Venezuela Sends Tanks To Colombian Border

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hugo Chavez has ordered tanks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7274038.stm) to the Colombian border after the recent killing of a FARC leader by Colombian forces.

[ICantSpellDawg]

HAHA i knew it. Watch and learn, peaceniks.

[CountArach]

Maybe his Drug War will be slightly more successful :tongue:

[Brenus]

According to what I heard he is sending tanks because military intrusion from the Contra-FARC units from Columbia...

[ICantSpellDawg]

According to what I heard he is sending tanks because military intrusion from the Contra-FARC units from Columbia...

An anti-terrorist intrusion into an unpopulated area of Ecuador. Another country entirely. Nobody else is a bit alarmed by Chavez? I, personally can't wait until he starts to attempt territorial annexation in South America. An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.

[KukriKhan]

Geez. Jungles, then deserts, then jungles again. Can't we invade someplace nice, like Paris, or Copenhagen, or Montreal, once in awhile? Yanno, with running water, decent food, pretty girls?*

Having abrogated the Rio Treaty in favor of NATO in the Reagan years, the US has no treaty-triggered military obligations in the region. Chavez's rhetoric about 'dracula's fangs' notwithstanding, it's Columbia v Equador y Chavez-istan.

*j/k, o'course

[Caius]

All hail Chavez, dictator of South America.

[Beirut]

Geez. Jungles, then deserts, then jungles again. Can't we invade someplace nice, like Paris, or Copenhagen, or Montreal, once in awhile? Yanno, with running water, decent food, pretty girls?*

I`ll meet you there. ~:smoking:

I know the best little Irish pub. Guinness on tap, dozens of scotches, and first rate Indian food, burgers, and fries. We`ll drink. We`ll eat. We`ll decide who to invade next.

As for Hugo being tankful... I dunno. I can`t imagine that what he`s doing with his tanks can be too much worse than what all the other people are doing with theirs. Hell, even we`ve got the tanks out. It`s like a big tank party and everyone`s welcome.

[KukriKhan]

I`ll meet you there.

I know the best little Irish pub. Guinness on tap, dozens of scotches, and first rate Indian food, burgers, and fries. We`ll drink. We`ll eat. We`ll decide who to invade next.


Now THAT's a summit to be proud of. When the next prez appoints me Ambassador to Canada, that's my first stop.

[Tribesman]

HAHA i knew it. Watch and learn, peaceniks.
errrrrr...its Columbia that attacked another country you know :idea2:
When did you ever say that you knew Columbia would attack another country ?


An anti-terrorist intrusion into an unpopulated area of Ecuador.
Thats an act of aggression and a violation of soveriegnty isn't it , its not surprising that neighbouring countries are pissed at Columbia .
What was it the Equdorian president said about Uribe and his explanations ? ....errrr...He is either lying in his account of the incident or the Columbian military has lied to him .:yes:


Nobody else is a bit alarmed by Chavez?
Nope not in the slightest , why are you alarmed ?


An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.
Are you insane , or do you just like wars ? actually forget the second bit , its covered by the first .



All hail Chavez, dictator of South America.
Caius , what makes you think that Uribe is any better than Chavez ?

[Marshal Murat]

It's a textbook guerrilla campaign, this is.
Like the Vietcong in Cambodia, IRA in Ireland, Mujahdeen in Pakistan, UNITA in Angola. You never launch a guerrilla campaign in the country you wish to liberate, but retreat across the border at every opportunity.

It prevents retaliation, but ensures that you can continue strikes. It's a reflection on Ecuador that they would allow terrorists (insurgents according to Chavez) to use their border as a defense for kidnapping and killing.

I think Chavez is upping the ante and showing that he represents the 'Left Latin America' against the U.S. bloc. This is pure showmanship and nothing else.

Many excuses to invade Venezuela would be dangerous, since the Venezuelans, while not always happy with Chavez, would only be happy to fight the 'Imperialist invader'. We'd have to set up a insurgency group to fight Chavez, maybe have some bases in Colombia and run them off the drug trade.

I think that Uribe is more connected with reality than Chavez is, more practical. He's also free-market, Harvard educated, and doesn't simply bash the local superpower but tries to improve his country.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right - he supports the FARC in their attempts to overthrow the Columbian government. He literally called for this to happen. I believe that he is angling for a conflict in order to exert control over the continent. Territorial ambition is written all over his actions.

Why is this so hard to see? Do you read the words that he uses? He sounds like a madman. Oh. I forgot, he dislikes the U.S., so everything that he says must be gospel.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

He sounds like a madman.

I think that's the point. He's probably not strong enough for overt aggression, so talking tough is the only way he can get what he wants.

[spmetla]

It frustrates me to no end that Chavez is itching for a fight. While on one hand I see his right to assert that Venezuela's borders should not be crossed as the Ecquadorian border was his defense and probably active support of FARC in Columbia is of course a giant problem for Columbia. Columbia has enough problems that they don't need or want to fight another war but I could see Chavez trying to liberate Columbians from themselves and perhaps create another Gran Columbia/Bolivia or something.

I just hope this is remains posturing and saber rattling, Columbia's army and airforce is not really equiped for conventional warfare and no doubt the US would get draw in and send a few carriers and probably some marines.

[Tribesman]

Right - he supports the FARC in their attempts to overthrow the Columbian government. He literally called for this to happen.
Actually he calls for a negotiated settlement to the long running civil war , but don't let that get in your way .



He sounds like a madman.
Thats because he is a madman , but he ain't stupid .
Don't you think your president sounds like a madman too ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

It frustrates me to no end that Chavez is itching for a fight. While on one hand I see his right to assert that Venezuela's borders should not be crossed as the Ecquadorian border was his defense and probably active support of FARC in Columbia is of course a giant problem for Columbia. Columbia has enough problems that they don't need or want to fight another war but I could see Chavez trying to liberate Columbians from themselves and perhaps create another Gran Columbia/Bolivia or something.

I just hope this is remains posturing and saber rattling, Columbia's army and airforce is not really equiped for conventional warfare and no doubt the US would get draw in and send a few carriers and probably some marines.


You see it. Tribesman doesn't. JAG doesn't.

[Tribesman]

You see it. Tribesman doesn't. JAG doesn't.

What I see is that Chavez approach to foriegn relations and his crappy rhetoric is absolutely no different from that of Uribe or Bush .

[seireikhaan]

An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.
Dear God. Tuff, that would be one of the most ill advised things we could do. Reasons:

A) A large power vacuume would be created by the absence of Chavez if we destroyed his government.

B) Historically, whenever power vacuumes have been created, some kind of organization/group of people invariably rises to fill the void, sometimes worse than the previous one. Example A-Taliban in Afghanistan.

C) Unlike Iraq, Venezuela and the surrounding countries will have significant issues with Drug lords who will become immensely powerful by filling in bits of the vacuum created by the absence of Chavez. They will flock to Venezuela and the surrounding areas because they know they have all but free dominion.

D) Unlike Iraq, US troops would end up having to chase insurgents and guerillas into jungles, harsh terrain, and somewhat fluid borders which will end up becoming defined by the power of local drug lords.

The only good side, in comparison, would be the lack of religious fanaticism, but we've already seen from 'Nam that guerillas can kick some serious tail when defending their homeland, especially when the terrains suit them so well, from the 'Imperialist' invaders even when not motivated by religion. Not to mention we're already spread thinner than we'd like because of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention our other military committments all around the globe.

Now, I'm by no means vouching for Chaves; he's a tyrant and a dictator who'll probably end up making himself "El Presidente" for life before its all over. But military action against him is simply impossible right now, and probably won't be unless we either vastly expand our military numbers or else withdraw troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't see any of those things happening any time soon.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What I see is that Chavez approach to foriegn relations and his crappy rhetoric is absolutely no different from that of Uribe or Bush .

You think Bush wants to be the leader-for-life of Iraq? You think Uribe wants much more than to make Columbia a legitimate whole nation?

no

But I think Chavez wants much more power.

[spmetla]

I think when we start having to say that someone's foreign policy skills/rhetoric are on par with Bush then perhaps we need to lessen our support of that person. Just because Bush did it does not make it right, Bush screwed up big time and on a tremendous scale. My support for the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are more out of a feeling of obligation to the Iraqi/Afghani people for screwing up their country more than anything else.

Violently spreading socialism is as stupid an idea as violently spreading democracy. It's wrong, it's stupid, and it will never work as intended. I hate the former US policy in Latin American and Africa where we supported violent dictators or funded anticommunists because it screwed up those regions big time but just because the US and the USSR used tactics lack that in the past does not condone the actions like that by other countries.

EDIT:
Additionally any US support of the Columbia army would probably be aerial as well as naval. Venzeuala's navy is small but so is Columbia's and I don't think the US would take kindly to any sort of naval war near the Panama Canal. Columbia does not have aircraft of the quality or quantity to combat the the much more modern though fairly small Venezuelan air force. The US already has advisors training the Columbian army and the only additional boots on the ground support that I could envision would be guys to coordinate US air assests with Columbian army elements (Special Forces) and possibly mechanized Marine elements if the Venezuelans somehow are able to threaten Panama (I don't think Chavez would be above siezing the canal if he could).

[Ice]

Oil Prices anyone?

[Brenus]

“We'd have to set up a insurgency group to fight Chavez, maybe have some bases in Colombia and run them off the drug trade.” You mean, like for Nicaragua and the Contras? Didn’t work so good that plan… It's in the list of the lost and failed CIA operation, along side the Pigs Bay…:beam:

“He's also free-market, Harvard educated, and doesn't simply bash the local superpower but tries to improve his country.” And prolong one of the longest guerrillas on his territory. Even Peru succeeded to get rid of it own… And from when to be a Free-Market (the right to exploit people freely but with the police and military protection in case of a poorest riot) and Harvard education is a proof to be democratic? Improving what, exactly: Education, health, social services? Or huge incomes for the richest?

“he supports the FARC in their attempts to overthrow the Columbian government. He literally called for this to happen. I believe that he is angling for a conflict in order to exert control over the continent. Territorial ambition is written all over his actions.”
“I could see Chavez trying to liberate Columbians from themselves”
Do all these things remind me some country, which not so long time ago was calling for Political changes, financed guerrilla movements and provided military help to others if there were anti-communist? Was not this country helping Talibans and various dictators and killers like in Angola, Chile, Peru, Guatemala and others, invading some island? And even country as I recall now… Forget the name…:inquisitive:

“no doubt the US would get draw in and send a few carriers and probably some marines.” :laugh4: G. W. Bush is just dreaming of such opportunity… It the prefect Gulf of Tonkin incident… Again remind me something…:laugh4:

[Fragony]

What the farc.

If they catch this dutchie

http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00186/ellen_186511e.jpg

Tell her that I am not angry at her, some actually believe what they are tought at school socialist teachers can be very convincing.

[Xiahou]

Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_colombia) a newer article. I think it does a much better job of demonstrating what a twit Chavez is. He's really cruising for a bloodied nose. If he actually tries anything, I suspect he's going to see a lot of his expensive new toys all broken. :no:

[Fragony]

A capital mistake alright :laugh4:

Where's JAG? He enlisted?

[Tribesman]

I think it does a much better job of demonstrating what a twit Chavez is. He's really cruising for a bloodied nose. If he actually tries anything, I suspect he's going to see a lot of his expensive new toys all broken.
Funny isn't it , you could replace the word "Chavez" with "Bush" and it would be true .


You think Bush wants to be the leader-for-life of Iraq?
Did you notice the bit earlier where I said Chavez isn't stupid ? well Bush is , he did an action where his legacy will be getting the office trying to run Iraq for the forseeable future (or until the Iranians take the job on fully)

You think Uribe wants much more than to make Columbia a legitimate whole nation?

Interesting , Uribe wants a lot more than that , (I notice you avoid term limits in his case ) .
We shall see what Uribe really wants and how badly he wants it when the allegations of links to murder , drug trafficing , extortion , terrorism and kidnapping are sorted (not to mention very big election fraud) .I wonder if he will again claim that such things are no reason to step down from the job .
Come to think of it doesn't Uribe seem like a new Noriega sometimes .

[Quirinus]

Oh dear. They're FARCk-ed now.

/obviousjoke

[HoreTore]

Geez. Jungles, then deserts, then jungles again. Can't we invade someplace nice, like Paris, or Copenhagen, or Montreal, once in awhile? Yanno, with running water, decent food, pretty girls?*[/i]

You're more than welcome to take northern, western or southern Norway off our hands, you know...

And nobody will care if you terrorize and pillage the locals!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interesting , Uribe wants a lot more than that , (I notice you avoid term limits in his case ) .
We shall see what Uribe really wants and how badly he wants it when the allegations of links to murder , drug trafficing , extortion , terrorism and kidnapping are sorted (not to mention very big election fraud) .I wonder if he will again claim that such things are no reason to step down from the job .
Come to think of it doesn't Uribe seem like a new Noriega sometimes .

BS - he doesn't seem like a totalitarian hate-monger at all. I think that you are either misrepresenting him on purpose or just ignoring the reality.

Where are you getting this? That congressional modification was for re-election.

Uribe is not a bad guy at all. He enjoys broad popular support and seems to be interested in a more stable Columbia. I'm sure that he is prone to some level of corruption - like every politician in South America - but the idea that he needs to be overthrown and replaced with Chavez is insane.

***This just in - the U.S. can't support any center right leaders because people like Tribesman will claim that they it is as bad as supporting Saddam and the Taleban (which were egregious errors).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For a dictator or -- as in the case of Chavez -- quasi dictator, it is important to remind yourself of their own internal motivations.

Remember:

1. Flaming socialist or not, Chavez is not stupid.

2. Chavez does wish to continue in power and to do so with the support of (a workking majority of) the masses and not simply through a military/police state -- he's thinking Cuba not Belorus or PRK.


So:

Until his troops violate the border AND stay across the line for more than a short raid, he's not committed to the kind of overt aggression that the USA and others must oppose. The USA is neither in a position to, nor would be able to generate a lot of support for, a large-scale U.S. response to a 72-hour border raid. Send a CBG nearby to show the flag, but that's about it. Verdict: little to risk for Chavez.

His referendum on permanent power was rejected. His biggest name ally has resigned due to ill health. Some of his support must have eroded and the external threat of US imperialism is not credible enough to motivate -- so Colombian excess/threat/inability to control the border is a ready made problem he can seem "decisive" in solving -- when did a little "machismo" image harm a S.A. politico? Besides, you have to get the tracks muddy once in a while for training anyway. Verdict: a nice little external threat -- especially where you don't HAVE to actually attack -- is a useful tool for the political strongman.

The kerfluffle might knock up oil prices a notch. Since most of the revenue Chavez uses to buy domestic political support is funded by the nationalized oil revenues, any further increase in price is unlikely to make Chavez sad. Verdict: oil prices waxing means domestic opposition waning for Hugo.

Messing with Colombia won't bother Chavez a bit. An unstable Colombia actually makes him seem safe & secure by comparison and it is Colombia that has the cozier relationship to the USA. Verdict: a little political hay can be made at the expense of El Norte -- and done on the cheap.


Therefore:

Chavez is still playing the international community to promote the cause of Chavez. This is just another round in the game. We'll see how much he gains and whether he can use the gains to get his referendum through this time. Chavez seems VERY interested in institutionalizing himself and his regime and THAT, I suspect, is the real game.

[Viking]

You're more than welcome to take northern, western or southern Norway off our hands, you know...

And nobody will care if you terrorize and pillage the locals!


As long as they pull out again and leave West Norway as a new nation. Suddenly a certain black substance will be ut of reach for Oslo. :clown:



An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.

It is perverted to dream about wars like they are a good thing. Lots of soldiers and civillians will have been slaughtered in the end.

right wing policy --> kill people after they are born, not before

[Beirut]

An excuse to support any sort of military action against Venezuela would be like Christmas morning.

You see killing Venezuelans as akin to celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ? :inquisitive:

Although I can't speak for either party, I'm fairly sure neither the Venezuelans nor Jesus would appreciate the sentiment.

[HoreTore]

As long as they pull out again and leave West Norway as a new nation. Suddenly a certain black substance will be ut of reach for Oslo. :clown:

bah, that substance is outin the north sea, not in western norway. Besides - bergen isn't part of Norway anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

bah, that substance is outin the north sea, not in western norway. Besides - bergen isn't part of Norway anyway.

Weren't you dating someone from that fine 'burg?

Sorry, couldn't resist the pun! :devilish:

[Fragony]

Weren't you dating someone from that fine 'burg?


Noway

[Tribesman]

Where are you getting this?
Oh sorry , I thought that the way you are so pro-Uribe you actually might have some knowledge of Columbian politics , then again after a little thought ....since you are blindly pro Uribe it is a good indication that you are not very clued up on Columbian politics .


That congressional modification was for re-election.

Really , then what was the proposed and rejected modification for in Venezuela ? errrr...re-election wasn't it .:inquisitive:
both countries tried the same abolition of term limits , one was rejected by the eloctorate .


Uribe is not a bad guy at all.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: bollox .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


He enjoys broad popular support and seems to be interested in a more stable Columbia. I'm sure that he is prone to some level of corruption - like every politician in South America
the same could be said of Chavez .


but the idea that he needs to be overthrown and replaced with Chavez is insane.

talking of insanity , where do you get that idea from ? is it one of them companions you find on the way to OZ ?


***This just in - the U.S. can't support any center right leaders because people like Tribesman will claim that they it is as bad as supporting Saddam and the Taleban (which were egregious errors).
***This just in -as very old news- blindly supporting one particular pillock and claiming that they are not a bad guy at all is a sign of blindly supporting a pillock , which is an error .


You see killing Venezuelans as akin to celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ?
Beirut how dare you bring religeon into this , its all about a fat bloke with venison on the hoof and a magic trick with a chimney .

[Kralizec]

First heard this on television about 2 hours ago:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/03/ecuador.colombia/index.html


Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.

If this story is true, it will (hopefully) cost Chavez a lot of support internationally.

[Marshal Murat]

It's all machismo by Chavez, nothing more or less. I'd be surprised if Chavez actually declares war, because I doubt either country wants it. It's Chavez trying to legitimatize his rule and make FARC into some sort of patriotic movement, which it isn't. If it was, it wouldn't be experiencing the desertion rates that it has. If we really wanted to destroy Chavez, we could create an insurgency, but I doubt that we will. Also, Peru's internal troubles aren't entirely over. If Chavez was really committed to defeating the terrorists, he would've done so, but his demands and actions often seem to imply his association with the rebels. It won't result in anything, and if it does, it's going to be a screwed-up world.




Actually, Angola was Vietnam in reverse, where a popular democratic movement, supported by the United States and South Africa prevented Cubans and Russkies from taking over the oil and mineral rich region.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh sorry , I thought that the way you are so pro-Uribe you actually might have some knowledge of Columbian politics , then again after a little thought ....since you are blindly pro Uribe it is a good indication that you are not very clued up on Columbian politics .


I must admit that I am not an expert on Columbian politics like you are. All I know about this particular situation I get from BBC and wikipedia. Uribe seems to be reasonably well liked by the majority and I havn't heard much about him in terms of serious criticism. Terrorism and kidnappings are down 50% since he came into office - he enjoys 70% approval by those included in the polls. His speeches aren't filled with anti-rhetoric.

I also know that he allowed a leftist usurper enter his country and talk with the FARC - a dangerous game in a situation where the negotiator may as well be holding a gun to the hostages heads.

Do we all need to be experts to back the right horse in any conflict with Chavez? Uribe is no military despot, he is the democratically elected leader and seems to have a relatively cool head.

Tell me some of the things that he has done to warrant your contempt, since you seem to be the foremost authority on the topic. I don't have many friends from Columbia like you do.

[Ice]

First heard this on television about 2 hours ago:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/03/ecuador.colombia/index.html



If this story is true, it will (hopefully) cost Chavez a lot of support internationally.

Now isn't this news. Chavez supporting a terrorist group in Columbia. Go figure.

[Tribesman]

If this story is true, it will (hopefully) cost Chavez a lot of support internationally.

Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million
Heres a thought Fenring , what happened recently that involves very large payments to kidnappers ?
Was it something that was done on behalf of other countries and businesses ?
Did it at the time have the approval and co-operation of the Columbian government (and military)?

HeyTuff ,there is lots of criticism of Uribe , thats why the judiciary are exploring 2 possible charges concerning his alledged links to the paramilitaries(terrorists) and druglords .
But since you mention his popular support and approval ratings ...isn't it funny that he has almost identical figures as Chavez on that score .

[naut]

It looks exactly like what Nasser did in 1967. It's brinkmanship, a show of force. But, there's no Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike in this case.

I really think the US should avoid it completely, stop acting as world's police force.

[Boyar Son]

Chavez is like a modern king, he does whatever he wants. But Chavez wont attack if he has an advisor with half a brain to tell 'em macho schemes rarely pays off for national respect.

@rythmic- If the US does anything like interfere with other nations its because we have interests in the region that could be threatened. Like Chavez raising our oil prices. We dont so much as police you for the good of everyone we just do what is good for us first, then maybe you later.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

@rythmic- If the US does anything like interfere with other nations its because we have interests in the region that could be threatened. Like Chavez raising our oil prices. We dont so much as police you for the good of everyone we just do what is good for us first, then maybe you later.

You do realize America has some of the cheapest gas prices in the western world, right?

For example, right now, the provincial average for gas prices in Ontario (the lowest prices in Canada) is about $1.05 per litre. In America, the closer to mid-range example (Georgia) is an average of $3.14. With the dollars roughly equal, and as 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 litres, the gas prices in America are, on a rough average, about eighty cents cheaper than your next-door neighbours.

I really don't understand why you complain so much.

[Boyar Son]

You do realize America has some of the cheapest gas prices in the western world, right?

For example, right now, the provincial average for gas prices in Ontario (the lowest prices in Canada) is about $1.05 per litre. In America, the closer to mid-range example (Georgia) is an average of $3.14. With the dollars roughly equal, and as 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 litres, the gas prices in America are, on a rough average, about eighty cents cheaper than your next-door neighbours.

I really don't understand why you complain so much.

T3h fR1cK3n obvious that fell0w Europeans come with this argument all the time. Where I live is not europe, and I dont see how comparing our gas prices justify anything.

Americans really depend on cars because of the huge expanses of distance from my A to B. Cars is how we travel to everywhere. The only people that use bus are the ones that cant afford cars, and its not like bikes are going to make anything easier. Our cars are not fuel effecient, some people are stuck with gas guzzlers Hummers, spending all their money on that, now who's gonna buy a hummer or how can they get enough money to get a hybrid or some other fuel effecient car?

I mean, its over a mile and a half just to get groceries for me. Now imagine if a family poorer then me had to get food. Walking will take a hell of long time and gas just drains the hell out of our wallets, what with realestate prices in Florida going up and alot of people moving out.

T3h c@R is Americas lifeline.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

T3h fR1cK3n obvious that fell0w Europeans come with this argument all the time. Where I live is not europe, and I dont see how comparing our gas prices justify anything.

Did you read the example? It was precisely this reason that I used the example of Canada, which is, by the way, a little bigger than America.

When I lived in Canada, it was in a rural area, about the same distance as you to groceries, and double that to everything else (a village). Also, there was a regular forty-eight kilometer drive every Saturday. I still didn't complain.

[Boyar Son]

Did you read the example? It was precisely this reason that I used the example of Canada, which is, by the way, a little bigger than America.

When I lived in Canada, it was in a rural area, about the same distance as you to groceries, and double that to everything else (a village). Also, there was a regular forty-eight kilometer drive every Saturday. I still didn't complain.

t3H $@m3 in America. Even in metropolis' like Miami cities are still separated by miles of road. Just because their is a house next to those roads (or highways) doesnt make the distance shorter. From Homestead to Hialeah is about 30-45 minutes of driving. My father does that every worday.

And no c@NaD@ isnt bigger, its barren.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And no c@NaD@ isnt bigger, its barren.

Uhhh...Canada is bigger. Sorry.


Anyways, the point is that Americans should buck up and pay. Really, what's the problem? Drive a more fuel efficient car. By the way, where I lived, everyone drove trucks anyways. Still no complaints, and it was a good hour and a half to the nearest town with anything in it besides groceries and a school.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thought I might add something:


The average American’s one-way work commute was 25.1 minutes in 2003, according to the U.S. Census Bureau

Link (http://www.rimag.com/archives/2008/02/sr.asp)




Urban Canadians spend an average of 65 minutes commuting to and from work.

Link (http://www.omaccanada.ca/en/ooh/strengths/habits/default.omac)

65/2 = 32.5

This means Canadians travel 7.4 minutes more each day to and from work than Americans. Your earlier statement, therefore, doesn't ring true.



I should also rephrase my earlier statement.

Everyone complains about gas prices, but America seems to be the one nation willing to go to war to lower them.

[Boyar Son]

Uhhh...Canada is bigger. Sorry.


Anyways, the point is that Americans should buck up and pay. Really, what's the problem? Drive a more fuel efficient car. By the way, where I lived, everyone drove trucks anyways. Still no complaints, and it was a good hour and a half to the nearest town with anything in it besides groceries and a school.

Apology accepted.


And would those trucks happen to be using "d13S3L"(diesel) the cheaper stuff that lets giant car crusher loving people to use them alot?

No we shouldnt "bucc up" and pay. If w3 h@v3 a problem with the very gas we depend on we need to change that fast. Or I can just get my extra $30,000-40,000 and get a hybrid? t3H n0T possible. And I can name places in this metropolis that I live in that also takes a hour and a half to get to. Speed limits included.

Your link deals with resteraunt destination times. And lik3 I said, Canada is barren.


http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm

Couple this with our American cars...z0mG

How much do you pay for gas?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You might want to read my post just above yours again.


The average American’s one-way work commute was 25.1 minutes in 2003, according to the U.S. Census Bureau

Nothing to do with restaurant commutes.

Gas prices around here are hovering at about 1,39 Euro.

[LittleGrizzly]

And lik3 I said, Canada is barren.

Wouldn't that cause a bigger reliance on gas ?

For example nearest supermarket, gas station, resturants and place of work would be further away causing more driving....

[Boyar Son]

You might want to read my post just above yours again.

Yes. in 2003.

@little grizzly-it would cause a bigger reliance.

Nothing to do with restaurant commutes

Gas prices around here are hovering at about 1,39 Euro.


How many liters do you get usually for your vehicle? no wait I'm gonna have to ask alot of questions for you to get my point on this.


many things affect how much gas you get. And if we went to war for oil we wouldve said (or the president) "lets git that oil). This war would be ok if it was about oil...'fraid not, since oil actually went UP.

I'm sure this can all be explained in 1337 speak.

[Beirut]

And lik3 I said, Canada is barren.


If by that you mean we have massive tracts of land full of wildlife and spectacular natural beauty unspoiled by development, yes, we're barren.

And loving it. :canada:

[Boyar Son]

If by that you mean we have massive tracts of land full of wildlife and spectacular natural beauty unspoiled by development, yes, we're barren.

And loving it. :canada:

I'd love to edit that and put in italic (Because)-Boyar Son z0mG 1337 PwNAg3 w00to0T0oT.

[Ice]

You do realize America has some of the cheapest gas prices in the western world, right?

For example, right now, the provincial average for gas prices in Ontario (the lowest prices in Canada) is about $1.05 per litre. In America, the closer to mid-range example (Georgia) is an average of $3.14. With the dollars roughly equal, and as 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 litres, the gas prices in America are, on a rough average, about eighty cents cheaper than your next-door neighbours.

I really don't understand why you complain so much.

Congrats. You want a smiley face sticker?

We complain so much because although we have cheaper gas than Canada (which is due to lower taxes on fuel), it still costs an arm and leg to fill up an average car.

When I'm spending $40 a week to fill up my tank (this is on average when I'm home from university), it becomes a pain in the ass.

There really is not other alternative to get from point A to point B.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Anyways, the point is that Americans should buck up and pay. Really, what's the problem? Drive a more fuel efficient car.

Oh, yes, I'll have Jeeves get my Toyota instead of the BMW today.

Oh wait, I don't have multiple cars to choose from! Nor do I have 30 grand to drop on a Prius that's more harmful in the long run anyways!

But to the silliest bit of your post - why in the world should 'Americans buck up and pay'? It's not like we've got some secret backdoor deal with OPEC, composed of Venezuela and those Middle Eastern states who all love us so much, that lets us get the gas on the cheap while everybody else pays extra.

The reality of it is simple - we don't have a huge load of taxes on top of it. We do have a great deal of taxes, though,and why shouldn't we be upset - the government hardly makes good use of all that money anyway and is always wanting more.

I see no reason to give the government more money, and how cheerfully accepting tax increases has anything to do with 'bucking up and paying' like it's some noble cause.

More related to the OP - Funny how Chavez supports FARC, when the people of Columbia are so very against it.

Where's JAG, anyhow?

CR

[Fragony]

Well well well, chavez gave the FARC 300 million, now didn't we call that funding terrorism......

[Brenus]

“Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.”
Evidence? Suggest? Given by the Colombian police? Sure, no manipulation.
Smell the Weapons Of Mass Destruction evidence!!!:beam:

“Actually, Angola was Vietnam in reverse, where a popular democratic movement, supported by the United States and South Africa prevented Cubans and Russkies from taking over the oil and mineral rich region”. Actually check who went in power after the South African intervention disaster…
But thank anyway to confirm that the main interest of the USA was to support democracy:2thumbsup:

“Chavez is like a modern king, he does whatever he wants.” Remind me some Democratically Elected President… Sarkozy…:laugh4:

[Ser Clegane]

Just FYI:

Common courtesy requires that discussions on this board take place in "normal" English.
"1337 speak" does not meet these requirements.

Posts in "1337 speak" will be considered to be spam and will be treated accordingly.

Thanks

:bow:

[Meneldil]

My father does that every worday.


Because europeans do not drive for 45 minutes everyday, heh :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

Well well well, chavez gave the FARC 300 million, now didn't we call that funding terrorism......
Funny isn't it , America gave money to the terrorists in Columbia , when the Americn government tried to limit the amounts being given because of the attrocities being commited by its terrorists the republican party objected....apparently human rights violations by people recieving US funding should not be an issue when it comes to US funding . Not that the republacans got their way of coyrse , funding was cut by up to 30% ...however distribution of those funds was handed over to the people running the terror groups with no oversight imposed by the US .
So Frag is it a pot kettle black situation ?

[CountArach]

Chavez is like a modern king, he does whatever he wants. But Chavez wont attack if he has an advisor with half a brain to tell 'em macho schemes rarely pays off for national respect.

@rythmic- If the US does anything like interfere with other nations its because we have interests in the region that could be threatened. Like Chavez raising our oil prices. We dont so much as police you for the good of everyone we just do what is good for us first, then maybe you later.
The bit that confuses me is where the US' interests are more important than the interest of the country they are interfering with.

[Fragony]

So Frag is it a pot kettle black situation ?

Of course it is but this doesn't seem to exist for the chavez-fans, they are either completily silent or laying in bed with a bag of ice on their head.

[Husar]

Congrats. You want a smiley face sticker?

We complain so much because although we have cheaper gas than Canada (which is due to lower taxes on fuel), it still costs an arm and leg to fill up an average car.

When I'm spending $40 a week to fill up my tank (this is on average when I'm home from university), it becomes a pain in the ass.

There really is not other alternative to get from point A to point B.
Reminds me of those lorry drivers who come to fill up their diesel for 200EUR or more. ~D

More people should use public transportation, with a larger userbase it should then also be cheaper and better if you live in a capitalistic country.

[Kralizec]

Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million
Heres a thought Fenring , what happened recently that involves very large payments to kidnappers ?
Was it something that was done on behalf of other countries and businesses ?
Did it at the time have the approval and co-operation of the Columbian government (and military)?

I can't recall anyone saying at teh time of release that they had been bought free. It's possible that Chavez gave FARC 300 mil under the table so he could get some positive press coverage, but Chavez has in the past called the FARC a legitimate political group and besides, for a handful of hostages isn't 300 million extremely generous?

Giving terrorists money to release people they've kidnapped is a bad idea, anyway.

[Ice]

Reminds me of those lorry drivers who come to fill up their diesel for 200EUR or more. ~D

More people should use public transportation, with a larger userbase it should then also be cheaper and better if you live in a capitalistic country.

Yes, I'll use public transportation, when there is an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B. Until then...

[HoreTore]

Weren't you dating someone from that fine 'burg?

Sorry, couldn't resist the pun! :devilish:

That's OK Seamus, my english skills aren't good enough to grasp it anyway.

explain please?

[HoreTore]

When I'm spending $40 a week to fill up my tank (this is on average when I'm home from university), it becomes a pain in the ass.

40 bucks a week?

AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN??!?!?!?!?

Sorry kukri, I blame our school system and lack of youth centers... Life on the streets teach you to use your fonts.

[Ice]

40 bucks a week?

AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN??!?!?!?!?

Again, Horetore, yes I do.

40 dollars could spend else ware and put to better use. My car was also very "fuel efficient" when bought a couple years ago.

Now, I can always flip this, and say just because Europeans in general pay an exorbitant amount of money to gasoline taxes, Americans can still gripe about the mainly market force price that we are paying (although there is a decent tax on fuel here too)

[HoreTore]

Again, Horetore, yes I do.

40 dollars could spend else ware and put to better use. My car was also very "fuel efficient" when bought a couple years ago.

Now, I can always flip this, and say just because Europeans in general pay an exorbitant amount of money to gasoline taxes, Americans can still gripe about the mainly market force price that we are paying (although there is a decent tax on fuel here too)

Doesn't really change the fact that it's pocket lint, not money, you're spending on gas.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Funny isn't it , America gave money to the terrorists in Columbia , when the Americn government tried to limit the amounts being given because of the attrocities being commited by its terrorists the republican party objected....apparently human rights violations by people recieving US funding should not be an issue when it comes to US funding . Not that the republacans got their way of coyrse , funding was cut by up to 30% ...however distribution of those funds was handed over to the people running the terror groups with no oversight imposed by the US .
So Frag is it a pot kettle black situation ?

Were these the terrorist we bankrolled before or after carving Panama out of Colombia to ease our naval transit issues?

More importantly, were we getting good value for our dollar (though I suppose now the ingrates will start insisting on Euros!)?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's OK Seamus, my english skills aren't good enough to grasp it anyway.

explain please?


A 'burg" is a generic replacement for city in US slang, since so many of our towns (courtesy of German/Dutch immigrants) have names ending in b-u-r-g.

burg in English has the same exact sound as Berg in Bergen. Hence the bad sound pun of my phrase.

I remembered the tidbit about a woman you were dating hailing from there from some long ago post.

[HoreTore]

I remembered the tidbit about a woman you were dating hailing from there from some long ago post.

I beg your pardon? I would never touch a woman from Bergen...

I'm living with a northerner though.... That would be just as bad, but fortunately for me she moved south when she was four so she's quite normal... Family dinners on the other hand.... Most of the time I'm trying to figure out what the hell the others are saying...

[Fragony]

Absolutily fascinating but this is much more fun

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0427449820080304

Por favor!

[HoreTore]

They're doing the same thing Saddam was doing!

When will they ever learn?

[Fragony]

Global south almost looks like a parrallel universe at times

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, I'll use public transportation, when there is an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B. Until then...

This is half the reason public transportation is crap in the first place, hardly anyone who can afford a car uses it, its a bit of a vicious cycle really.

[Ice]

Doesn't really change the fact that it's pocket lint, not money, you're spending on gas.

I would hardly say for an average family driving two cars a week 100+ plus dollars worth of gasoline is "pocket lint" as you so eloquently put it.

[Vladimir]

Doesn't really change the fact that it's pocket lint, not money, you're spending on gas.

Can I have your pocket lint? :inquisitive:

How the hell did we start talking about this? Anyone know of any good South American dishes (food or flatware)?

[Ironside]

Yes, I'll use public transportation, when there is an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B. Until then...

Tax gas and use the money to build the infrastructure needed to create an effecient public transport system that later on will be able to support itself. :idea2:

Or continue the love with the car with it's SUV, traffic jams, urban sprawl and complain for the oil prices, while everyone else finds it cheap.

Now, what's the odds of option 1 happening? :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

for a handful of hostages isn't 300 million extremely generous?

How much did Sarko pay for the nurses ?

But anyway the claim now is that the information on the laptop was about a payment in the early '90s (thats a strange change from "recently") , its a strange thing to have on a laptop in the jungle isn't it , finacial records from over a decade ago , not as strange as the WMD claims the Columbians are making though...yep apparently farc are building nukes:dizzy2:




Were these the terrorist we bankrolled before or after carving Panama out of Colombia to ease our naval transit issues?

Lets see , it was under Clinton that the Repubicans got shirty about linking the aid to the paramilitaries with the paramilitries stopping their murdering kidnapping and drug dealing ....So that would be after :yes:

More importantly, were we getting good value for our dollar
Not really , the payments were justified under the guise that the paramilitaries/terrorists were fighting against the drug trade , it turned out the paramilitaries/terrorists were the drugs traders .:shrug:

But anyway , back to the hostages sideline , Equador is pretty pissed at these events (to put it mildly), they had been in very lengthy negotiations to secure the release of hostages , these talks had been taking place in Eqaudor , and the person they were dealing with was killed in ....errrrrr...Equador .

Still , to view things from a different perspective , out of all the countries governments in South and Central America , how many are speaking in favour of Columbias action and how many have taken Equadors side in this violation of soveriegnty by Columbia event ?

[Kralizec]

How much did Sarko pay for the nurses ?

You tell me?


But anyway the claim now is that the information on the laptop was about a payment in the early '90s (thats a strange change from "recently") ,

Haven't heard or read that one.


its a strange thing to have on a laptop in the jungle isn't it , finacial records from over a decade ago , not as strange as the WMD claims the Columbians are making though...yep apparently farc are building nukes:dizzy2:

Laptops are supposed to be portable, you know. It's not supposed to be about nukes, but about dirty bombs. I'm a bit sceptical of all this myself, but Chavez supporting the FARC with money wouldn't surprise me :shrug:


But anyway , back to the hostages sideline , Equador is pretty pissed at these events (to put it mildly), they had been in very lengthy negotiations to secure the release of hostages , these talks had been taking place in Eqaudor , and the person they were dealing with was killed in ....errrrrr...Equador .

Everybody seems to think that the only way to peace is through negotiation, but these negotiations have been an off/on process for years now. Actually the FARC has never been this weak, and Colombia jumped on the opportunity to kill one of its most senior members.
And personally I doubt that Reyes set up camp about 1 mile inside Ecuador territory only because it would make negotiations with Ecuador easier :rolleyes:

[Caius]

Argentina is with Ecuador about this recent matter.

[Ice]

Tax gas and use the money to build the infrastructure needed to create an effecient public transport system that later on will be able to support itself. :idea2:

Or continue the love with the car with it's SUV, traffic jams, urban sprawl and complain for the oil prices, while everyone else finds it cheap.

Now, what's the odds of option 1 happening? :laugh4:

That's a great solution, why didn't I think of that.

Oh wait, I thought of it and dismissed it as a terrible idea due to the fact that an instant federal tax on gasoline isn't going to magically develop into an efficient bus network that can get me from my house to everywhere I need to go with the efficiency a car can.

That's just want I want to do, give the bureaucrats more money in hopes of them creating an efficient public transportation system that can serve the needs of people who don't live in cities. Yup.

Keep trying though, I'm sure you if add enough taxes the problem will eventually be solved.

Edit: My idea for a solution would be the encouragement of alternative energy solutions and vastly superior fuel efficient automobiles would be to give massive tax breaks to the company's researching and producing the new technology, but alas, I'll shut up now and try to get back on topic.

Bad, Chavez, Bad.

[Brenus]

[B]They contained "information from one commander to another indicating that FARC was apparently negotiating for radioactive material, the primary basis for generating dirty weapons of mass destruction and terrorism" he added.”
I said they will say it… I knew it!!! :laugh4: Chavezovic, the Milocevic of South America… When he will start Ethnic Cleansing it will be time to bomb for Humanitarian Causes, of course…
“How much did Sarko pay for the nurses ?” Good question. I wish I know the answer…
And Sarko was ready to go to rescue and fetch Ingrid from the jungle… These Colombians should be (and will be, as the French recognised having Negotiations with the killed guy: Does that means France as well in the Supporting Terrorist Funding Countries?) punish for ruining his plans: First, good PR, second petrol from Chavez, all good before elections which could be a disaster for his party…

[Tribesman]

Argentina is with Ecuador about this recent matter.

Can you find any country in the region that is not publicly taking Equadors side in this ?

[Vladimir]

Can you find any country in the region that is not publicly taking Equadors side in this ?

Colombia. :grin:

[HoreTore]

Edit: My idea for a solution would be the encouragement of alternative energy solutions and vastly superior fuel efficient automobiles would be to give massive tax breaks to the company's researching and producing the new technology, but alas, I'll shut up now and try to get back on topic.

We're trying that here, but the US government is whining and meddling...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really , then what was the proposed and rejected modification for in Venezuela ? errrr...re-election wasn't it .:inquisitive:
both countries tried the same abolition of term limits , one was rejected by the eloctorate .



Wait a minute - are you equating Uribe's plan on changing the Colombian Constitution's 1 term limit for President (which is too short) with Chavez's plan for ABOLISHING Presidential term limits?

If I criticize one I need to criticize the other? BUNK

I want to know what makes you the authority on modern South American politics. Did you major in South American studies? Have you lived in Colombia? What books have you read? Who do you know from Colombia?

Your opinions regarding Uribe seem to be baseless and I'd just like to know why I should trust your opinions regarding the situation over my own.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There really is not other alternative to get from point A to point B.

There is also not in Canada. No happy face for you.

[Ironside]

That's a great solution, why didn't I think of that.

Oh wait, I thought of it and dismissed it as a terrible idea due to the fact that an instant federal tax on gasoline isn't going to magically develop into an efficient bus network that can get me from my house to everywhere I need to go with the efficiency a car can.

If that's the efficiency you require before using it, then no wonder you got poor mass transit.


That's just want I want to do, give the bureaucrats more money in hopes of them creating an efficient public transportation system that can serve the needs of people who don't live in cities. Yup.

Keep trying though, I'm sure you if add enough taxes the problem will eventually be solved.

Well, give me a nice market solution with any realistical hope of succeeding... While taxes by itself is about as effective as massive tax cuts, the state is about the only organisation that will ever go close to a long term project with long payback time with undirect profit.
Subventions for bus companies willing to expand on that market? Or tax cuts below 0% tax if you prefer that. :laugh4:


Edit: My idea for a solution would be the encouragement of alternative energy solutions and vastly superior fuel efficient automobiles would be to give massive tax breaks to the company's researching and producing the new technology, but alas, I'll shut up now and try to get back on topic.

That helps mass transit how? :inquisitive: And light-wight, relativly cars is going to be soo selling.
The alternative energy solutions are more interesting, but it'll probably take a few decades for it to develop fully.

[JAG]

As I have said previously on these boards, the biggest criticism that people could level at Chavez, if they open their eyes and ignore their dogmatic hatred, is his relationship with FARC. It seems fairly clear - and I have read a fair bit about it from varying sources - that Chavez is to some degree involved with FARC. I say some degree because depending where you read it goes from indifference, to tolerance to and further to active help of, FARC.

You won't find me defending Chavez for his relationship with FARC, it is an organisation which uses methods which I cannot agree with and is so far away from its founding principles it might as well be called what it really is, a drug cartel. However, when people point fingers at me or call me names - or demand to 'know where I am' - I would simply say that people here defend and agree with various organisations and governments who themselves have questionable - to say the least - relationships with certain organisations. This is politics and in terms of the situation in South America, it is drastically important politics, just like US support of dictators during the cold war was morally justified by it's supporters, by the necessity of the task at hand.

Let us get some things clear - Chavez's relationship with FARC does in no way reduce or dampen his great achievements domestically for the people of his nation, nor does it also do the same to his achievements internationally, to put South America back on the map and not an extended piece of the US. Whatever you say about the relationship with FARC, this does not change.

Furthermore, it is also apparent that people are ignoring the fact that Columbia, in effect, invaded a neighboring country. It is not acceptable, full stop. You cannot unilaterally invade another nation, for whatever reason and I think it is fair - if not being done for posturing reasons - for the neighboring states to send their troops to the borders. It is exactly what any nation on this planet would do when attacked. It doesn't matter nor should even come into anybody's thinking as to why it was done, it simply does not make any difference, a nation was invaded and is taking appropriate measures to defend itself in future. If we ignore international law, precedent and diplomacy like Columbia has done in the past week, then what we have is deepening anarchy in an international system which has only been getting out of the 'natural' state of anarchy, over the last 60 years.

And I would like to point out, lastly that it is quite coincidental, is it not, that Columbia have found in the very same computers information not only implicating Chavez and Venezuela but also Ecuador! Wow, who would have thought it! Information implicating the two nations pissed that the Columbian government unilaterally invaded a nation! Italy have condemned the attack too, maybe they were involved as well - give it time. It is too convenient and I try and shy away from convenient 'facts' that arise to demonise opponents on a subject.

Anyway, it is quite easy to support Chavez and the great things he has done for his nation and others in the region - as well as mine and London in particular, with the cheap oil deal - and salute a great man, while still stating that he and his nations policies are not perfect - much like many people here do with certain Presidents of a certain nation, of the past - a certain privatising, murdering scum bad starting with Rea.. springs to mind. I forget his name though.

[Tribesman]

If I criticize one I need to criticize the other? BUNK
If you want to criticize one then thats fine , but if you criticize one for being really really bad when the other is just as bad then what you write is ...errrrr...BUNK .
Consider it an application of that Negroponte doctrine that your government likes so much , speaking of which when your government doesn't invade countries , finance terrorists and deploy military forces to exert pressure then perhaps you can criticize other countries actions more freely and with more conviction .



Your opinions regarding Uribe seem to be baseless
Really ? thats funny .
Tell you what Tuff , you say you get your information from Wiki and the BBC , have you ever considered following links from those places to see the full selection of information that they are only giving you snippets of ?
All of the scandals involving Uribes ties and US government (and business)terrorist funding in Columbia can be gathered with a few quick clicks .

Now what is a really funny development in this story is Uribe wanting to send Chavez to the international court , doesn't the muppet know that his puppet masters don't like that court .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is even funnier is that if the allegations before the Columbian courts about him come to fruition then he himself might be joining his old buddies on the growing list of dodgy Columbian characters wanted for extradition to the US .:yes:

[Ice]

There is also not in Canada. No happy face for you.

So whats your point? Canadians have every reason to gripe about their high energy costs, even more so than Americans due to the putative taxes their government adds to the cost of fuel. Hell, everyone has the right to gripe.


If that's the efficiency you require before using it, then no wonder you got poor mass transit.

Not quite sure what you mean. Should I expect half ass transportation run by the state?


Well, give me a nice market solution with any realistical hope of succeeding... While taxes by itself is about as effective as massive tax cuts, the state is about the only organisation that will ever go close to a long term project with long payback time with undirect profit.
Subventions for bus companies willing to expand on that market? Or tax cuts below 0% tax if you prefer that.

How about tax cuts by say 10% or even more?

I forgot though, the market is evil, the state must solve all! :yes:


That helps mass transit how? And light-wight, relativly cars is going to be soo selling.

I never said it would help mass transit. My point was it would get us off our addiction to oil and the corrupt governments of the Middle East, while costing a hell of a lot less.

I'm not sure what you mean by light weight relativity cars.


The alternative energy solutions are more interesting, but it'll probably take a few decades for it to develop fully.


Hence, there needs to be greater incentive, which higher oil prices and tax breaks from the government will yield.

[Boyar Son]

The bit that confuses me is where the US' interests are more important than the interest of the country they are interfering with.

Yu0 d0nt understand or is that sarcasm?


Because europeans do not drive for 45 minutes everyday, heh :inquisitive:

cH3@ how many miles/kilo's do you drive to work? last time I checked europeans dont depend on car as much a Americans do. What with closer locations and availibilty of various transport.

Note on Ice's car that since he's in college that car is t3H important to him, with lack of money, he is most likely barely keeping up with g@s prices.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If you want to criticize one then thats fine , but if you criticize one for being really really bad when the other is just as bad then what you write is ...errrrr...BUNK .
Consider it an application of that Negroponte doctrine that your government likes so much , speaking of which when your government doesn't invade countries , finance terrorists and deploy military forces to exert pressure then perhaps you can criticize other countries actions more freely and with more conviction .



Really ? thats funny .
Tell you what Tuff , you say you get your information from Wiki and the BBC , have you ever considered following links from those places to see the full selection of information that they are only giving you snippets of ?
All of the scandals involving Uribes ties and US government (and business)terrorist funding in Columbia can be gathered with a few quick clicks .

Now what is a really funny development in this story is Uribe wanting to send Chavez to the international court , doesn't the muppet know that his puppet masters don't like that court .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is even funnier is that if the allegations before the Columbian courts about him come to fruition then he himself might be joining his old buddies on the growing list of dodgy Columbian characters wanted for extradition to the US .:yes:


Do you agree that the ramifications of Uribe's referendum are very different from the possible ramifications of Chavez's failed attempt? That should be a simple answer, but I'm sure that you will complicate it.

Still; PHD in regional politics? Major? What makes your understanding so superior to those of us who see the forest for the trees? That you follow links? So do we.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As I have said previously on these boards, the biggest criticism that people could level at Chavez, if they open their eyes and ignore their dogmatic hatred, is his relationship with FARC. It seems fairly clear - and I have read a fair bit about it from varying sources - that Chavez is to some degree involved with FARC. I say some degree because depending where you read it goes from indifference, to tolerance to and further to active help of, FARC.

You won't find me defending Chavez for his relationship with FARC, it is an organisation which uses methods which I cannot agree with and is so far away from its founding principles it might as well be called what it really is, a drug cartel. However, when people point fingers at me or call me names - or demand to 'know where I am' - I would simply say that people here defend and agree with various organisations and governments who themselves have questionable - to say the least - relationships with certain organisations. This is politics and in terms of the situation in South America, it is drastically important politics, just like US support of dictators during the cold war was morally justified by it's supporters, by the necessity of the task at hand.

Let us get some things clear - Chavez's relationship with FARC does in no way reduce or dampen his great achievements domestically for the people of his nation, nor does it also do the same to his achievements internationally, to put South America back on the map and not an extended piece of the US. Whatever you say about the relationship with FARC, this does not change.

Furthermore, it is also apparent that people are ignoring the fact that Columbia, in effect, invaded a neighboring country. It is not acceptable, full stop. You cannot unilaterally invade another nation, for whatever reason and I think it is fair - if not being done for posturing reasons - for the neighboring states to send their troops to the borders. It is exactly what any nation on this planet would do when attacked. It doesn't matter nor should even come into anybody's thinking as to why it was done, it simply does not make any difference, a nation was invaded and is taking appropriate measures to defend itself in future. If we ignore international law, precedent and diplomacy like Columbia has done in the past week, then what we have is deepening anarchy in an international system which has only been getting out of the 'natural' state of anarchy, over the last 60 years.

And I would like to point out, lastly that it is quite coincidental, is it not, that Columbia have found in the very same computers information not only implicating Chavez and Venezuela but also Ecuador! Wow, who would have thought it! Information implicating the two nations pissed that the Columbian government unilaterally invaded a nation! Italy have condemned the attack too, maybe they were involved as well - give it time. It is too convenient and I try and shy away from convenient 'facts' that arise to demonise opponents on a subject.

Anyway, it is quite easy to support Chavez and the great things he has done for his nation and others in the region - as well as mine and London in particular, with the cheap oil deal - and salute a great man, while still stating that he and his nations policies are not perfect - much like many people here do with certain Presidents of a certain nation, of the past - a certain privatising, murdering scum bad starting with Rea.. springs to mind. I forget his name though.


I'm glad that you condemn FARC.

The Colombian government made an incursion 1.9 miles into Ecuadorian rain forest and killed a terrorist who was orchestrating murders, drug transportations and kidnappings in their country. They promptly apologized to the Ecuadorian government for the necessity of the act, but claim that the situation wasn't being addressed. Since Ecuador and Venezuela seem to be in cahoots with FARC, telling them about the intelligence would have been a sure-fire way to get the FARC to re-locate.

There are plenty of international precedents. As much as I consistently disagree with Israel, they do this stuff constantly. The U.S. does this stuff. Turkey just did this. The examples of others doing this are many.

The fact is that the U.S. broke down the walls regarding the harboring of terrorists with impunity. Good. "International law" is a sham if it is used to harbor terrorists.

All of the Presidential candidates support Uribe in this action. I know, I know, "evil American Imperialist dogs want to eat our children", but it says a little bit when their answers are unanimous.

[LittleGrizzly]

As much as I consistently disagree with Israel, they do this stuff constantly. The U.S. does this stuff. Turkey just did this. The examples of others doing this are many.

Most of the people who do this are "on your side" would you be so casual if it happened to your country or an ally ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The fact is that the U.S. broke down the walls regarding the harboring of terrorists with impunity. Good. "International law" is a sham if it is used to harbor terrorists.

I really hope you're talking about Afghanistan, and not Iraq.

[Marshal Murat]

It reminds me of the Israeli 'Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)', where terrorists hijacked a civilian airplane and held them ransom. The Israelis promptly responded with a anti-terrorists raid into Uganda, rescuing many of the hostages. Even though they violated international law launching this attack, they did save lives. Whether is was right or wrong is your judgment, but the Israelis did it and saved lives. That's what matters to me, and I'll give them kudos for it.

I'm supporting Colombia in this attack since they destroyed a key FARC commander and struck a blow for law and order. While you can argue that it was an invasion and that it wasn't the right thing to do, I believe that it was a step in destroying the guerrilla force that is FARC. It will produce results that will lead to the downfall of this terrorist force.
If they want to be legitimate, why do they need hostages and threats to maintain their legitimacy?

[ICantSpellDawg]

As much as I consistently disagree with Israel, they do this stuff constantly. The U.S. does this stuff. Turkey just did this. The examples of others doing this are many.

Most of the people who do this are "on your side" would you be so casual if it happened to your country or an ally ?

Do we harbor terrorists? OH yea, that's right, we ARE terrorists.

No. If they harbor terrorists, not only would they most likely not be our allies, but I wouldn't feel bad if someone made a quick incursion. An exception to this is Pakistan. I wouldn't be pissed if Afghan (or U.S.) forces made an incursion, but I would question the pragmatism of such a move given the situation in the country and its tenuous hold to our alliance.


I really hope you're talking about Afghanistan, and not Iraq.

I was talking about Afghanistan in particular.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I was talking about Afghanistan in particular.

Just curious. ~:)

[HoreTore]

Do we harbor terrorists? OH yea, that's right, we ARE terrorists.

Israel does. The murderers of a completely innocent man in Lillehammer fled from justice to hide in Israel. Would you support an air strike against Israel?

[Tribesman]

What makes your understanding so superior to those of us who see the forest for the trees? That you follow links? So do we.

if you could see the forest for the trees you would understsnd , it is you that are calling well publicised things "baseless" and you whose only opinion on these issues seems to be Uribe isn't Chavez and Uribe likes American policies .


Do we harbor terrorists? OH yea, that's right, we ARE terrorists.

Correct , America does commit terrorism and does support terrorists , it also harbours terrorists . So you fall flat on your face there Tuff .
For a recent example , can you name the person accused of killing European tourists by bombing hotels ? is it the same person accused of blowing up civilian airliners killing all the passengers ?
Where is that persn now ?
How many countries have had their attempts at bringing the terrorist to justice blocked by the country that supported , financed ,trained and now harbours him ?
Now then would all those countries be "justified" in bombing that country ?

[Brenus]

“You cannot unilaterally invade another nation,”: Well, de facto you can. Then, you can declare a part of the territory you invaded independent… Was done from Panama and more recently for Kosovo…:beam:

“Uribe wanting to send Chavez to the international court”. Yep. Chavezovic, I told you.:2thumbsup:

“Do you agree that the ramifications of Uribe's referendum are very different from the possible ramifications of Chavez's failed attempt”
No. In France we have no limitation of the number of mandates. The principal is every body is equal in front of the law, and if somebody is good enough to be elected 3 times, well, it is good for the country…

Or you can go for the Putin’s solution…:beam:

A lot of democratic countries (if fact, the majority of) don’t know a system limiting the right of voters to decide who they want as President…

[HoreTore]

Or you can go for the Putin’s solution…:beam:

Yeah, I've never seen the need for a limit, when it can be bypassed very easily by putting a puppet in charge...

[Quirinus]

Yu0 d0nt understand or is that sarcasm?

@rythmic- If the US does anything like interfere with other nations its because we have interests in the region that could be threatened. Like Chavez raising our oil prices. We dont so much as police you for the good of everyone we just do what is good for us first, then maybe you later.
Forgive me for butting in, but I have trouble detecting the sarcasm in said post.


My idea for a solution would be the encouragement of alternative energy solutions and vastly superior fuel efficient automobiles would be to give massive tax breaks to the company's researching and producing the new technology
Somehow, I think building up a reliable, extensive bus network will take much less money and time.


It doesn't matter nor should even come into anybody's thinking as to why it was done, it simply does not make any difference, a nation was invaded and is taking appropriate measures to defend itself in future. If we ignore international law, precedent and diplomacy like Columbia has done in the past week, then what we have is deepening anarchy in an international system which has only been getting out of the 'natural' state of anarchy, over the last 60 years.
I agree. Otherwise any belligerent nation could just use the terrorist excuse to invade another country.

[Conradus]

Yu0 d0nt understand or is that sarcasm?



cH3@ how many miles/kilo's do you drive to work? last time I checked europeans dont depend on car as much a Americans do. What with closer locations and availibilty of various transport.


My dad has to drive an hour each day to get to his work. My mom has to drive for 25 minutes or something like that(not including traffic jams). She mostly uses public transport though, but that means an hour on the road.

[Vladimir]

Pot, meet Kettle (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0338719020080303). :laugh4:

[Ironside]

Not quite sure what you mean. Should I expect half ass transportation run by the state?

Car's will always have the benefit of being faster (unless the mass transit can bypass traffic jams or having high speed trains) and not needing to wait for the transport to arrive.

You can develop a profitable system that aren't taking much longer, has quite dense transports and is cheap, but that's about it.


How about tax cuts by say 10% or even more?

I forgot though, the market is evil, the state must solve all! :yes:

Well, the market cannot do it by itself (I still haven't seen you suggest anything different), and even your suggestion demands that the state will have to tax all other companies to make the tax cut an incentative. :bounce:

One of the flaws of the market is that if there's an expensive and long gap between the first investment and the income it's highly unlikely for the market to develop in that way, even if it's beneficial in the long term.

Or to put it differently, what's the odds for evolution to create a kentaur?

And don't you tax profits over there (aka you'll need to make a profit in the first palce to earn on a tax cut)? :inquisitive:


I never said it would help mass transit. My point was it would get us off our addiction to oil and the corrupt governments of the Middle East, while costing a hell of a lot less.

So by cutting off oil dependence you'll get an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B? Missed that.

Solving oil dependance is an entierly different matter.


I'm not sure what you mean by light weight relativity cars.

Missed a slow there :oops: . More energy efficient cars need either a new kind of engine or becoming lighter and cutting down on horse powers, if driven on oil.


Hence, there needs to be greater incentive, which higher oil prices and tax breaks from the government will yield.

And it will still take decades. BTW, waiting for the oil prices to be painfully high is also most likely lead to a painful transition period.

And it cannot be fully solved until there's some source of cheap and aboundant energy.

[Big_John]

I'm not sure what you mean by light weight relativity cars.relativity cars??

that will be fast!! :burnout:

[Boyar Son]

My dad has to drive an hour each day to get to his work. My mom has to drive for 25 minutes or something like that(not including traffic jams). She mostly uses public transport though, but that means an hour on the road.

j00r m0$+ likely the minority of the people who drive that much.

Quirinus- excuse me?

[Ice]

Car's will always have the benefit of being faster (unless the mass transit can bypass traffic jams or having high speed trains) and not needing to wait for the transport to arrive.

Uh huh



You can develop a profitable system that aren't taking much longer, has quite dense transports and is cheap, but that's about it.

How exactly?



Well, the market cannot do it by itself (I still haven't seen you suggest anything different), and even your suggestion demands that the state will have to tax all other companies to make the tax cut an incentative. :bounce:

The state already tax companies.


One of the flaws of the market is that if there's an expensive and long gap between the first investment and the income it's highly unlikely for the market to develop in that way, even if it's beneficial in the long term.

You think that developing a mass transit system capable of serving the needs of 300 million Americans efficiently and safely will be easier?



And don't you tax profits over there (aka you'll need to make a profit in the first palce to earn on a tax cut)? :inquisitive:


We tax income, yes. The point being, as the company makes major breakthroughs and starts to become successful they will be able to keep more of the income.


So by cutting off oil dependence you'll get an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B? Missed that.
Solving oil dependance is an entierly different matter.

I never said that. The point I was making is this is one way of getting around the painful gas prices.



Missed a slow there :oops: . More energy efficient cars need either a new kind of engine or becoming lighter and cutting down on horse powers, if driven on oil.

Yes, that's what currently is happening/developing. I'm for accelerating the research.



And it will still take decades. BTW, waiting for the oil prices to be painfully high is also most likely lead to a painful transition period.

...and somehow you believe that taxing gasoline to 6 dollars a gallon and trying to develop a mass transit system that is actually capable of serving people's needs is going to be more timely and less painful?


And it cannot be fully solved until there's some source of cheap and aboundant energy.

Yes, hence the research.

[Ice]

Somehow, I think building up a reliable, extensive bus network will take much less money and time.


Do share you plan on how to accomplish this.

[Quirinus]

Firstly, heavily subsidise public transportation-- it's not going to be an attractive means of transport (as compared to cars) unless it's significantly cheaper. How about a dollar or fifty-cent day-pass? Instead of paying $50-100 per week for transport, only five dollars (or even $2.50) a week is needed for transport. For those who are tight on cash, that's a great incentive.

Of course, without the right infranstructure, even a free bus service would lack constant support. Map out a system of bus routes that is reasonably dense, and make them modular so as to be able to expand them at a later date. I understand that expecting a nationwide network is unreasonable due to the size of the US, but start with the urban areas-- New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, etc. etc. Don't skimp on anything-- good, punctual service is very important.

On the flip side of the coin, tax the purchase of cars heavily, and enforce measures that make purchasing a car a less attractive and viable investment. This way, people who might have previously drove anyway will at least give the public transportation system a try. Cars won't disappear from use, far from it. Those who can afford it will still buy it, and in the meantime the nation's coffers are filled, the same way they are filled by cigarette and liquor taxes.

I understand that it does take a whole lot of money, and it is difficult to change the mindset of an entire nation so soon, but it's possible. And I think it can be accomplished sooner than your plan of adopting alternative fuel and encourage research on them. My plan might take a decade or so, but what you're proposing (as I understand it) could possibly take a generation, maybe two, while in the meantime we have merciless traffic snarls and oil dependence on volatile, politically unstable regions. Your solution solves the latter, but not the former.



Boyar Son, you posted this:

@rythmic- If the US does anything like interfere with other nations its because we have interests in the region that could be threatened. Like Chavez raising our oil prices. We dont so much as police you for the good of everyone we just do what is good for us first, then maybe you later.

CountArach made this observation about your post:

The bit that confuses me is where the US' interests are more important than the interest of the country they are interfering with.

And you replied by saying:

Yu0 d0nt understand or is that sarcasm?

So I pointed out your first post and indicated my skepticism that you were being sarcastic, unless your sense of irony is so refined that your sarcasm is undetectable by us common mortals.

Hope this clears things up. :yes:

[Conradus]

j00r m0$+ likely the minority of the people who drive that much.



About everyone I can think of spends atleast an hour on the road each day getting to and coming from his work.

[Marshal Murat]

Topics had ADHD

I personally can't understand what the heck public vs. private transportation has to do with Venezuelan threats against Colombia. Now can we pleeeaaassseee get back on topic. If this concerns you that much, make another thread, you can make as many as you like, but don't turn this into something it's not.


I think Colombia is in the wrong on this one. They violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Who's against me?

[Husar]

Topics had ADHD

I personally can't understand what the heck public vs. private transportation has to do with Venezuelan threats against Colombia. Now can we pleeeaaassseee get back on topic. If this concerns you that much, make another thread, you can make as many as you like, but don't turn this into something it's not.


I think Colombia is in the wrong on this one. They violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Who's against me?
Let me try.

Venezuelans are commies, commies use public transportation.
Good capitalists have their own SUVs, take Texans for example.
Having your own car is an expression of your freedom(to destroy the environment, cause smog, cancer and death, basically be a darwinistic capitalist).
Venezuelans use tanks, tanks are owned by the commie government which is run by the commie public.
Therefore and because more than two people fit into tanks, tanks equal public transportation.

So basically the evil Venezuelan commie public transportation tank platoons near the border of Colombia, which uses mainly SUVs and is thus a capitalistic country of freedom and democracy and the American way, are a direct threat to world piece!
Therefore it is important to discuss the evils of the commie invention of public transportation to make sure that more people buy SUVs, stop supporting Venezuela and start buying Microsoft products to support capitalism, world piece, Texans, iraqi oil corporations(they use SUVs) and Bill Gates' american dream! :smash:
I have to go now or I'll miss my train later. ~D

[Kralizec]

It reminds me of the Israeli 'Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)', where terrorists hijacked a civilian airplane and held them ransom. The Israelis promptly responded with a anti-terrorists raid into Uganda, rescuing many of the hostages. Even though they violated international law launching this attack, they did save lives. Whether is was right or wrong is your judgment, but the Israelis did it and saved lives. That's what matters to me, and I'll give them kudos for it.

I'm supporting Colombia in this attack since they destroyed a key FARC commander and struck a blow for law and order. While you can argue that it was an invasion and that it wasn't the right thing to do, I believe that it was a step in destroying the guerrilla force that is FARC. It will produce results that will lead to the downfall of this terrorist force.
If they want to be legitimate, why do they need hostages and threats to maintain their legitimacy?

Well said.


I think Colombia is in the wrong on this one. They violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Who's against me?

:inquisitive:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think Colombia is in the wrong on this one. They violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Who's against me?

Wait - didn't you say that you supported them?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The old-school definitions of international "law" (to the extent that the term may be applied in a context without some higher controlling authority) suggest that military forces of one nation crossing the border of another nation constitutes an act of war by nation A at the expense of nation B and that such a violation is a legitimate casum bellum.

Is this the standard that should continue to apply? Why or why not?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The old-school definitions of international "law" (to the extent that the term may be applied in a context without some higher controlling authority) suggest that military forces of one nation crossing the border of another nation constitutes an act of war by nation A at the expense of nation B and that such a violation is a legitimate casum bellum.

Is this the standard that should continue to apply? Why or why not?

I think that it is technically a cause for war. So is allowing a terrorist organization to cross the border with impunity in order to murder and kidnap civilians.

The main idea of preventative action is to avert a war. When non-state actors use a state as an umbrella to such an extent that the state defense becomes terrorist defense, we have a problem. If the state cannot control the goings on of terrorism within its borders and it begins to effect the safety of neighbors, there may be legitimate reason to make a quick and decisive action.

The problem with Ecuador and Venezuela is that they support the FARC. They use their sovereignty as an excuse to aid in the training and protection of international kidnapping murderers. They should be ashamed of themselves and expect preventative action, as should any state that harbors terrorists and makes no real attempt to eradicate them.

The U.S. stands with Colombia because we believe in this basic tenet, from Obama to Bush - like it or not.

[Xiahou]

I think that it is technically a cause for war. So is allowing a terrorist organization to cross the border with impunity in order to murder and kidnap civilians.

The main idea of preventative action is to avert a war. When non-state actors use a state as an umbrella to such an extent that the state defense becomes terrorist defense, we have a problem. If the state cannot control the goings on of terrorism within its borders and it begins to effect the safety of neighbors, there may be legitimate reason to make a quick and decisive action.

The problem with Ecuador and Venezuela is that they support the FARC. They use their sovereignty as an excuse to aid in the training and protection of international kidnapping murderers. They should be ashamed of themselves and expect preventative action, as should any state that harbors terrorists and makes no real attempt to eradicate them.

The U.S. stands with Colombia because we believe in this basic tenet, from Obama to Bush - like it or not.Well said. I think Chavez has become completely deranged over this incident. I'm curious to see how far he's willing to take his warmongering and what the fallout from it will be.

[Slyspy]

Let me try.

Venezuelans are commies, commies use public transportation.
Good capitalists have their own SUVs, take Texans for example.
Having your own car is an expression of your freedom(to destroy the environment, cause smog, cancer and death, basically be a darwinistic capitalist).
Venezuelans use tanks, tanks are owned by the commie government which is run by the commie public.
Therefore and because more than two people fit into tanks, tanks equal public transportation.

So basically the evil Venezuelan commie public transportation tank platoons near the border of Colombia, which uses mainly SUVs and is thus a capitalistic country of freedom and democracy and the American way, are a direct threat to world piece!
Therefore it is important to discuss the evils of the commie invention of public transportation to make sure that more people buy SUVs, stop supporting Venezuela and start buying Microsoft products to support capitalism, world piece, Texans, iraqi oil corporations(they use SUVs) and Bill Gates' american dream! :smash:
I have to go now or I'll miss my train later. ~D

Well done! :applause:

[Big_John]

I think that it is technically a cause for war. So is allowing a terrorist organization to cross the border with impunity in order to murder and kidnap civilians.

The main idea of preventative action is to avert a war. When non-state actors use a state as an umbrella to such an extent that the state defense becomes terrorist defense, we have a problem. If the state cannot control the goings on of terrorism within its borders and it begins to effect the safety of neighbors, there may be legitimate reason to make a quick and decisive action.

The problem with Ecuador and Venezuela is that they support the FARC. They use their sovereignty as an excuse to aid in the training and protection of international kidnapping murderers. They should be ashamed of themselves and expect preventative action, as should any state that harbors terrorists and makes no real attempt to eradicate them.wouldn't the logical course of action be to secure the border to prevent FARC incursions, considering how provacative invading another country with your military is?


The U.S. stands with Colombia because we believe in this basic tenet, from Obama to Bush - like it or not.that sounds rather simplistic.

[The Black Ship]

wouldn't the logical course of action be to secure the border to prevent FARC incursions, considering how provacative invading another country with your military is?

that sounds rather simplistic.

This seems more a case of hot-pursuit, not invasion. I don't think the Turks call their incursions into Iraq an invasion, and neither has the international community.

One has to wonder why the Colombian military didn't think that calling the Ecuadorian military to intercept the FARC on their side of the border would do any good. I would suspect that they'd experienced deaf ears before.

And parking your military along your border to prevent incursions by insurgants sounds simplistic to me. If it were that easy Afghanistan would be peaceful. Not to mention that here in the US we catch flak for increasing the presence ofBorder Patrol agents on our Mexican border...imagine what Chavez would do if armed troops took up permanent station. I'm sure he'd be cool with that:dizzy2:

Even Raúl Baduell, his old defense minister and former staunch supporter, doesn't believe Chavez' reaction is proportional. Something about distracting the populice from economic woes...

[Tribesman]

The problem with Ecuador and Venezuela is that they support the FARC. They use their sovereignty as an excuse to aid in the training and protection of international kidnapping murderers.
Are you familiar with a well known saying involving glass houses and stones ?:inquisitive:


They should be ashamed of themselves and expect preventative action, as should any state that harbors terrorists and makes no real attempt to eradicate them.

You know the saying about it not being wise to throw them :yes:


The U.S. stands with Colombia because we believe in this basic tenet, from Obama to Bush
bollox , absolute hypocritical bollox .

BTW Tuff , have you kept up with events ?
You know the ever changing stories the Columbians have come up with to justify their action ?
Concerning the evidence they have released from the laptop ?
Can you tell me , among the countries that were in negotiations , what country that you live in was in negotiations in Equador through the Equadorian government with the negotiator who was killed .
Is the answer
Ayour country
Byour country
orCyour country

But anyway , since you are such a cheerleader for Uribe , what are your views on the protests against terrorists in Columbia yesterday ?
Are you slightly curious as to why there were huge crowds with pictures of dead/missing people and signs calling Uribe a terrorist , kidnapper and murderer ?
Or does your blind support negate any curiosity about such things ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

But anyway , since you are such a cheerleader for Uribe , what are your views on the protests against terrorists in Columbia yesterday ?
Are you slightly curious as to why there were huge crowds with pictures of dead/missing people and signs calling Uribe a terrorist , kidnapper and murderer ?
Or does your blind support negate any curiosity about such things ?


People call Bush a terrorist and a murderer. I believe Uribe when he says that "whenever things start getting rough for the ELN and the FARC we hear their mouthpieces start talking about the governments 'human rights violations'". The international community (aside from socialists and contrarian zealots) sees him as a pretty reasonable man.

I see Uribe as an all around good Colombian President. I support the way that he is handling the crisis in his country. He is the first one that I have seen as heralding a new age in that countries history. Its easy for you and I to say that he is heavy handed - when your father wasn't murdered by drug dealing kidnappers and your government has a monopoly on force within its own terriitory.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia222.htm

Somehow an Irishman who contradicts everything that anyone says will have a hard time convincing me that Uribe is bad for Colombia or that he is a totalitarian despot who kills innocents in their homes. Call me crazy (as I'm sure you will).

Post some homegrown links to people who believe Uribe is a murderer and a kidnapper - I'm always open to the truth and Uribe is no Mitt Romney, so I'd consider some solid evidence.

[Xiahou]

I'd consider some solid evidence.
You're not likely to get any. :no:

[Tribesman]

Somehow an Irishman who contradicts everything that anyone says will have a hard time convincing me that Uribe is bad for Colombia or that he is a totalitarian despot who kills innocents in their homes.
Tuff , the link you provided backs up everything I have said about Uribe :dizzy2:
Small list of successes , big list of failures , damning list of conclusions:idea2: Well done you make things so easy:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Post some homegrown links to people who believe Uribe is a murderer and a kidnapper
So you didn't watch yesterdays protests then , neither have you looked at the allegations before the courts ...thats rather silly isn't it :oops:


Its easy for you and I to say that he is heavy handed - when your father wasn't murdered by drug dealing kidnappers
errrrr...excuse me Tuff , but what does Uribe himself say about that event and how it effects his policies?
Is it Ait has no effectr on his policies
B it has no effect on his policies
or Cit has no effect on his policies .


You're not likely to get any.
The thing is Xiahou , I don't need to , Tuff in his wisdom provides all the evidence needed

[Abokasee]

Tuff , the link you provided backs up everything I have said about Uribe :dizzy2:
Small list of successes , big list of failures , damning list of conclusions:idea2: Well done you make things so easy:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You do know its quite difficult to succed in things when you have terrorist/insurgents/guerillas running around the whole place, then you have drug lords who have a great of power for a drug lord, many supporting both sides of the conflict, then the country it self is very poor overall with many people poverty stricken (As are most 3rd world countries)

[Tribesman]

You do know its quite difficult to succed in things when you have terrorist/insurgents/guerillas running around the whole place, then you have drug lords who have a great of power for a drug lord, many supporting both sides of the conflict, then the country it self is very poor overall with many people poverty stricken (As are most 3rd world countries)

yes but that isn't the issue , Tuff thinks that Uribe is an all around good guy , anyone with involvement with terrorists/paramilitaries is not an all around good guy even if he does believe in the free market , went to Harvard and is an ally of the US .
Politicians are generally scummy overall , a politician with a dodgy past and continuing dodgy links is very scummy indeed .
Now Uribe doesn't get it all his own way of course , the attempted legalisation of the land theft his political allies tried was blocked .

[Brenus]

“So is allowing a terrorist organization to cross the border with impunity in order to murder and kidnap civilians.” From when? During the War of Independence, Algerians guerrilla had shelters in Tunisia. The French Air Forces attacked one of their logistic bases and was obliged to apologise by the pressure, in others, of USA.
According to this logic, USSR would have ground to attack USA in Alaska due the US support to the future Talibans…:laugh4:
Never see the Spanish Army launching raids in France against the ETA…:inquisitive:

“The problem with Ecuador and Venezuela is that they support the FARC” Colombia says… And Iraq had WMD.

“he's willing to take his warmongering and what the fallout from it will be.” I didn’t know that Venezuelan Forces did cross the Borders of Colombia…

“This seems more a case of hot-pursuit, not invasion”: That is for police action. Not military. Then explain where and when the pursuit took place… It was a plain and organised military action… Illegal even if explainable… Colombia chooses to ignore the political price to pay, thinking rightly, that Big Brother USA will protect in case of bad mood from the others sides.

“I don't think the Turks call their incursions into Iraq an invasion, and neither has the international community.” Right in case of the Turks, wrong in case of International Community…

[Vladimir]

Breaking news, EU invades Sudan: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100098

I'm sure everyone here is just as outraged as I am.

[Husar]

Breaking news, EU invades Sudan: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100098

I'm sure everyone here is just as outraged as I am.
About time I say. :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

About time I say. :2thumbsup:

I agree - congratulations EU.

[ICantSpellDawg]

yes but that isn't the issue , Tuff thinks that Uribe is an all around good guy , anyone with involvement with terrorists/paramilitaries is not an all around good guy even if he does believe in the free market , went to Harvard and is an ally of the US .
Politicians are generally scummy overall , a politician with a dodgy past and continuing dodgy links is very scummy indeed .
Now Uribe doesn't get it all his own way of course , the attempted legalisation of the land theft his political allies tried was blocked .

Most observers can see that Uribe attacks paramilitaries AS WELL AS the FARC and drug cartels. I am not saying that Uribe has transformed his nation into heaven on earth, but I am saying that he has been a positive influence - not simplu as a counterbalance to the left in the region.

Why do you hate freedom?

You are just so wrong on so much that it's comical. EU shouldn't go into Darfur - Chavez is a good guy - Bush is a murderer - yeadayadayada

Where in Ireland are you from? I hope my ancestors stayed away from the water.

On my last visit to Ireland there was a special on TV that literally stated that the U.S. government could CAUSE HURRICANES and actually caused Katrina. It stuck with me that this was the public education they were getting. How could anyone not hate the U.S. believing that tripe?

(EDIT: I forgot, I'm supposed to use smiley's:yes: )

[Vladimir]

C'mon, don't attack him directly. Try to use a bit o' humor.

The establishment of Guinness vs. Israel

[Banquo's Ghost]

On my last visit to Ireland there was a special that literally stated that the U.S. government could CAUSE HURRICANES and actually caused Katrina. It stuck with me that this was the public education they were getting. How could anyone not hate the U.S. believing that tripe?

Jaysus, Mary'n Joseph, ye mean ta say tat ain't true?

*chews his straw thoughtfully for a very long time*

Next, ye'll be tellin' me that leprechauns don't hide their pots o'gold. :no:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Jaysus, Mary'n Joseph, ye mean ta say tat ain't true?

*chews his straw thoughtfully for a very long time*

Next, ye'll be tellin' me that leprechauns don't hide their pots o'gold. :no:

heh.

[Abokasee]

Jaysus, Mary'n Joseph, ye mean ta say tat ain't true?

*chews his straw thoughtfully for a very long time*

Next, ye'll be tellin' me that leprechauns don't hide their pots o'gold. :no:

No, we the english are constantly attacking the rainbow fortress in eastern afghanistan in a effort to free the leprechauncns from severe beatings by the taleban where they'll be "persuaded" to give us the formula for gold making

[Tribesman]

You are just so wrong on so much that it's comical. EU shouldn't go into Darfur - Chavez is a good guy - Bush is a murderer - yeadayadayada

Well what a pillock , so then Tuff (forget about your fanciful uneducated uribe worship for a while ) please remind me where I have said any of that ?

You do realise its quite a good indication that your line of reasoning on a subject has fallen apart when you have to invent stuff.....
Congratulations:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Caius]

In the topic:
Did you guys see the debate in Santo Domingo?

I got bored when Chavez started to talk, I fell asleep for a second! And Chavez was talking to Cristina, like Chavez was alone with her. And ignored the others...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with Frag . The Irish should never have gone in under the EU mandate .

Frag doesn't want the Netherlands to go in with the EU mandate. You don't wan't Ireland to go with the EU mandate. If everyone said this about their own EU nation the EU WOULDN'T BE IN DARFUR. Who's mandate would they go under?

You arn't saying that Ireland should go alone because "they would barely be able to do a fishing expedition without international logistical support" (paraphrased poorly)

I hope that you don't mean the UN - China would block any expedition there.

I'm sure that you meant something else by that statement as I'm sure that you will let us know.

You have called Uribe a power hungry, kidnapping murderer. Yoo have also equated him with Presidnt Bush as BAD. You have made mention that our country supports terrorism from within its own borders (Israel, the U.S. Military, Colombia) and I'm sure that makes bush a murderer in your eyes (I'm looking for the exact quote).

I'm also looking for that old mega thread about Chavez.

[Vladimir]

Another one bites the dust?

http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/2008-03-07/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-3990694.html

Sorry for the Espanol.

[Viking]

Sorry for the Espanol.


Bring the Spanish elsewhere, this is not the USA. :shifty:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another one bites the dust?

http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/2008-03-07/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-3990694.html

Sorry for the Espanol.

good

[Tribesman]

Originally Posted by Tribesman
I agree with Frag . The Irish should never have gone in under the EU mandate .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Wrong country Tuff , did you get confused :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: wrong civil war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



I'm sure that you meant something else by that statement as I'm sure that you will let us know.

your mind reading abilities are very poor , I would give up if I was you:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


You have called Uribe a power hungry, kidnapping murderer. Yoo have also equated him with Presidnt Bush as BAD. You have made mention that our country supports terrorism from within its own borders (Israel, the U.S. Military, Colombia) and I'm sure that makes bush a murderer in your eyes (I'm looking for the exact quote).
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


I'm also looking for that old mega thread about Chavez.
Is that the one where I call him a prick or the one where I call him an idiot ?

Have you ever considered quitting while you are way behind or are you determined to persist in falling flat on your face at every stride ?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Wrong country Tuff , did you get confused :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: wrong civil war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



your mind reading abilities are very poor , I would give up if I was you:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Is that the one where I call him a prick or the one where I call him an idiot ?

Have you ever considered quitting while you are way behind or are you determined to persist in falling flat on your face at every stride ?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Argh you are right on that count. My mistake.

You love Chavez though. Everybody knows it.

[Husar]

Argh you are right on that count. My mistake.

You love Chavez though. Everybody knows it.
I actually remember that he said Chavez is an idiot or something along those lines...

[Vladimir]

I actually remember that he said Chavez is an idiot or something along those lines...

:laugh4: Everyone will agree: He's very consistent. :yes:

[Tribesman]

I actually remember that he said Chavez is an idiot or something along those lines...
I have written that lots of times , I have also written that the main opposition in Venezuela are idiots too , and very very stupid with it .

It is very easy to make a case against Chavez that will stand up to scrutiny , one that can clearly rip apart his actions and policies rather than focusing on the nonsense rhetoric , yet so far throughout the numerous "OMG its Chavez" topics only one poster has managed that simple task , and that was Redleg .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's over. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7284597.stm)

[Big_John]

It's over. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7284597.stm)poor Tuff. :cry:

[Brenus]

When the anti-terrorist units or Governments which order operations will understand that to kill the leaders is not THE solution? The Germans killed several leaders of the French Resistance and never even slow down the movement… In Iraq, did the insurgency stop after the elimination of the biggest murderer?
An other one take the rank. Number 3 becomes number 1, problem fixed.

If you want to stop a movement, stop the reason why it started. In case of Colombia, give back the land taken by the latifundia and stop to protect the rich and powerful…
To finance a resistance with drugs isn’t new: The French and the USA did it in Vietnam (Mongs, Hre, and others Mountainous Tribes). And what was about the Irangates and the Colonel Oliver North? By the way, what did happen to him?:inquisitive:

[Soulforged]

If you want to stop a movement, stop the reason why it started. In case of Colombia, give back the land taken by the latifundia and stop to protect the rich and powerful…

That's true, people sometimes forget and sometimes don't even know what the real cause for insurgent movements is in Latin American. There are hundreds of groups in Argentina and Brazil only which are protesting to recover stolen land, stolen rights or stolen dignity... So far very few of them are getting any...

[ICantSpellDawg]

poor Tuff. :cry:

Damn it. Thanks for all of your support. I means alot to me. I'll just wait for the next massive regional conflict.:tumbleweed:

It's days like these where you don't know if you'll ever be a whole person again...
:drama2:

[Big_John]

Damn it. Thanks for all of your support. I means alot to me. I'll just wait for the next massive regional conflict.:tumbleweed:

It's days like these where you don't know if you'll ever be a whole person again...
:drama2:a little bit of massive killing isn't much to ask for one man's happiness. cooler heads are a-holes. :thumbsdown:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's a short review of the fallout.

The FARC's Guardian Angel
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, March 10, 2008; Page A15
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429.html)

Latin American nations and the Bush administration spent the past week loudly arguing over what censure, if any, Colombia should face for a bombing raid that killed one of the top leaders of the FARC terrorist group at a jungle camp in Ecuador. More quietly, they are just beginning to consider a far more serious and potentially explosive question: What to do about the revelation that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez forged a strategic alliance with the FARC aimed at Colombia's democratic government.

First reports of the documents recovered from laptops at the FARC camp spoke of promises by Chávez to deliver up to $300 million to a group renowned for kidnapping, drug trafficking and massacres of civilians; they also showed that Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa was prepared to remove from his own army officers who objected to the FARC's Ecuadoran bases.

But in their totality, the hundreds of pages of documents so far made public by Colombia paint an even more chilling picture. The raid appears to have preempted a breathtakingly ambitious "strategic plan" agreed on by Chávez and the FARC with the initial goal of gaining international recognition for a movement designated a terrorist organization by both the United States and Europe. Chávez then intended to force Colombian President Álvaro Uribe to negotiate a political settlement with the FARC, and to promote a candidate allied with Chávez and the FARC to take power from Uribe.

All this is laid out in a series of three e-mails sent in February to the FARC's top leaders by Iván Márquez and Rodrigo Granda, envoys who held a series of secret meetings with Chávez. Judging from the memos, Chávez did most of the talking: He outlined a five-stage plan for undermining Uribe's government, beginning with the release of several of the scores of hostages the FARC is holding.

The first e-mail, dated Feb. 8, discusses the money: It says that Chávez, whom they call "angel," "has the first 50 [million] available and has a plan to get us the remaining 200 in the course of the year." Chávez proposed sending the first "packet" of money "through the black market in order to avoid problems." He said more could be arranged by giving the FARC a quota of petroleum to sell abroad or gasoline to retail in Colombia or Venezuela.

Chávez then got to the plans that most interested him. He wanted the FARC to propose collecting all of its hostages in the open, possibly in Venezuela, for a proposed exchange for 500 FARC prisoners in Colombian jails. Chávez said he would travel to the area for a meeting with the FARC's top leader, Manuel Marulanda, and said the presidents of Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia would accompany him. Meanwhile, Chávez said he would set up a new diplomatic group, composed of those countries and the FARC, plus Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, for the purpose of recognizing the FARC as a legitimate "belligerent" in Colombia and forcing Uribe into releasing its prisoners.

In "the early morning hours," the FARC envoys recounted in a Feb. 9 e-mail, Chávez reached the subject of whether the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate who is the FARC's best-known hostage, would complicate his plan to back a pro-FARC alternative to Uribe. "He invites the FARC to participate in a few sessions of analysis he has laid out for following the Colombian political situation," the e-mail concluded.

Assuming these documents are authentic -- and it's hard to believe that the cerebral and calculating Uribe would knowingly hand over forgeries to the world media and the Organization of American States -- both the Bush administration and Latin American governments will have fateful decisions to make about Chávez. His reported actions are, first of all, a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, passed in September 2001, which prohibits all states from providing financing or havens to terrorist organizations. More directly, the Colombian evidence would be more than enough to justify a State Department decision to cite Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. Once cited, Venezuela would be subject to a number of automatic sanctions, some of which could complicate its continuing export of oil to the United States. A cutoff would temporarily inconvenience Americans -- and cripple Venezuela, which could have trouble selling its heavy oil in other markets.

For now, the Bush administration appears anxious to avoid this kind of confrontation. U.S. intelligence agencies are analyzing the Colombian evidence; officials say they will share any conclusions with key Latin American governments. Yet those governments have mostly shrunk from confronting Chávez in the past, and some have quietly urged Bush to take him on. If the president decides to ignore clear evidence that Venezuela has funded and conspired with an officially designated terrorist organization, he will flout what has been his first principle since Sept. 11, 2001.

[Vladimir]

For now, the Bush administration appears anxious to avoid this kind of confrontation. U.S. intelligence agencies are analyzing the Colombian evidence; officials say they will share any conclusions with key Latin American governments. Yet those governments have mostly shrunk from confronting Chávez in the past, and some have quietly urged Bush to take him on. If the president decides to ignore clear evidence that Venezuela has funded and conspired with an officially designated terrorist organization, he will flout what has been his first principle since Sept. 11, 2001.

The "Bush doctrine" has already been revoked.

I'm starting to really hate caribou now.

[CountArach]

Chavez is such a coward :(

[Kralizec]

Chavez is such a coward :(

A coward? Colombia's armed forces could have crushed Venezuela and Ecuador like flies, simultaneously, if they ever tried anything. They could bark, but not bite.

[Tribesman]

Here's a short review of the fallout.

A short view from an American perspective ...you know America the only country(apart from Columbia of course) who accepts Uribes ever changing story , a story that he was once again called a liar over just before he publicly apologisded and signed a resolution saying he wouldn't do it again .

I do like this bit though

Meanwhile, Chávez said he would set up a new diplomatic group, composed of those countries and the FARC, plus Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, for the purpose of recognizing the FARC as a legitimate "belligerent" in Colombia and forcing Uribe into releasing its prisoners.

I think you will find the word is "insurgent", it a long standing block in the various peace initiatives attempted by many intermediaries over the decades , the leftist groups want the same peace deal as the rightist groups got ....shocking isn't it:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Colombia's armed forces could have crushed Venezuela and Ecuador like flies, simultaneously, if they ever tried anything. They could bark, but not bite.

If they could have crushed them like flies then why have they been unable to crush the rebels for over 40 years ?
Besides which Uribe is in a weakened position , Chavez and Correa only had to bark , Uribe has crowds on the streets calling him a fascist , murdering , drug dealing , dictator and his allies in power keep on ending up on Americas wanted list , the rightist terrorists...sorry insurgents ....should have held out for a better peace deal , ensuring that international narco trafficing was included in the amnesty arrangement .

[Ice]

If they could have crushed them like flies then why have they been unable to crush the rebels for over 40 years ?


Surely you aren't comparing combat with an insurgent, terrorist group to the militaries of neighboring countries?

[ICantSpellDawg]

A short view from an American perspective ...you know America the only country(apart from Columbia of course) who accepts Uribes ever changing story , a story that he was once again called a liar over just before he publicly apologisded and signed a resolution saying he wouldn't do it again .

I do like this bit though

I think you will find the word is "insurgent", it a long standing block in the various peace initiatives attempted by many intermediaries over the decades , the leftist groups want the same peace deal as the rightist groups got ....shocking isn't it:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


If they could have crushed them like flies then why have they been unable to crush the rebels for over 40 years ?
Besides which Uribe is in a weakened position , Chavez and Correa only had to bark , Uribe has crowds on the streets calling him a fascist , murdering , drug dealing , dictator and his allies in power keep on ending up on Americas wanted list , the rightist terrorists...sorry insurgents ....should have held out for a better peace deal , ensuring that international narco trafficing was included in the amnesty arrangement .

His popularity seems to be going higher somehow...

one (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200801241754)

two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Uribe#Popularity)

I guess the United States and the Colombian people must be very stupid. Or they read popularity charts backwards - because people are rallying in the streets calling him a murderer (link?)

[Tribesman]

because people are rallying in the streets calling him a murderer (link?)

Link ????I thought yousaid you got your info fromthe BBC , did you miss their coverage ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Tell you what Tuff , why not type 8th of march into a search engine (or you tube for that matter) and view all you want

Oh btw you may also want to use 8de marzo for a more local perspective .

[Tribesman]

BTW tuff , did you post the wrong link ?
when I clicked on it this appearedhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/index.htm:oops: