Ecuador.

Sure, but as I said I think of Terror as a legitimate tool against the state.

Terror, the use of violence to force a change of behavior and policy by a non-state actor, is not legitimate, when there is a system of dissent and open exchange within which a group can operate, which has increasingly developed in Colombia since Uribe has been able to tighten the screws on the FARC.

Do you think that the kidnap of random, genuinely random, civilians and using them as slave labor is a legitimate tool of a revolutionary movement? Do you think that the production of cocaine, and selling it to people with a physical addiction to this substance to raise funds is a legitimate method to fund a revolution? Those sound an awful lot like exploitation to me.

Forcing people into line with your magical little cure-all revolution doesn't sound like a liberating experience to me.

This incredibly reactionary claim is usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."
2) naive belief in bourgeoisie human rights.
Both have no place in reality.

You're right. No place in reality at all.

*chops off Andaras's hands and cuts off his tongue.*

If you want to complain, you'd be a hypocrite. Human rights. What a silly thing to demand when it's your head on the chopping block hmm?

First off, the FARC, a violent antigovernment terrorist group was utilizing Ecuador's territory to launch operations against the Colombian people and their government. That sure as hell sounds like a violation of Colombian sovereignty to me. International law shows that if such a condition exists, either because a government is unable to confront the group, or because they are harboring them, the targeted state is well within its rights to cross the border.

Further, Colombia did not invade Venezuelan territory, but Venezuela is deploying a large, offensive force on their border.

Hmmm. What does that say to you?

It says that Venezuela noticed Colombia's disregard for other countries' sovereignties and deployed their army within their borders and within, yes, their right.

It says that Venezuela noticed Colombia's disregard for other countries' sovereignties and deployed their army within their borders and within, yes, their right.

Deployed an offensive armored formation and cut off diplomatic relations, that too :rolleyes:

I'm not saying Chavez is planning to invade Colombia, he'd be insane to do that. He's playing the brink, and Uribe is not biting, which makes Chavez come across as an irresponsible aggressor, and more subtly so, aleader is a difficult domestic situation.

Deployed an offensive armored formation and cut off diplomatic relations, that too :rolleyes: Chavez is playing the brink, and Uribe is not biting.

The only right Venezuela does not have is the right to strike first. So it is with Colombia, and they flouted it.

The only right Venezuela does not have is the right to strike first. So it is with Colombia, and they flouted it.

At the moment, it's not a matter of international law, as both sides have behaved well within the rules, and neither country has "struck first", it's a matter of responsible use of military power. Colombia does not pose a threat to Venezuela that would result in the need for the kind of offensive punch that has been deployed.

I'd assume you're familiar with the concept of preemptive war, (to differentiate, preemptive war is when an attack is perceived as imminent, preventive war is when an attack is perceived as plausible at some undefined point in the future) in which states are permitted to move against a foreign opponent, or an opponent harboring in a foreign state if an attack is imminent?

If anything, this is Chavez, once again, displacing domestic dissent and feelings of fraternal deprivation onto a foreign government, or foreign organizations.

Shutting down any non-govnerment run media entity is very much being a tyrant. Staging a coup is an indication of being power hungry.
No, over 10 private channels still operate in Venezuela, all of them mind you mindlessly anti-Chavez and right-wing, Chavez only has one channel, the public broadcaster, which he uses to do hi 'Hello, President' show to answer questions from the public, make announcements etc. Chavez has only taken one station off the air, RCTV, because of it's role in the attempted US-backed military coup against him, and for publicly supported the military coup on the air at the time, using US state department money = treason.

Massing 10 mechanized battalions on your neighbors boarders unprovoked is also an indication as being power hungry and militaristic.
No, it's called protecting your border from a rapidly anti-left-wing pro-US, pro-Zionist government which doesn't care about borders.

If Chavez is supposed to be a moderator, hes not supposed to blatantly take sides like he did, you know, unprovoked military aggression and all that.
Again, it was provoked, by Colombian military violations of Ecuadorian sovereignty.

No, it's called protecting your border from a rapidly anti-left-wing pro-US, pro-Zionist government which doesn't care about borders.

Speaking of buzzwords... :rolleyes:

Speaking of buzzwords... :rolleyes:

Actually being pro-US and pro-Zionist indicates pretty well the attitude of that country to international sovereignty.

Actually being pro-US and pro-Zionist indicates pretty well the attitude of that country to international sovereignty.

Yes, strongly in favor of it, to the point of flaw.

Yes, strongly in favor of it, to the point of flaw.

Oh yeah.. sure:rolleyes: I think Chavez said it correctly:

"President Uribe is a criminal, not only a liar, he is a mafioso, a paramilitary leading a terrorist state. He's a criminal who heads a gang of criminals at the Narino Palace (Colombia's presidential office).Colombia has become the Israel of Latin America."

Oh yeah.. sure:rolleyes: I think Chavez said it correctly:

"President Uribe is a criminal, not only a liar, he is a mafioso, a paramilitary leading a terrorist state. He's a criminal who heads a gang of criminals at the Narino Palace (Colombia's presidential office).Colombia has become the Israel of Latin America."

That's ridiculous.

The usual sort of polemics and displacement of responsibility that he's a regular at carrying out.

That's ridiculous.yep...

only my dear leader (Bush) can say who is a terrorist and who is not.

yep...

only my dear leader (Bush) can say who is a terrorist and who is not.

Politely, may I ask, what, the fuck, does that have to do with anything? I don't like Bush, this has nothing to do with Bush, and Bush doesn't have that authority, nor anything along those lines.

Or has Dubya become your official whipping boy, to be dragged out as some sort of argument?

Or has Dubya become your official whipping boy, to be dragged out as some sort of argument?yes.. he indeed is my whipping boy. :D

Politely, may I ask, what, the fuck, does that have to do with anything? I don't like Bush, this has nothing to do with Bush, and Bush doesn't have that authority, nor anything along those lines.

Or has Dubya become your official whipping boy, to be dragged out as some sort of argument?
It is called a red herring. Those who have issues understanding basic logic, or those who lack the ability to create a supported argument often resort to it. It is a signal that means "I have lost this debate so I'm going to change the subject and try to make it look like I have not lost yet"

It is called a red herring. Those who have issues understanding basic logic, or those who lack the ability to create a supported argument often resort to it. It is a signal that means "I have lost this debate so I'm going to change the subject and try to make it look like I have not lost yet"

Actually it's a legitimate criticism of the hypocrisy of people like Andaluciae, who lash out at any left-wing 'terrorist' organization but is curiously quiet on right-wing ones.

Actually it's a legitimate criticism of the hypocrisy of people like Andaluciae, who lash out at any left-wing 'terrorist' organization but is curiously quiet on right-wing ones.

I LOL'd at this one.

You are in no place to talk about use of logic and debating skills.

Okay, you've had your bit of light relief dissing each other's debating styles. Now will you kindly return to the subject, or must I unkindly return you there?

To restate: ## South American tensions soar over Colombian violation of Ecuador sovereignty.

Not: I know more debating tricks than you do, nerny-nerny-ner.

It is the relevant power in the region. Whatever Brazil says, has international weight.

And wow, people, you really know how to ridiculize topics using your ideological rhetoric.

All of you. From both sides. You look like bots.

Good. Because Lula just asked Colombia to apologize. You happy NOW? We interfered. AGAINST your interests. Because we saw Colombia's first-strike attack against a sovereign nation as wrong. Now will you stop trying to use my country as your meat-shield?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/wl_afp/venezuelacolombiaecuadorrebels_080303194227

If I was in charge, I would not mass the troops.. Instead I would have immediately launched missiles to the closest Colombian army outpost. The same quantity of Colombian missiles used on Ecuador.

You would have declared war.

Thanks god we have better rulers than you.

Again: What, in the deepest, darkest pits of hell, does Brazil have to do with this?

It is the relevant power in the region. Whatever Brazil says, has international weight.

And wow, people, you really know how to ridiculize topics using your ideological rhetoric.

All of you. From both sides. You look like bots.

Heikoku, stop trying to be like a one-man-Switzerland. Frankly it's not realistic in todays international political climate and personally, well it's just straight up annoying the shit out of me.

Brazil is a regional power, whether you like it or not. Brazil also engages in international diplomacy, whether you like it or not. Thus, as regional politics go, if there is an outbreak of some political crisis, the regional powers in the area tend to comment on it, and due to the fact that they ARE regional powers, their say on the matter usually holds weight with, hopefully both sides but usually atleast one of them.

For instance: Hypothetical scenario A:
Brazil: "Venezuela and Ecuador, if you invade Colombia and threaten the decades of peaceful stability and economic growth our continent has enjoyed, we will cease relations with your nation."

Venezuela and Ecuador: "Hmm, well since Brazil is an important political, economic and military power in the region, this makes me weigh my options differently..."

Well Heikoku, that was International Relations 101, please do come back soon.

BTW, just noticed how biased the OP and title is....but then again, what else can I expect.

Edit: Ah yeah...I see, when someone corners Ocean for some serious debating, he just flings up his arms and starts Bush bashing, in a thread that has NOTHING to do with Bush. :D

Heikoku, stop trying to be like a one-man-Switzerland. Frankly it's not realistic in todays international political climate and personally, well it's just straight up annoying the shit out of me.

Brazil is a regional power, whether you like it or not. Brazil also engages in international diplomacy, whether you like it or not. Thus, as regional politics go, if there is an outbreak of some political crisis, the regional powers in the area tend to comment on it, and due to the fact that they ARE regional powers, their say on the matter usually holds weight with, hopefully both sides but usually atleast one of them.

For instance: Hypothetical scenario A:
Brazil: "Venezuela and Ecuador, if you invade Colombia and threaten the decades of peaceful stability and economic growth our continent has enjoyed, we will cease relations with your nation."

Venezuela and Ecuador: "Hmm, well since Brazil is an important political, economic and military power in the region, this makes me weigh my options differently..."

Well Heikoku, that was International Relations 101, please do come back soon.

BTW, just noticed how biased the OP and title is....but then again, what else can I expect.

Edit: Ah yeah...I see, when someone corners Ocean for some serious debating, he just flings up his arms and starts Bush bashing, in a thread that has NOTHING to do with Bush. :D

1- Your annoyance is of no concern to me.

2- If Switzerland can, so can Brazil.

3- Brazil already asked for Colombia to apologize, so I guess we've already interfered. You should be happy now, should you not?

4- Your scenario should read: "Colombia, you shouldn't have invaded Ecuador without explicit and written permission from its leader. All of you, stop now."

What?

Nice, I think what Lula did, voicing his opinion as the voice of the country was good. I also happen to agree with that opinion.

Against my interests? Against the interests of the venezuelan people? Against the interests of Hugo Chávez as a ruler? About what interests are you talking about at all, pal?

I also see the strike as wrong.

And what was all that crap about meat shield? Are you being coherent here?

Sorry, mistook you for Andaluciae.

Regardless, it is not Brazil's place to dickwave.

Thanks god we have better rulers than you.indeed, You have no idea how lucky you are :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/wl_afp/venezuelacolombiaecuadorrebels_080303194227

If I was in charge, I would not mass the troops.. Instead I would have immediately launched missiles to the closest Colombian army outpost. The same quantity of Colombian missiles used on Ecuador.You would have declared war.What?

Bombing another Country is declaring war? ;)
of course it is an act of War, thank you for making my point.

Actually it's a legitimate criticism of the hypocrisy of people like Andaluciae, who lash out at any left-wing 'terrorist' organization but is curiously quiet on right-wing ones.


You have no clue what you're talking about. No clue whatsoever.

The group at hand is FARC, and they are left-wing. If it were a right-wing paramilitary, I would support Colombia equally as strong in their right to defend themselves. I loathe all terrorist groups, regardless of their stripe, equally.

Good. Because Lula just asked Colombia to apologize. You happy NOW? We interfered. AGAINST your interests. Because we saw Colombia's first-strike attack against a sovereign nation as wrong. Now will you stop trying to use my country as your meat-shield?

What?

Nice, I think what Lula did, voicing his opinion as the voice of the country was good. I also happen to agree with that opinion.

Against my interests? Against the interests of the venezuelan people? Against the interests of Hugo Chávez as a ruler? About what interests are you talking about at all, pal?

I also see the strike as wrong.

And what was all that crap about meat shield? Are you being coherent here?

Actually it's a legitimate criticism of the hypocrisy of people like Andaluciae, who lash out at any left-wing 'terrorist' organization but is curiously quiet on right-wing ones.You have no clue what you're talking about. No clue whatsoever.

The group at hand is FARC, and they are left-wing. If it were a right-wing paramilitary...the little green arrows are your friends ;) (read the thread)

And what was all that crap about meat shield? Are you being coherent here?yes he is being coherent.

Aelosia, tu aprentisaje del Ingles es fabulosa, lo hablas/escribes mejor que algunos que nacimos aqui.. pero Heikoku esta usando the cultural meaning of the expression, not the literal meaning.

Its Like saying:

China will/should take care of the North Korean problem for US.
Russia/China will/should take care of the Iranian problem for US.
Ethiopia will/should take care of the Somalian problem for US.
Canada will/should take care of the Afghan problem for US.
Brazil will/should take care of the Venezuela problem for US.

Without the explicit permission of the bombed Country?There are circumstances in which bombing territory in another country is not an act of warNo.
.
Cut the color crap,
No.
.
It just makes it hard to read.
I am not easy, I am hard.. and its not just because I am happy to see you ;)

the little green arrows are your friends ;) (read the thread)

You should read the thread, buddy-boo.

Our fascist friend said that I'm not critical of right-wing terrorist organizations, a claim that is patently false.

In other words, the US is not the global policeman. there should be not a global policeman, unless you want to completely do away with Sovereignty.

Bombing another Country is declaring war? ;)
of course it is an act of War, thank you for making my point.

Cut the color crap, it's not fancy, it's not pretty. It just makes it hard to read.

The nuance and distinction that is implicit in law, once again, clearly evades you is in full force. There are circumstances in which bombing territory in another country is not an act of war, such as the Colombian strike against the FARC in Ecuador.

China will/should take care of the North Korean problem for US.
Russia/China will/should take care of the Iranian problem for US.
Ethiopia will/should take care of the Somalian problem for US.
Canada will/should take care of the Afghan problem for US.
Brazil will/should take care of the Venezuela problem for US.

In other words, the US is not the global policeman. I would have thought that idea would appeal to you?

Tactics are tactics.

Unless they are used against commies, then they are counter-revolutionary swine. Communists are all hypocrites

You should read the thread, buddy-boo.

Our fascist friend said that I'm not critical of right-wing terrorist organizations, a claim that is patently false.#1 He is Communist not Fascist. Trying to put the "Fascist" Tag on everything you dislike is pathetic. (Like when FOX and some politicians use the buzzword islamo-fascist)

#2 You claim you have been critical of Rigthwing Terrorist groups.. I dont want to doubt your word.. but just for the heck of it ;) , Would you give us the names of these right wing terrorist groups you have criticized in the past, so I can use the NSG search function and prove to Andaras that you are telling the truth.

Without the explicit permission of the bombed Country?No.

Absolutely wrong, in every way shape and form. As it stands, states are permitted to act in their own defense against non-state actors abroad, if said group is one that has participated in violence against said state, with or without permission from the "host" state. There is a significant legal precedent for this.

No.

Yes, please, do cut it out. It sucks.

I am not easy, I am hard.. and its not just because I am happy to see you ;)

That's not even funny. :(

See, I can be an irritating little prick too.

there should be not a global policeman, unless you want to completely do away with Sovereignty.

Then you see the point of working with other countries to solve issues of international importance. :)

And, actually, yes, I do want to do away with much of sovereignty. In the modern world, it's nothing more than a cloak dictators and despots use to abuse and murder their own people all willy-nilly.

This incredibly reactionary claim is usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."
2) naive belief in bourgeoisie human rights.
Both have no place in reality. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, FARC must endlessly seek the liberation of their country, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

You are either a troll, or a really amoral and hatefully murderous person. I'm really hope your a troll. If you are real, believing in muderer doesn't make it good, remember Hitler.

You are either a troll, or a really amoral and hatefully murderous person. I'm really hope your a troll. If you are real, believing in muderer doesn't make it good, remember Hitler.

He's dead serious, he's been at it with this Stalinism stuff for months.

I guess its his way of dealing with his teenage angst and rebelling against his middle-class parents, who obviously didn't let him use the camry last night when he wanted to go hang out at the mall.

He's dead serious, he's been at it with this Stalinism stuff for months.

I guess its his way of dealing with his teenage angst and rebelling against his middle-class parents, who obviously didn't let him use the camry last night when he wanted to go hang out at the mall.

I was afraid of that, at least he will (hopefully) never be in a position of power.

, pro-Zionist government which doesn't care about borders.




SAVE US FROM THE ZIONISTS ANDARAS! PLEASE OH PLEASE SAVE US FROM THE EVIL ZIONISTS.


BTW, did ya know ZIONISTS (may they die) are responsible for everything bad ever? WELL THEY ARE. :rolleyes::headbang:

Absolutely wrong, in every way shape and form. As it stands, states are permitted to act ... against non-state actors abroad.So any Country can act against any bloody ex-dictator expending his stolen fortune in our Country?
.

Well, I believe I have condemned the KKK more than once, the Contras, Timothy McVeigh, the American Militia movement. Oh, and we cannot forget Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hiz'bo'allah, those are certainly not leftist organizations. I've also written several papers for class, in which I have dealt with the challenges of confronting right-wing terrorist organizations.

These are some awful timewarps...there is only ONE Right wing terrorist org in you list.. "the contras".
The KKK is a racist org, they dont care about cooperatives, or capitalism, they just wanna kill da negroes.

So I am going to make the NSG/jolt search and see if I can prove you are not lying... to Andaras.

good luck ;)

#1 He is Communist not Fascist. Trying to put the "Fascist" Tag on everything you dislike is pathetic. (Like when FOX and some politicians use the buzzword islamo-fascist)

It's a couter-factual derision, it's requires a bit of critical thinking, but not that much. I referred to Andaras as a fascists because a) there's nothing a Stalinist hates more than a fascist, and b) to illustrate the similarity of tactics.

#2 You claim you have been critical of Rigthwing Terrorist groups.. I dont want to doubt your word.. but just for the heck of it ;) , Would you give us the names of these right wing terrorist groups you have criticized in the past, so I can use the NSG search function and prove to Andaras that you are telling the truth ;)

Well, I believe I have condemned the KKK more than once, the Contras, Timothy McVeigh, the American Militia movement. Oh, and we cannot forget Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hiz'bo'allah, those are certainly not leftist organizations. I've also written several papers for class, in which I have dealt with the challenges of confronting right-wing terrorist organizations.

These are some awful timewarps...

That's not even funny. :(What? when you are talking with someone like Aelosia or Sinuhue or Cabra (or any of these intelligent tigresas).. you dont find it :fluffle: exiting???
.
See, I can be an irritating little prick too.naaww.. You are just the margarine of prick, just one calorie :p

So any Country can act against against any bloody ex-dictator expending his stolen fortune in our Country?
.

What does that have to do with anything? Unless they are leading an active insurgency against the government of their country, there is no basis on which to utilize military action against them.

there is only ONE Right wing terrorist org in you list.. "the contras".

So I am going to make the NSG/jolt search and see if I can prove you are not lying... to Andaras.

good luck ;)

How, might I ask, are Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hiz'bo'allah not right-wing?

Or how are the KKK not terrorists?

Oh, and good luck on that, I can rarely find my own posts when I want 'em. I've been looking for that "Work force by four sectors" graph that I posted here in January for the past week, to no avail.

there is no basis on which to utilize military action against them.They have committed crimes against humanity.

What? when you are talking with someone like Aelosia or Sinuhue or Cabra (or any of these intelligent tigresas).. you dont find it :fluffle: exiting???

Now I'm just confused
although slightly amused
but for a joke
slightly abused

naaww.. You are just the margarine of prick, just one calorie :p

Shame on you, you've used that joke at least twice prior. *tsk, tsk*

These time warps are awwwwwwwwful.

Al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and Hiz'bullah is NOT right wing. Well, Al-Qaeda, we don't know, as it was made from many HORIZONTAL cooperating organization (after 9th September) and they all united because ONE (Well, there are some who united just because this one), at least one, that is to fight the 'West' to get their own objective.

For HAMAS, it seemed that they only want their golden age back again to their hands. And that day the Arabs economic system is more liberal than others, but very less than the West now. I would suggest placing them centrist.

Hizbullah? I reckon they'd use Socialist-Islamist economic system.

Al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and Hiz'bullah is NOT right wing. Well, Al-Qaeda, we don't know, as it was made from many HORIZONTAL cooperating organization (after 9th September) and they all united because ONE (Well, there are some who united just because this one), at least one, that is to fight the 'West' to get their own objective.

For HAMAS, it seemed that they only want their golden age back again to their hands. And that day the Arabs economic system is more liberal than others, but very less than the West now. I would suggest placing them centrist.

Hizbullah? I reckon they'd use Socialist-Islamist economic system.

It's the Islamist bit, though, that settles them squarely in the far-right corner of the spectrum, given that socialism is, by its very nature, areligious and internationalist.

They have committed crimes against humanity.

But they are not currently undertaking, nor are they involved in, ongoing violent action, thus, it is a law enforcement issue. Military force is reserved for targets against whom an immediate response is necessitated by virtue of their involvement with ongoing violent action.

It's the Islamist bit, though, that settles them squarely in the far-right corner of the spectrum, given that socialism is, by its very nature, areligious and internationalist.

Ah, not always. The ancient tribes who practiced Socialism ("One who provide for the society, get from the society" ;Yeah, that was MY motto, until I understand how capitalistic the society in my city is) was very religious (with their own religion of course, Shamanistic).

And the nature of Islam is socialist, well at least we value cooperation more than competition, altought the Arabs traders were competitor, as always,

if done successfully, Socialists can be religious, and Capitalism should do. Most Sufi do not classify the Allah laws as Socialists of course, they said it 'Shariah'
However this 'Shariah' is more closer to Socialism than Capitalism...

And wasn't the areligious were the Commies?

Ah, not always. The ancient tribes who practiced Socialism ("One who provide for the society, get from the society" ;Yeah, that was MY motto, until I understand how capitalistic the society in my city is) was very religious (with their own religion of course, Shamanistic).

And the nature of Islam is socialist, well at least we value cooperation more than competition, altought the Arabs traders were competitor, as always,

if done successfully, Socialists can be religious, and Capitalism should do. Most Sufi do not classify the Allah laws as Socialists of course, they said it 'Shariah'
However this 'Shariah' is more closer to Socialism than Capitalism...

And wasn't the areligious were the Commies?

Socialists in the case of the USSR = Communists. But not Always. See "christian socialism" for the other religions socialist cause. Indeed, Christianity is inherintlenyly socialist. But Andras is a Marxist, and so views religion iwth disdain

Ah, not always. The ancient tribes who practiced Socialism ("One who provide for the society, get from the society" ;Yeah, that was MY motto, until I understand how capitalistic the society in my city is) was very religious (with their own religion of course, Shamanistic).

Whether going by a modern liberal definition of socialism, or the Marxist definition, that does not fit. It's a communal, tribal society.

And the nature of Islam is socialist, well at least we value cooperation more than competition, altought the Arabs traders were competitor, as always,

The old raid n' trade deal that the Bedouins had going for thousands of years, true dat. An absolutely fascinating warrior society, the Bedouin.

if done successfully, Socialists can be religious, and Capitalism should do. Most Sufi do not classify the Allah laws as Socialists of course, they said it 'Shariah'
However this 'Shariah' is more closer to Socialism than Capitalism...

While phenotypically bearing more similarities to socialism, Shariah laws are radically different from what most would classify as such, because the justification for socialism is in the masses, whereas the justification for Shariah is in the divinity of Allah.

And wasn't the areligious were the Commies?

Socialism is an important construct in Marxist theory, in that it is a description of the post-revolution economic system that Marxists predict.

Shame on you, you've used that joke at least twice prior. *tsk, tsk*yeah, sometimes I use margarine.. sometimes I use butter.. sometimes vaseline :D

Its not only about the positions, its also about the ingredients.. you know :)
.
Now I'm just confused
although slightly amused
but for a joke
slightly abusedSweet dreams are made of this
I Traveled the world and the seven seas
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to be abused
Who am I to disagree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfFKh1geU1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmhGoIiZuSs