AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Let's Talk - FARC to Colombia
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5112418.stm
What is your opinion Patrick?
I cannot help but feel it is a sign of their relative weakness compared to the past. It's Uribe's call. The state has aggressively pursued the FARC for about 8 years now with some success.

I'm a fan of his,he and his people know best which route to take.
Palladin Wrote:I cannot help but feel it is a sign of their relative weakness compared to the past. It's Uribe's call. The state has aggressively pursued the FARC for about 8 years now with some success.

I'm a fan of his,he and his people know best which route to take.

Unfortunately, I have not followed Colombia all that much of late, and I have been remiss. But I agree, the President is coming from a position of strength. I think he is doing the right thing by playing hard to get.

The fact that the ELN is already in talks means that Colombia AND the US are winning. I would hold out until Farc is willing to approach the 'table' on the government's terms. Further, If Uribe concludes talks with Farc and reaches a deal with them, to the advantage of the government, ELN will have no other choice but bite the bullet and make a deal for themselves.
I guess that will be his position. Right here,they have made too many pre demands.
Palladin Wrote:I guess that will be his position. Right here,they have made too many pre demands.

Nothing new here. Note that in just about Every Collectivist group or country, wild rhetoric is common, since symbolism over substance is highly valued,...............when there is little substance gained before hand. S6
Isn't it odd how Colombia has had this Marxist cancer for 50 years? Why Colombia? Things like this are hard to fighure out.
It happens when the will to crush them is weak. We can learn from this with our immigration problem. Marxists are flooding into our country.
This is a civil war that has been raging since the 60's.. Seems as if the FARC is perhaps getting a bit weary, although they do hold the largest force of guerrillas in Colombia

Palladin Wrote:Isn't it odd how Colombia has had this Marxist cancer for 50 years? Why Colombia? Things like this are hard to figure out.

For one thing, the guerrillaism in Colombia can be traced back to the Cuban revolution led by Castro. From this war, Guevara wrote down experiences and tactics, put it in a system and called it focioism. Basically the revolution can be started without all the conditions for a revolution is present. This of course contradicts Marxism which is against guerrillaism. But it stuck. I wont defend the FARC (I believe they should follow AUC's example) but I think they will continue to remain as a factor in Colombian politics for a long time.
Bruddet,

I guess what I was wondering though is why Colombia and not 100 other states nearby?

Peru had a pretty good Marxist guerilla war,El Salvador did,but none seemed to have the staying power of the Colombians. Maybe the cocaine sales powered it,I don't know.

If Castro had faltered in Cuba instead of taking over,would his movement still be fighting for control of Cuba in 2006?
Quote:but none seemed to have the staying power of the Colombians

The situation in Colombia is very strange. On one side of the spectrum you had the AUC which pretty much served as the 6'th divison of the Colombian military (although it has only 5). They did all the 'dirty work' for the army. On the other hand you have FARC-EP and ELN. However, I think the 'staying power' of the guerrillas has its roots in the socio-economic situation, which has not improved for the campesinos (or cocaleros for that matter) and thus provide the FARC with fresh meat. Also an important source of man power of the guerrilla is women. Improve the economic situation in Colombia and you will remove the reasons as for why the guerrillas can exist. Guerrillaism is really the peasant strategy of waging class war. The workers does it through unions and workers parties.



Quote:If Castro had faltered in Cuba instead of taking over,would his movement still be fighting for control of Cuba in 2006?

I cannot say without accuracy because Castro did and his group did gain state power. But I think that if Castro and his group had all been shot dead once they entered Cuba through Granma there would be no Castroism to speak about(it nearly happened!). Remeber focioism saying that revolutionary conditions does not have to exist, they instead move deep into the rural areas and build from there.
Palladin Wrote:I guess what I was wondering though is why Colombia and not 100 other states nearby?
First of all, I'm not sure you can contrast Columbia too much with other countries nearby - Latin America in general is a part of the world where socialism is pretty popular.

Secondly, to the extent they are militant, I think it has a lot to do with the military assistance of the government from the US. The problem with the Monroe doctrine, which set Latin America as our 'colony,' was that our colonialism never collapsed like it did with Europe after WWII. Our relationship with them is still undefined, and I think a lot of people are rightly seeing this as leftover imperial control.
b5d Wrote:
Palladin Wrote:I guess what I was wondering though is why Colombia and not 100 other states nearby?
First of all, I'm not sure you can contrast Columbia too much with other countries nearby - Latin America in general is a part of the world where socialism is pretty popular.

Secondly, to the extent they are militant, I think it has a lot to do with the military assistance of the government from the US. The problem with the Monroe doctrine, which set Latin America as our 'colony,' was that our colonialism never collapsed like it did with Europe after WWII. Our relationship with them is still undefined, and I think a lot of people are rightly seeing this as leftover imperial control.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I fail to see where we had established any "colonies" in Latin America. Granted, we administered the Panama Canal, and PR is a territory of the US, but colony? I majored in history as an undergraduate, but certainly do not remember any such concept as colonizing any Latin American country.

Further, the Monroe Doctrine, was an "unofficial" policy started by one James Monroe.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as my field of study was mostly in Russian, and English History, along with Ancient Civilizations.


Quote:THE MONROE DOCTRINE (1823)

The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 marked the breakup of the Spanish empire in the New World. Between 1815 and 1822 Jose de San Martin led Argentina to independence, while Bernardo O'Higgins in Chile and Simon Bolivar in Venezuela guided their countries out of colonialism. The new republics sought -- and expected -- recognition by the United States, and many Americans endorsed that idea.

But President James Monroe and his secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, were not willing to risk war for nations they did not know would survive. From their point of view, as long as the other European powers did not intervene, the government of the United States could just let Spain and her rebellious colonies fight it out.

Great Britain was torn between monarchical principle and a desire for new markets; South America as a whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for English goods than the United States. When Russia and France proposed that England join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Great Britain vetoed the idea.

The United States was also negotiating with Spain to purchase the Floridas, and once that treaty was ratified, the Monroe administration began to extend recognition to the new Latin American republics -- Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico were all recognized in 1822.

In 1823, France invited Spain to restore the Bourbon power, and there was talk of France and Spain warring upon the new republics with the backing of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria). This news appalled the British government -- all the work of Wolfe, Chatham and other eighteenth-century British statesmen to get France out of the New World would be undone, and France would again be a power in the Americas.

George Canning, the British foreign minister, proposed that the United States and Great Britain join to warn off France and Spain from intervention. Both Jefferson and Madison urged Monroe to accept the offer, but John Quincy Adams was more suspicious. Adams also was quite concerned about Russia's efforts to extend its influence down the Pacific coast from Alaska south to California, then owned by Mexico.

At the Cabinet meeting of November 7, 1823, Adams argued against Canning's offer, and declared, "It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war."

He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.

Although it would take decades to coalesce into an identifiable policy, John Quincy Adams did raise a standard of an independent American foreign policy so strongly that future administrations could not ignore it. One should note, however, that the policy succeeded because it met British interests as well as American, and for the next 100 years was secured by the backing of the British fleet.

For further reading: Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823-1826 (1927); Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949); Ernest R. May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (1975).
Well yeah, that's exactly the thing, it was unoficial, sphere-of-influence type colonialism. European colonial politics changed basically in a flash around 1960, but we never had any direct military control to give up in the first place. Our situation is much more fluid than other colonialism.
b5d Wrote:Well yeah, that's exactly the thing, it was unoficial, sphere-of-influence type colonialism. European colonial politics changed basically in a flash around 1960, but we never had any direct military control to give up in the first place. Our situation is much more fluid than other colonialism.

Look, nothing personal, but words REALLY mean things. Take "Colonialism" for instance. You are great about throwing this around, yet you fail to understand it's Real meaning. Here are just some of the definitions of Colonialism.

Control by a country over a colony it has claimed ownership of.

We have never claimed 'ownership' of any Latin American country.

Control of overseas colonies by imperial powers; a foreign power rules a large group of people; the foreign power uses the colony for wealth and has more advanced technology than the people of the colonies.

You must be thinking of England, France, or Portugal, etc here.

A specific form of imperialism involving the establishment and maintenance, for an extended period of time, of rule over an alien people that is separate from and subordinate to the ruling power. In the modern era (post 1500 CE), it signifies direct political control by European states or states settled by Europeans (eg, the United States or Australia), over people of other races, notably over Asians and Africans.

Again, does not apply.

the domination of one country over another by controlling the colony's economic and political systems

There's a Huge difference between 'control' and 'influence'

The appropriation of lands, goods, and human resources by foreign nations. These outside forces become dominant in their control of these resources, denying and destroying the sovereignty and culture of the indigenous peoples.

Sorry, not that either.

exploitation by a stronger country of weaker one; the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country

Where have we gone in and exploited a county's natural resourses for our own good, and not paid for what we received on the open market? Where, other than legal trade, have we been guilty of colonizing ANY Latin American country. Even Cuba never faired such. We went to war with Spain, and won stewardship of Cuba, but we relinquished soverignty back to them, and did not exploit them.

Frankly, I am sick and G-d Damned tired of all this outrageous White Guilt and Self Loathing that the left throws around continually. It makes me ILL. Nothing personal, but I sincerely wish that you would stop degrading this country and start standing up for it by recognizing it for the good that it CONSTANTLY does FOR other nations, and creating wealth for ourselves at the same time.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but things such as this Really get me Exorcised.
Sorry for the outburst, but I have been a bit stressed out, with keeping the madhouse, ItsAllPolitics, under control. There are so many certified Kooks there that I am pulling out what hair i have left on my head.

Anyway, my conscience is bothering me about my crawling all over you 'b'. I apologize.
I don't see any evidence that the USA has forced a southerner to do anything we demand. Panama Canal we left voluntarily.

I think the charge is pure bs myself. Without an ounce of merit. Just anti American tripe. These folks have problems and we're a nice one to blame,Americans ought not to share in the blaming though.
Palladin Wrote:I don't see any evidence that the USA has forced a southerner to do anything we demand. Panama Canal we left voluntarily.

I think the charge is pure bs myself. Without an ounce of merit. Just anti American tripe. These folks have problems and we're a nice one to blame,Americans ought not to share in the blaming though.

I know exactly what one of the Major problems is with the Left, and I'm not kidding either. The Collectivist Left honestly believes that Collectivism, without a doubt, can exist without seccumbing to the siren song of tyranny. They also believe that "collective rights" and the quaint little concept of "individual rights" can be melded into one neat little package. They think that they can have their cake and eat it as well. They honestly believe that the utopian heaven on earth can be acheived, without having to place one's head under the descending blade.

They are Absolutely aware of all the past examples of tyranny, such as Uncle Joe, Uncle Adolf, Mao,Pol Pot, and others. Yet they continue to believe, or is it just hope, that there is a systematic way to scientifically eliminate the chance of a dictator rising up. It's like the saying "If only we had had more money to throw at the problem". They honestly believe this feces that they spout.

So, in order to ensure the outcome they are self-richeously convinced can be determined, they are Hell bent on eliminating the apparant "enabling factors". Consequently, they are totally opposed to ANY use of force in their own defense, are absolutely content to castrate the military, dispise anyone who decides to wear the uniform, even calling them traitors, etc. They are opposed to ANY form of Second Amendment liberties, And it is ALL because they know the nature of the beast they are embracing, yet they still think that just one more push will get them over the top, creating the ultimate utopia in which a Supreme Being, traditional values, and the age old concept of 'right and wrong' can be eliminated or bred out of our nature.

It is simply Sheer Idiocy! First off, it WILL NOT WORK, short of total genetic reengineering. I can't even use the term 'sophomoric' as that means 'wise fool'. There is not a Damn thing "Wise" about this. Rather, what it is at best, is Intellectual Laziness par excellence. What in the world people on the Left are thinking is beyond me. It is just nothing more than "pie in the sky" Stupidity, that can only be found in a Dark Science Fiction novel, or the crumpled past history of Collectivism.

Go figure.
There are two things at work here. The first is anti-Americanism ('colonialism' may indeed be too strong a word, but we do still have a lot of influence on the region). This is not leftist - indeed, our own founding fathers were anti-imperialist. The collectivism comes in because the US is seen as standing for free markets, and people generally oppose what the US does. Anti-Americanism is mostly what ties the region together - for instance, Venezuela and Cuba don't really have an common interests, other than 'enemy of my enemy.'

I'll put this to you. Why does collectivism remain so strong in this part of the world, when it clearly doesn't work?
b5d Wrote:I'll put this to you. Why does collectivism remain so strong in this part of the world, when it clearly doesn't work?

As Bill Cosby states over and over: Brain Damage.
Pages: 1 2