The Great Escape

**Crazed Rabbit** · 07-04-2008, 19:25

Yes, but those were terrorists we liked, terrorists who fought against FARC type terrorists.

The news of a payout is just from sour grapes, I suspect.

What, if anything, should be done now as a follow on? Press them to join talks from this position of weakness, or strike hard and fast?

Strike them hard and fast. They represent no-one but a drug cartel, no one with a legitimate grievance.

Why talk with them? They should only end up with their cause and organization completely destroyed. The route of force Uribe has taken has proved very successful. Talks would only give them time to breath and regroup.

CR

**Tribesman** · 07-04-2008, 20:02

The USA is well-known for not negotiating with terrorists.

Yes, but those were terrorists we liked, terrorists who fought against FARC type terrorists.

Yeah like the ones in Iran and Lebanon

BTW rabbit, crossing threads I know , but you do know that McCains good buddy was paying both the FARC and the AUC

**GeneralHankerchief** · 07-04-2008, 20:05

All right, Tribsey, I'll play your game. Well-known for not negotiating with leftist terrorists. Happy?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 07-04-2008, 20:09

No, tribesy's wrong.

We are known for not negotiating with terrorists, even if we have before. GH was talking about the perception of the US - what we are known for, and he was correct. General perception doesn't always jive completely with reality.

CR

**Tribesman** · 07-04-2008, 20:24

All right, Tribsey, I'll play your game. Well-known for not negotiating with leftist terrorists. Happy?

Pick a country from the two I mentioned add Iraq and how many of the trerrorists America does deals with call themselves socialist .

No, tribesy's wrong.

We are known for not negotiating with terrorists, even if we have before.

No I am not rabbit , you have a long history of negotiating with terrorists and you still have terrorists lobbying in congress and the senate .
The only fault in perception is from those who deny reality

**GoreBag** · 07-04-2008, 20:40

How entirely fantastical. Sigurd's post brought me back down to earth, though.

**KukriKhan** · 07-04-2008, 21:04

On US Nat'l Public Radio yesterday, I heard an interview with the Colmbian Vice President. He was bragging about the operation, and dismissed any rumor of outside-Columbia help. He also said his gov't planned to actively pursue FARC now that it was "decapitated", as he described it.

Link to VP interview at the bottom of the page.

**PanzerJaeger** · 07-04-2008, 20:50

Tribsey's right...

Naming our current conflict the "War on Terror" was a sad show of political correctness by the Bush administration. It would be more aptly named the "War on Crazy muslims that Want to Cut Our Collective Heads Off". In today's soundbyte driven world, I guess it would prove difficult to market such a conflict.

**KukriKhan** · 07-04-2008, 21:10

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Tribsey's right...

Naming our current conflict the "War on Terror" was a sad show of political correctness by the Bush administration. It would be more aptly named the "War on Crazy muslims that Want to Cut Our Collective Heads Off". In today's soundbyte driven world, I guess it would prove difficult to market such a conflict.

Better yet: "Eternal, goal-changing, over-extended, extra-constitutional, Military Police Action against Crazy Muslims and Others that Want to Cut Our Collective Heads Off".

War, it ain't.

IMHO

**Ironside** · 07-05-2008, 09:28

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Tribsey's right...

Naming our current conflict the "War on Terror" was a sad show of political correctness by the Bush administration. It would be more aptly named the "War on Crazy muslims that Want to Cut Our Collective Heads Off". In today's soundbyte driven world, I guess it would prove difficult to market such a conflict.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Columbia officially fall under "The War on Drugs?" Although buying an ally would probably be a better name. And more working as well.