Venezuela/Ecuador vs. Columbia - Posturing (conflict?)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Mar 3, 2008.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    I don't have time to opine in depth on the issue, and I have been too busy preparing for upcoming travel and a baby birthday to have studied about Uribe's incursion into Ecuador to take out a member of the FARC leadership. But, as I often use PRSI as a one stop shop for major news events, I thought I would make mention of the build-up by Ecuador and Venezuela in response.

    I, personally, don't see much wrong with what Columbia did in killing Reyes. War is war, and FARC has long been engaged in a war with the government. A recognized military target doesn't cease to be such by running and hiding behind someone's skirt. But, at the same time, the attack appears to have happened without Quito's consent. Certainly Quito has a right to be upset. But, I don't believe they are in a position to treat this as an act of war.
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    So you would be fine with the Mexican Air Force crossing the border and launching an attack in Texas then, as long as they were targeting people who were considered serious criminals in Mexico?
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    dynamicv, that's really an out-of-control spin. Folks hiding out in Texas haven't been going over to Mexico, murdering and kidnapping, and then running back across the border. The FARC scum have been doing exactly that sort of thing, and there's been no assistance from Ecuador to stop FARC's use of Ecuadorian territory as a sanctuary.

    It's closer to reality to say that your next-door neighbor is coming to your house and murdering your kids, and the cops won't do anything.

    As far as Chavez, he's supported FARC for quite a while. Further, he needs to create an uproar to upset the international oil market. His production is down, so higher prices help him. Last, any blather about an external enemy helps him maintain control on a failing country.

    'Rat
     
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    Okay, Texas is a bad example, but this sort of thing goes on in Africa all the time. Uganda and the DRC are a very good parallel of two nations in this situation, yet I remember the UN Secretary General being recently very vocal about Uganda's pursuit of LRA forces into Congolese territory.
     
  5. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    I don't think it's a bad example at all. The drug wars have created lots of back and forth action. If Mexico were to push across the border, on land or on sea, to catch a criminal, is it wrong? I don't think so.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    I guess the question is, does a nation have a soverign right to defend itself against invasions by others?

    And the other question is, does a nation have the right to invade the soverign territory of another nation without permission in response to criminal activities?
     
  7. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #7
    And the third question is, does a nation have the sovereign right to defend itself from terrorist attacks?
     
  8. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    Defend? Of course.

    Invade another sovereign nation? Not at all.

    What Colombia should have done is step up protection along it's border with Ecuador to stop the FARC rebels before they advanced into Colombian land. Invading Ecuador for something they are in no way responsible for is ludicrous.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Wouldn't that be covered by my first question?
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    Likening FARC to criminal activities is much like saying Katrina was a bothersome little windstorm. Given what's publicly known about FARC as to numbers, training and weaponry, they're far more than just a criminal organization. From their deals with the cocaine world, they have plenty of money for a lot of modern equipment.

    IOW, FARC's activities from Ecuadorian bases are indeed very much like invasions. Small in scale, maybe, but still invasions.

    And do we know as fact that Colombia in the past has not tried to get cooperation from Ecuador in dealing with the problem? South American countries are well-known for a lot of posturing.

    And, ugg, IMO you're very wrong as to the facts about what's been going on along the Texas border; and, to some knowledge of mine, their border with New Mexico. I know much less about Arizona and California as to this "back and forth". So far, the main border incursions have come from Mexico, including people in Mexican Army uniforms in HumVees armed with .50 BMGs. We have the Zetas, ex-Mexican Army green-beret types, providing armed escort service for drug runs from Laredo to Dallas. And, say police, a few Zetas are doing "murder for hire" in the Ft. Worth/Dallas metroplex.

    'Rat
     
  11. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
  12. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #12
    A nation such as Colombia attempting to defend miles upon miles of jungle border makes building a wall to keep out illegals on the American border seem as easy as making microwaveable corn-dogs. What you are suggesting is absolutely ludicrous, and you know it.

    Also, Colombia is not "invading" Ecuador. They are making short and precise attacks on rebel facilities that are just across the Mexican border. They are not building bases or military installations in Ecuador. They are attempting to defend their country and their people in the most effective and efficient manner.

    And even then, all this talk about sovereignty has me thinking. Hugo Chavez is a pretty staunch supporter of the FARC, and Rafael Correa is pretty chummy with Chavez. Thus, it stands to reason that Correa will not go after FARC bases located in Ecuador in any meaningful way. So, is Colombia to sit idly by as FARC rebels basically put their hands on their head and yell "Nanananabooboo" at Colombian troops posted just across the border? How are they to defend themselves if not through proactive military measures?
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    The Colombian military claims they grabbed a couple of laptops when they killed the FARC leader. They claim they found info to the effect that Chavez either had delivered or was willing to deliver $300 million to FARC. That fits in with Chavez' recent commentaries about the situation vis-a-vis Colombia and FARC.

    The oil traders are saying that Chavez' posturing is contributory to keeping oil above $100/bbl. That's to his advantage, of course, given how he's hurting for income from his declining production.

    'Rat
     
  14. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #14
    Looking at how Israel's use of these tactics against Palestinians has turned out I'd say proactive military measures don't solve anything. I suspect Turkey is going to discover something similar following its incursion into Kurdistan.

    This is, as far as I'm concerned, another dangerous line the governments of the world are crossing. I'm sure those with shares in arms companies are happy as pigs in filth, but to say that disrespecting other nation's sovereignty isn't a worrying trend is living in dreamland.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Wait, I thought we just established that heads of state (ie George W. Bush) have negligible to no effect on oil prices. Yet suddenly here you are claiming that a head of state can indeed have significant impact on oil prices.

    Interesting theory....
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    The US head of state does not have power over US oil. He doesn't act in an ownership position.

    The governments of mid-east countries and such as Venezuela don't allow private ownership of oil. The governments do.

    But that's beside the point, as you really probably already have that figured out.

    Chavez' saber-rattling is causing a possible further reduction in his oil output. No different from the rebellion in Nigeria, when guerillas force the shut-down of production there.

    Oil prices stay fairly constant but for the usual supply/demand Econ 101 thing, but vary widely and rapidly when there are possibilities for interruption of supply.

    But you probably already know that, as well.

    You're just trying to play word games, to interject OT oranges into our apple pie...

    :D:D:D

    Back to the subject at hand: There is some news commentary to the effect that Chavez and the Ecuador Boss are old buddies, FWIW. Fits in with the rest of the brouhaha, anyhow, as to motivations and alliances.

    'Rat
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    So you're saying that the Iraq war and "posturing" between the US and Iran do not introduce possibilities for interruption of supply?

    Are they holding hands yet?
    [​IMG]
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    on their own soil and international waters etc. : yes

    launching air strikes/covert ops on other countries: no
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    In this case, takao, absolute respect for Ecuador's sovereignty after no effort by Ecuador to oust FARC means a lot of dead Colombians. Are you suggesting the formation of a large Colombian army, en masse on the border, to keep the FARC people in Ecuador?

    Can the FARC people not move parallel to the border for their incursions?

    Should Colombia only resist when FARC is physically in Colombia, attacking in various locations of their choosing? Chosen in secrecy, striking at undefended targets, killing villagers and their local leaders who have not cooperated with FARC? That's what FARC has been doing; that's fact.

    How many dead Colombians are acceptable to you, in the name of sovereignty? 'Cause, friend, in this case, sovereignty = dead bodies.

    'Rat
     
  20. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #20
    I'm questioning if this would be happening if the US didn't invade Iraq/set an immediate precedent for this kind of behavior.
     
  21. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #21
    Reading the above, I think everybody is on a similar page, but disagree as to the level of hostility between FARC and the Columbian government. In a normal or even hostile state of relations, the incursion into Ecuador would be inexcusable.

    But, the relationship between FARC and Columbia has been that of war. For many years, FARC was actively working to destroy the Columbian government. Now, they seem to be more content with waging an interminable war against them - the government can only do so much, and if the money is tied up in the military it isn't being spent on drug control.

    Would the Union have been within its rights to go after Robert E Lee if he was attacking out of Canada during the Civil War? Would Mexico have been in the right to go after Pancho Villa in the US? In both cases, the proper solution would have been to seek assistance from the "host" nations before incursion. But, if those nations were aiding those men, would they have been right to enter and attack? As uncomfortable as I am with interference with national sovereignty, I think so.
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    In that case hand over Matt Drudge to stand trial for treason against the Crown or we send in the SAS.


    You have been warned ;)
     
  23. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #23
    well in my eyes _defending_ has always to be on your own soil ... i never said it is easy or cheap to defend on your own soil but it's the way of doing so without giving other countries a casus belli
    normally countries solve such problems through cooperations ... if the other countries can't or doesn'T want to they have to go the extra mile

    on the other side the air force probably chosen it's targets also in secrecy and might through mistake kill also innocents ?


    how about fast response squads with helicopters stationed in camps strategically positioned along the border
    or helicopters/planes with infrared like other countries are using them for border patrol

    sovereignty is a double edged sword .. if you want yours respected you have to respect others and also be able to cover your own ground

    attacking some bases in another country "because it's cheaper" or "easier" doesn't get any bonus points with others


    after all remember last time Austria gave an impossible to follow ultimatum and attacked another country because of "self defense after an terror attack" ? didn't end so pretty
    neither did it last time when germany "shot back" against their "aggressor" after some "terror attack on a radio station" ...
     
  24. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #24
    Then there's the flip side of that coin: France respected Hitler's sovereignty, in the face of what was obviously coming.

    Big mistake.
     
  25. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #25
    Let me put it to you this way. A Mexican terrorist makes short incursions across the US-Mexico border, kidnaps a few people, sets off a few bombs in various American border towns, etc. America has excellent intel that tells them that this guy is just a few miles across the border in some desert wasteland hideout. The Mexican government doesn't cooperate. In this case, would you support American troops making a brief incursion to kill/capture this guy? I can guarantee you that I would, and so would most Americans and a good deal of the international community.

    When another country shows such a complete disrepect for your country, and essentially aids and abets terrorists either through direct support or callous inaction, it is your country's responsibility to defend itself in a resonable manner. Even if it means "invading" another country, Colombia, or any other country, has a sovereign right to defend itself. It's that simple.
     

Share This Page