This does not look good

[Jamie]

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- The government said Tuesday it would temporarily pull its armed forces out of a town and surrounding area in southwestern Colombia if rebels agree to sit down for talks aimed at exchanging jailed guerrillas for hostages, including three Americans.

A commission made up of officials from France, Switzerland and Spain suggested the troop withdrawal in a proposal sent to the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, earlier Tuesday, President Alvaro Uribe told a news conference.

"We accept it because we want to understand the anguish, the pain, the suffering of so many Colombians who have family members who have been kidnapped," Uribe said.

The region that would be cleared of Colombia's armed forces -- some 180 square kilometers (110 square miles) -- is more than four times smaller than what the FARC has demanded to be demilitarized as a condition for the talks.

Nonetheless, it is a concession by the government from its earlier stance. Both sides have said they support a prisoner exchange, but they so far have not agreed on conditions for talks that would iron out the details.

There was no immediate response from the FARC, a 12,000-strong force that for more than four decades has been fighting the Colombian government for social revolution, but is also heavily involved in drug trafficking and kidnapping for ransom.

The commission was formed in late November in an attempt to bring the two sides together after three years of virtual stalemate on the issue. While the commission's identity had been kept a secret, Uribe on Tuesday revealed that it was made up of officials from the three European nations.

The FARC wants to exchange 59 hostages -- including politicians, military personnel and three U.S. Defense Department contractors -- for imprisoned guerrillas. The government has not said how many jailed rebels it would set free.

As well as no military in the area around Pradera, 270 kilometers (167 miles) southwest of Bogota, the European commission's called for the area to be free of FARC rebels, except for the negotiators, Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo said.

He said the area would be demilitarized seven days prior to the talks and seven days after, but said the negotiators themselves would decide how long the talks would last.

France has long been pursuing secretive, unsuccessful efforts to secure the release of kidnapped Colombian-French politician Ingrid Betancourt, who was kidnapped by the FARC while campaigning for presidential elections in 2002.

The captured American contractors -- Tom Howes, Marc Gonsalves and Keith Stansell -- have been held since February 2003, when their small plane crashed in a rebel stronghold in southern Colombia while on an anti-drug mission.

[pablo]

... in response to This does not look good, posted by Jamie on Dec 14, 2005

[This message has been edited by pablo]

.

[beenthere]

... in response to This does not look good, posted by Jamie on Dec 14, 2005

Hey Jamie,  I think you had better concentrate on your little agency and leave the running of the Colombian Government to Uribe, OK??

[pablo]

... in response to Re: This does not look good, posted by beenthere on Dec 14, 2005


Now BT, where is that Christmas spirit?

[beenthere]

... in response to Bah, Humbug!, posted by pablo on Dec 15, 2005

[This message has been edited by beenthere]

What does Christmas have to do with Jamie all of a sudden knowing more than Uribe??  He's not cutting Uribe any slack with his criticism just because it's Christmas...so I'm Scrooge because I'm criticizing Jamie??...jajaja, that's funny Pablo...

I'm sure that Uribe would laugh if he found out that a small time agency owner claimed to know more about Colombia's domestic policy than he...no, I take that back, Uribe wouldn't give a f*&k what Jamie thinks, why should he??

And speaking of Christmas, how are those hostages and their families feeling this Christmas??  Ever think about that??

Bah, humbug is right Pablo & Jamie!!!!

[pablo]

... in response to Re: Bah, Humbug!, posted by beenthere on Dec 15, 2005


“What does Christmas have to do with Jamie all of a sudden knowing more than Uribe?? He's not cutting Uribe any slack with his criticism just because it's Christmas...so I'm Scrooge because I'm criticizing Jamie??...jajaja, that's funny Pablo...”

I thought you would easily see the humor in my post BT but let me clarify…the reason why I said “Bah, humbug” is because your comment was so inane and critical I thought you would get the Scrooge inference, as well as the proximity to Christmas.  Jamie was merely posting a comment by one author stating that President Uribe was willing to negotiate with the FARC in exchange for some prisoners and he thought it was not a good idea.  I doubt very highly if Jamie thinks he knows better than Uribe.

“I'm sure that Uribe would laugh if he found out that a small time agency owner claimed to know more about Colombia's domestic policy than he...no, I take that back, Uribe wouldn't give a f*&k what Jamie thinks, why should he??”

El Presidente probably would laugh but Jamie isn’t claiming to know more than him.  Where did you see that in his “this does not look good” post?

“And speaking of Christmas, how are those hostages and their families feeling this Christmas?? Ever think about that??”

The hostages and there families are most likely feeling miserable and heartbroken.  Hopefully they will be released soon and reunited without compromising the stated public policy of not dealing with terrorists to encourage future such actions.  BTW, our government has been trying to help in this situation:

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/acts_of_terror/index.cfm?page=Wood

“Bah, humbug is right Pablo & Jamie!!!!”

The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can’t ignore it, top it; if you can’t top it; laugh at it; if you can’t laugh at it, it’s probably deserved.  
J. Russel Lynes

Round two?  

[beenthere]

... in response to Re: Re: Bah, Humbug!, posted by pablo on Dec 16, 2005

[This message has been edited by beenthere]

Gee Pablo, the women in Medellín are not giving you much attention I see...glad to see that I can still get a rise out of you when it comes to Jamie...hey, maybe you two should hook up...jejeje

Here's a quote by Jamie on Dec. 14th:

"Exchanging terrorist prisoners for kidnap victims only fuels more kidnapping. It looks like Colombia is not able to operate under a position of strength."

It doesn't take a genius Pablo to see that Jamie's posts are veiled criticizms of Uribe, and of course, the 2 posts he made which were cut and pastes from others only prove my point more...Did I say it doesn't take a genius...sorry Pablo..

[pablo]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Bah, Humbug!, posted by beenthere on Dec 16, 2005


blanks:

http://mindyourownbusiness.com/is_that_so.htm

[beenthere]

... in response to BT, fill in the, posted by pablo on Dec 17, 2005

[This message has been edited by beenthere]

Pablo...with all of those hotties in Medellín, you sure do wear out Google.com don't you??  I hope you bought some stock when it they had their IPO awhile back...you'd be a rich man, and could probably even land an 8 or a 9 down there!! jejeje....  

What did you enter in google to find that link??  maybe..."something very sophomoric"

By the way, Webster defines sophomoric as: conceited and overconfident of knowledge, but poorly informed and immature...

couldn't have found a more fitting definition of you Pablo...

[WS244]

... in response to This does not look good, posted by Jamie on Dec 14, 2005

[This message has been edited by WS244]

While this is an interesting post, gringos are reminded to read up on their own U.S. history.

American civil war 500,000 dead.
At wars end, except for a brief period all Southern generals were freed. Lee and johnston were smart enough to  realize they had to surrender their armies intact, that if the generals and leaders were not pardoned, many men of those armies would have become an unruly mass of bandits for the southern cause without any command and control.  Jefferson Davis imprisoned for 2 years and freed.

The ultimate goal of Lincolns policy was to preserve and rebuild the Union at all costs.  Slavery though important was a secondary issue, and anyone reading Lincolns papers, (not politically correct papers) knows Lincoln would have forgone the slavery issue to preserve the union.  When president Johnson tried to have the generals indicted after Lincolns death, General Grant told him if he did the war would start all over again.
Johnson relented.

Politically Uribe needs to bring the country together to preserve the Colombian union.  With the FARC he is smart enough to see they at least have command and control.
Obviously a difficult issue.  Remember there are 3 requirements for a successful revolution.

Money (from drugs)

15% of the population (poor farmers)

Safe haven for the revolution

Evidently uribe must feel the third issue is a necessity.  So in the end just as in the Civil American war nothing is free.

[Jamie]

... in response to Re: This does not look good, posted by WS244 on Dec 14, 2005

I do not see how you can make any comparison to our Civil War. Exchanging terrorist prisoners for kidnap victims only fuels more kidnapping. It looks like Colombia is not able to operate under a position of strength.

[WS244]

... in response to Re: Re: This does not look good, posted by Jamie on Dec 14, 2005

[This message has been edited by WS244]

Well Colombia has a political war, which has been going on for 40 years with no results.  Vietnam was a political war, killed 58,000 GI's, yet we trade with them today.  The Red Chinese mostly, along with the North koreans killed something like 25,000 G.I's, yet we have a multi billion dollar trade deficit with them besides giving away our manufacturing.  At the end of WW2 we brought over 200 rocket scientists from Germany with Von Braun, whose team killed several thousand slave laborers and Londoners with the V1's and V2's.
My point being You can't kill all the FARC, as more of them will come up through the ranks. I brought up the Civil War as an example.  There were two groups of people, those on Andrew Johnsons side who wanted to hang them all, and those on Grants and Lee's side who saw the larger issue,
which was renunification of the country rather than more Rebellion.
The larger issue with Uribe is it is the ball is in his court and not the FARC.  The FARC will do nothing.  Uribe has no choice, how distasteful but to push foward for Colombia's sake, and with it goes the bad.

The rule of law is who made the law, and what is it in the eye of the beholder.  One just has to look at all the U.S. immigration laws on the books and then go visit the border.
Unfortuneately the U.S. does not necessaraily practice itself what it preaches to others.  Many hippocrites out there.

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: This does not look good, posted by WS244 on Dec 14, 2005

Laws should be just, fair, and applied equally among its people.  The law is only as good as the people and the resources used to enforce them.  So good point on the immigration issue.

Although the paramilitaries can be paired with the Confederacy, you can't compare the exchange of hostages with the exchange of paramilitary political prisoners.  I think that is what Jamie is trying to say.  Kidnapping innocent people for the purpose of negotiating or profiting has nothing to do with politics as much as it is just a criminal or terrorist act.

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Re: Re: This does not look good, posted by Jamie on Dec 14, 2005

I agree. That is why the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

The question that I think it raises is who is actually in charge the govt. or the paramilitaries? I guess that is one reason I like Western countries.  The Rule of Law should always be in control...