Colombia vs Venezuela vs Ecuador vs ???

[archibaldcrane]

Because crossing a border to attack a country is the same thing to cross a border to attack a group of terrorists who use the international policy as their way to protect themselves after killing many people. Shit, they were attacked at night and they were wearing pajamas. They must have been there for a really long time, and now Ecuador wants to defend them. The only reason being because they might in reality have something to do with supporting the terrorist FARC, same applies to Venezuela.

Crossing the border would be an overreaction, which is essentially what I said. Anything up until that I'm saying wouldn't be. I get it, you disagree, and I disagree with your disagreement. I don't think that moving troops around and speaking harshly is a "ridiculous" response.

[Takeno]

Because crossing a border to attack a country is the same thing to cross a border to attack a group of terrorists who use the international policy as their way to protect themselves after killing many people. Shit, they were attacked at night and they were wearing pajamas. They must have been there for a really long time, and now Ecuador wants to defend them. The only reason being because they might in reality have something to do with supporting the terrorist FARC, same applies to Venezuela.

Crossing the border would be an overreaction, which is essentially what I said. Anything up until that I'm saying wouldn't be. I get it, you disagree, and I disagree with your disagreement. I don't think that moving troops around and speaking harshly is a "ridiculous" response.

They can do whatever they want with their troops, but moving them to the Colombian border to simply attack whenever they deem necessary is over the top. I dont see Colombia attacking neither of those communist governments other than stating what was found in the alleged laptops. Zero physical aggression.

And Colombia didnt react to anything when they crossed the border, they did it for the sake of their people and their government, without hurting ANY of Ecuador's interests, that is unless FARC is part of their interest. Yes, international policy was violated, and there needs to be repercussions for it, but going to war because is again, over the top.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes, international policy was violated, and there needs to be repercussions for it, but going to war because is again, over the top.

I completely agree. That my friend is -exactly- why I said:

Let me know when he crosses the border of a sovereign nation like Colombia did, then we can begin a discussion of "overreacting".

Going to war = overreacting. Military posturing = not overreacting.

[Xavier]

The fact that Venezuela and Ecuador are attacking Colombia the way they are is just ridiculous.

Yeah, how dare they speak in harsh language and move their troops around in their own countries - what a ridiculous reaction! Totally uncalled for.

Moving your troops around and moving your troops to the border are two different things. Not totally disagreeing with you but when Hugo Chavez says "there will be war" and moves his troops within miles of Columbia, MAYBE its not so far-fetched to call this an overreaction.

Let me know when he crosses the border of a sovereign nation like Colombia did, then we can begin a discussion of "overreacting".

If the claims are true that Venezuela has funneled over $300 million to FARC, which apparently setup shop on the Columbia border inside Ecuador, which has a long standing history (FARC) of attacking the Columbian government, are you really going to condemn Colombia for defending itself?

There is some FUCKED up shit going on for Venezuela to be this upset over the death of a rebel leader. You can talk about respecting sovereignty but Columbia's had already been violated by its neighbors.

[archibaldcrane]

are you really going to condemn Colombia for defending itself?

Nope, I'm not. I'm not mincing words here guys, I'm saying exactly what I think, no more. Stop extrapolating my statements in order to fuel your tirades.

[Xavier]

are you really going to condemn Colombia for defending itself?

Nope, I'm not. I'm not mincing words here guys, I'm saying exactly what I think, no more. Stop extrapolating my statements in order to fuel your tirades.

You said that Colombia's actions were far more serious than that of Venezuela and Ecuador, I deducted that from:

Let me know when he crosses the border of a sovereign nation like Colombia did, then we can begin a discussion of "overreacting".

If that statement is not accurate, correct it. Don't tell me I'm fueling a tirade. Colombia had plenty of reasons to believe its own sovereignty was compromised prior to their strike.

I don't like what Colombia did, but I can understand it. I don't think Chavez using phrases like "there will be war" over the death of a rebel (terrorist) leader and moving his troops to the border as if Colombia had just attacked their actual government is anything but a gigantic overreaction, or a sign that Venezuela had very deep connections to FARC itself. Colombia has already suggested that Venezuela was funneling millions and millions of dollars to the rebels.

[guartz]

Farc is bad news. Colombian military (and paramilitary) is even worse though. Like, burning babies worse.

It's not surprising at all that Venezuela would support Farc and even NLA in it's war against Colombian paramilitary. Enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?

What should be surprising is that U.S is supporting the Colombians. Sadly, however, it's not.

[guartz]

are you really going to condemn Colombia for defending itself?

Nope, I'm not. I'm not mincing words here guys, I'm saying exactly what I think, no more. Stop extrapolating my statements in order to fuel your tirades.

You said that Colombia's actions were far more serious than that of Venezuela and Ecuador, I deducted that from:

Let me know when he crosses the border of a sovereign nation like Colombia did, then we can begin a discussion of "overreacting".

If that statement is not accurate, correct it. Don't tell me I'm fueling a tirade. Colombia had plenty of reasons to believe its own sovereignty was compromised prior to their strike.

I don't like what Colombia did, but I can understand it. I don't think Chavez using phrases like "there will be war" over the death of a rebel (terrorist) leader and moving his troops to the border as if Colombia had just attacked their actual government is anything but a gigantic overreaction, or a sign that Venezuela had very deep connections to FARC itself. Colombia has already suggested that Venezuela was funneling millions and millions of dollars to the rebels.

Take no offense, but Colombian government consists of drug warlords, sex slavers, and baby killers. You seem to be defending them. Why? (unless of course, this is new to you, which very well might be the case)

Not saying FARC consists of innocent angels... but compared, they might be. At least(lol?) when farc attacks a village they only kill combatants, and not every man, woman and child.

[Xavier]

Farc is bad news. Colombian military (and paramilitary) is even worse though. Like, burning babies worse.

It's not surprising at all that Venezuela would support Farc and even NLA in it's war against Colombian paramilitary. Enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?

What should be surprising is that U.S is supporting the Colombians. Sadly, however, it's not.

You answered your own question. Enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?

As far as the Colombian government, I'm not defending them personally, I know they're atrocious. I just don't think this is escalating properly.

[guartz]

You answered your own question. Enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?

As far as the Colombian government, I'm not defending them personally, I know they're atrocious. I just don't think this is escalating properly.

Except that U.S could wipe all three governments off the map without breaking a sweat.
It's a question of morality, really.


This conflict is not something new, what's new is the escalation. Typically though, wars don't escalate properly.

[Plow]

If Venezuela would just give up on trying to be legit and start importing billions of dollars of coke into the US, they'd have us on their side too and none of this crap would ever happen!

[Atlasion]

Except that U.S could wipe all three governments off the map without breaking a sweat.

You're kidding, right?

You're seriously overestimating the USs power if you think they can easily take on 3 countries at once. The US has about enough military power to engage in 3 small-medium wars at one time. They're currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if they weren't, they would have a lot of trouble taking out 3 governments without "breaking a sweat".

I'll assume you did mean using military force as you said wipe them off the map. Not that economic sanctions would be very effective anyway.



Back on topic. If anything is done, it'll probably be another peacekeeping force. Although it would be very complicated. The UN is deisgned to deal with disputes between states more than anything else. Throwing militant groups based in other states into the equation just screws things up. And other countries might not be very willing to help out anyway. Who are the major traders with those countries? The US doesn't seem too big on peacekeeping forces, and is a bit busy with the middle east at the moment anyway.

Least this should be interesting for the next few weeks (at least).

[Takeno]

are you really going to condemn Colombia for defending itself?

Nope, I'm not. I'm not mincing words here guys, I'm saying exactly what I think, no more. Stop extrapolating my statements in order to fuel your tirades.

You said that Colombia's actions were far more serious than that of Venezuela and Ecuador, I deducted that from:

Let me know when he crosses the border of a sovereign nation like Colombia did, then we can begin a discussion of "overreacting".

If that statement is not accurate, correct it. Don't tell me I'm fueling a tirade. Colombia had plenty of reasons to believe its own sovereignty was compromised prior to their strike.

I don't like what Colombia did, but I can understand it. I don't think Chavez using phrases like "there will be war" over the death of a rebel (terrorist) leader and moving his troops to the border as if Colombia had just attacked their actual government is anything but a gigantic overreaction, or a sign that Venezuela had very deep connections to FARC itself. Colombia has already suggested that Venezuela was funneling millions and millions of dollars to the rebels.

Take no offense, but Colombian government consists of drug warlords, sex slavers, and baby killers. You seem to be defending them. Why? (unless of course, this is new to you, which very well might be the case)

Not saying FARC consists of innocent angels... but compared, they might be. At least(lol?) when farc attacks a village they only kill combatants, and not every man, woman and child.

Show me proof, please go right ahead, I want to see all the proof showing how the government consists of "drug warlords, sex slavers and baby killers". You may be confusing the Colombia you see today, to what it was back in 1990 when Pablo Escobar had a tremendouos influence in the colombian government. Prove me wrong, show me HUGE HUGE amounts of corruption in the colombian government. And if you are going to argue because of one case then your point just fails.

Let's talk about things that we have some idea of, not some country that you only hear in drug stories of the 1990s...

[ronin sparthos]

Except that U.S could wipe all three governments off the map without breaking a sweat.

Given our track record in Afghanistan and Iraq, its pretty silly to be still boasting that the US can 'wipe people off the map'. If anything this war has probably taught that mentality a thing a two.

We'll be too busy chasing terror into Iran to bother about what South Americas doing anyway, if some of these politicians have their way.

[Atlasion]

Given our track record in Afghanistan and Iraq, its pretty silly to be still boasting that the US can 'wipe people off the map'. If anything this war has probably taught that mentality a thing a two.

We'll be too busy chasing terror into Iran to bother about what South Americas doing anyway, if some of these politicians have their way.

And lets not forget about Vietnam.

I don't think the US would try to take out those governments anyway. Even if they wanted to, their reputation has been seriously damaged and would have trouble finding help. There currently doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for it anyway, so I doubt the UNSC would authorise anything (especially with Russia and China being so big on sovereignty). And it really wouldn't be a good idea to defy the Security Council again..

[Xavier]

America could wipe any country off the face of the map, I don't see how thats in question. Where America fails is nation-building.

[ronin sparthos]

Kinda too bad the enemies arent really nations anymore. (Russia and China are rivals, they arent friends)

[Xavier]

That too.

[Cail]

i just hope no one instigates the other, because another war in the world is not something that would be good for anyone...

[guartz]

Show me proof, please go right ahead, I want to see all the proof showing how the government consists of "drug warlords, sex slavers and baby killers". You may be confusing the Colombia you see today, to what it was back in 1990 when Pablo Escobar had a tremendouos influence in the colombian government. Prove me wrong, show me HUGE HUGE amounts of corruption in the colombian government. And if you are going to argue because of one case then your point just fails.

Let's talk about things that we have some idea of, not some country that you only hear in drug stories of the 1990s...

Well for one thing, paramilitary armies are still around. The union leaders are still ending up dead. There's still massive drug trade. The only thing Uribe has done was target FARC and make promises. The "official government" persons still have ties(family, business, etc) to the paramilitary drug lords. I just don't see where YOU see any improvements.